Archives for category: Author

For years informed people (includes myself) had been pointing out a known principle of social physics in relation to the western democracies aggressions abroad; ‘force escalates violence’ also known as ‘blow-back.’ In the military application of this principle, if you are a line officer, you are well aware when increased force is committed to assaulting an enemy position, the cadence or pace of firing increases. The immediate effect will be increased destruction & casualties, and the aftermath will be either control of the enemy position or having been repulsed. In either case, the attacking force might then see a counter-attack, depending on the battlefield resources and one side’s superior ability to recover manpower and munitions (logistics) in relation to the other. In past times, this micro-cosmic battlefield phenomena reflected a larger social reality in outcomes; States and societies enforcing one’s will upon another. The evolution of the resultant laws of war is primarily based in European history and can trace its roots to Imperial Rome and beyond, to the time of Plato and Alexander.

The larger European culture had exported this social aggression to the world abroad, to feed its own intra-cultural aggressions via the wealth exploited from the so-called ‘uncivilized’ or  ‘undeveloped’ world (colonialism), such as the silver mines of Peru funding the Spanish Armada. Colonies funding European cultural aggression has been their primary function despite self-justifications such as bringing ‘civilization’ to those (Europeans historically presume) less culturally developed than themselves. Such attitudes are not far beneath the surface as cultural driving forces to this day and we see it not only in the Euro-centric history our children are taught but also in the images and rhetoric. Whether in the inter-cultural aggression monument to Columbus at Barcelona:

ColombusMonument

Or the intra-cultural aggression in a monument to the defeat of Napoleon at Leipzig:

NapoleonDefeat

Or Napoleon’s so-called ‘burial’:

NapoleonBurial

Or Germany continuing celebration of historical warmongers such as Prussian King Frederick II who put Germans on the path to become the nastiest regime in modern history:

FrederickII

Or ‘American exceptionalism’ where Obama states: “I believe that America is exceptional. In part because we have shown a willingness, through the sacrifice of blood and treasure, to stand up not only for our own narrow self-interest, but for the interests of all.”  The NAZIs believed they were exceptional as well:

ObamaUN

All of these elements celebrate European cultural aggression, whether inter or intra-cultural aggression, in a sense portrayed with pride. What is missing from the imagery and rhetoric in the European (includes USA) cultural experience is the utter lack of any examination of repeated and compounded consequence of pursuing empire:

WTC_aftermath

Whether a ‘Reichstag fire’ or an event manipulated to same effect by perpetrators of imperialism, ‘blow-back’ is real, from reactions to war-profiteering enterprises (Lockheed-Martin, General Dynamics, JP Morgan, et al) capitalizing on 9/11 to an Afghan national who only the other day put his finger in my face and stated “I have a problem with you” because I’m an American and Americans are unnecessarily blowing up women and children in Afghanistan with airstrikes and drones.

So, what is imperialism? It is a concept central to European mentality in ways they are not even aware of. I don’t agree with every motive for and proposed solution to imperialism in this following video but I do agree with the fact imperialism is the most destructive force on earth, that it is Euro-centric cultural mentality and that it must be contained, reversed and ended. I do not believe Euro-centric mentality is race based White Supremacy, I believe this is only one self-justifying rational for manifestation of a cultural mentality that employs religion, science and more, to justify an infectious, ego-based narcissism and attending aggressive, violent greed that ultimately transcends race. North Korea’s Kim, as well the Black kleptocrats who’ve hijacked South Africa, or for that matter, Obama, are little different to any European Whites in their narcissistic motives and behaviors in my view. Kim would probably join the capital club tomorrow if the USA would give up hypocritical demands of democracy & human rights and pull the war games out of North Korea’s face, and South Africa’s new Black oligarchs seem to believe they can snooker South Africans indefinitely with the USA turning a blind eye because they have become ‘players.’ Obama’s policies look like the policies of George Bush on steroids, except covered up by media allowing Obama to be a convincing liar and Obama can actually speak decent English, two things Bush could never really master. But it is easy to see how White Supremacist motive would be interpreted as the progenitor of imperialism, because imperialism as we know it in these modern times not only originated with, but has been largely sustained by Europe and consequent aligned Euro-centric cultures and mentality, particularly the USA. We know from history that White captive children raised Native American never wished to return to the White community (mentality.) It’s just White people’s (and consequently the world’s) bad luck the mentality behind imperialism took root in Europe, in my estimation.

All that said, I challenge everyone who has read this short essay to watch this video in its entirety. It is multiple voices hammering on a single theme … attempting to define imperialism. I know some of these people and respect them a LOT. Not because we always agree (we don’t always agree) but because they care immensely about pulling our world out of its downward spiral and that is a noble goal we all should share:

 

Note on the video: The included ‘double tap’ footage from Wikileaks is the only leak of Private Manning (as an armed forces member) I feel was legally justified, because it is a war crime of murdering people who’d arrived to evacuate the wounded, on top of it is obvious from the voice recording the attack helicopter crew had no clear knowledge of who they were firing on. For the record, I am a staunch supporter of Snowden.

Afterthought: The USA and Western Europe aggressively pushing Russia into a corner with the destabilization of Ukraine (latest in a long list of provocations) on behalf of present (Yulia Tymoshenko, example given) and future oligarchs in a push for world-wide American corporate ‘manifest destiny’, may become the case of intra-cultural European aggression that forces Russia, with a LOT to lose, to end the ‘great game’ once and for all.

Something to think about in a nuclear armed world…

*

Last update March 2021: The wikiwatchdog online search tool has finally gone out of existence after long or intermittent periods of downtime, with the William ‘Bill’ Colby article edits previously documented and discussed in this following piece having vanished from the database (the CIA finally has its desired result.)

A 2007 Wired Magazine article on wikiscanner (taken down shortly after this article’s initial publication) exposed the CIA (among others) as anonymous editors of Wikipedia. Deliberate, professionally engineered disinformation (information operations, psy-ops) is a long used tool of intelligence agencies, with a military history to ancient times. Other than CIA, with its’ extensive history of modern media manipulation, other organizations editing Wikipedia would certainly include the the USA’s Defense Intelligence Agency, British MI6, Israeli MOSSAD, other intelligence agencies and numerous corporations. A sort of ‘you are what you eat’ philosophy applied to ‘you will be what you think’ on behalf of CHEVRON, Diebold, Booz Allen, Westinghouse, General Dynamics, the International Chamber of Commerce, NATO and too many more modern gods worshiped at the temple of western military industrial capital to be named.

On the CIA anonymous edits of Wikipedia, there is one of particular interest. The entry on William ‘Bill’ Colby, a former Director of Central Intelligence, had some particularly damning information deleted (information that was never restored.) Using the wikiscanner replacement ‘WikiWatchdog‘, I was able to track down this following CIA edit. The Bold text is text deleted by the CIA:

“Shortly thereafter, an OSS friend offered him a job at CIA, and Colby accepted. Colby spent the next twelve years in the field, first in Stockholm, Sweden. There, he helped set up the stay-behind networks of Gladio, a covert paramilitary organizations organized by the CIA in order to prepare an eventual Soviet invasion, as he later described in his memoirs. According to a November 25, 1990 article by the Danish daily newspaper ”Berlingske Tidende”, quoted by Daniele Ganser in his 2005 book on Gladio, a source named “Q” confirmed William Colby’s revelations in his memoirs about the setting-up of stay-behind armies in Scandinavia

“Colby’s story is absolutely correct. Absalon was created in the early 1950s. Colby was a member of the world spanning laymen catholic organisation Opus Dei, which, using a modern term, could be called right-wing. Opus Dei played a central role in the setting up of Gladio in the whole of Europe and also in Denmark… The leader of Gladio was Harder who was probably not a Catholic. But there are not many Catholics in Denmark and the basic elements making up the Danish Gladio were former WW II resistance people – former prisoners of Tysk Vestre Faengsel, Froslevlejren, Neuengammeand also of the Danish Brigade.

“William Colby then spent much of the 1950s based in Rome, where he led the Agency’s covert political operations campaign to support moderate anti-Communist parties. After World War II, Italia was the first ground for the CIA covert operations to stop the Communist from legally taking power, in a strategy later dubbed ‘strategy of tension’ by the Italian press.

“On April 27, 1996, Colby died in a supposed boating accident near his home in Rock Point, Maryland. He reportedly did not mention any canoeing plans to his wife, nor was it normal for him to go boating at night. Colby had left his home unlocked, his computer on, and a partly eaten dinner on the table. Colby’s body was eventually found, underwater, on May 6, 1996. The life jacket his friends said he usually wore was missing. The body was found 20 yards from the canoe, after the area had been thoroughly searched multiple times. The subsequent inquest found that he died from drowning and hypothermia after collapsing from a heart attack or stroke and falling out of his canoe. There is no evidence that Colby went canoeing. There is no evidence that Colby died on April 27, 1996. Colby disappeared April 27, 1996. His body was recovered on May 6, 1996. Hence, the date of Colby’s death is somewhere between these two dates. The Internet Movie Database states Colby died on May 6, 1996. Colby was laid to rest at Arlington National Cemetery on May 13, 1996.

“Conservative news reporter Christopher Ruddy (as part of the Arkansas Project) has claimed President Clinton had Colby murdered because Colby was going to write about a conspiracy between Clinton and Vincent Foster.

“The former CIA director acknowledged to Nebraska State Senator John DeCamp that the scenario described in the documentary, ‘’Conspiracy of Silence’’, is real, which tells of a sex ring that had links to political conservatives in Washington D.C. Not long thereafter Colby turned up dead under suspicious circumstances. John DeCamp has since authored The Franklin Coverup. This all came to public view on the morning of June 29, 1989, when the ”Washington Times’ headline was “Call Boys Took Midnight Tour of White House.””

Bearing in mind this is a single editing incident (according to the WikiWatchdog program) “edit on 2006-06-20 at 18:32:45 by 198.81.129.186 (relay301.net.cia.gov)” [20 June 2006 at 6:32pm] it should be noted since, in a subsequent, unattributed edit (not shown in bold in the preceding), this additional information had been deleted:

“He reportedly did not mention any canoeing plans to his wife, nor was it normal for him to go boating at night. Colby had left his home unlocked, his computer on, and a partly eaten dinner on the table. Colby’s body was eventually found, underwater, on May 6, 1996. The life jacket his friends said he usually wore was missing. The body was found 20 yards from the canoe, after the area had been thoroughly searched multiple times. The subsequent inquest found that he died from drowning and hypothermia after collapsing from a heart attack or stroke and falling out of his canoe. There is no evidence that Colby went canoeing. There is no evidence that Colby died on April 27, 1996. Colby disappeared April 27, 1996. His body was recovered on May 6, 1996. Hence, the date of Colby’s death is somewhere between these two dates. The Internet Movie Database states Colby died on May 6, 1996.”

This second edit had been made since the CIA had learned to cover its tracks, as the edit of 20 June 2006 had been made before the tracking software referred to in the 2007 (now deleted) Wired article had been developed and released. The new ‘WikiWatchdog’ is a subsequent development to the original software which appeared to have been sabotaged. With the WikiWatchdog, this is perhaps a short lived opportunity, WikiWatchdog most certainly will be attacked to prevent articles such as this one (indeed the life of wikiwatchdog does seem to have been short, I notice the links to wikiwatchdog are dead, as this article took off with numerous reads on 15 July 2014, the link has been subsequently restored, but tool’s functionality appears to be disabled; author’s note)

There are several ‘hot button’ issues buried by the noted CIA changes to the Wikipedia article on William Colby, circumstance of Colby’s death, Opus Dei’s involvement with ‘Gladio’, the death of Vince Foster and the ‘Franklin Scandal.’

edit on 2006-06-20 at 18:32:45

by 198.81.129.186 (relay301.net.cia.gov)

– See more at: http://wikiwatchdog.com/#!search/en/cia.gov/456228/59666700

edit on 2006-06-20 at 18:32:45

by 198.81.129.186 (relay301.net.cia.gov)

– See more at: http://wikiwatchdog.com/#!search/en/cia.gov/456228/59666700

We can use this following, related, short Wikipedia article (disinformation) on the Franklin Scandal as a point of reference:

“The Franklin child prostitution ring allegations took place between 1988 and 1991 and involved an alleged child sex ring serving prominent citizens of the Nebraska Republican Party, as well as high-level U.S. politicians. The allegations also claimed that the alleged sex ring was led by, “a cult of devil worshipers involved in the mutilation, sacrifice and cannibalism of numerous children.”The allegations centered on the actions of Lawrence E. King Jr., who ran the now defunct Franklin Community Federal Credit Union (FCFCU) in Omaha.

“State Foster Care Review Board submitted the results of a two-year investigation into the physical and sexual abuse of foster children to the Executive Board of the Nebraska Legislature, who were investigating reports of child sexual abuse linked to the credit union. Authorities launched a probe, interviewing a number of claimed abuse victims who said that children in foster care were flown to the U.S. East Coast and were abused at “bad parties.” After investigation, a grand jury in Douglas County (of which Omaha, Nebraska is the largest city and county seat) determined the abuse allegations were baseless, describing them as a “carefully crafted hoax” and indicted two of the accusers on perjury charges.The grand jury also suggested that the abuse stories originated from a vindictive employee terminated by Boys Town, the famed refuge for troubled youths. Later, a federal grand jury concluded that the abuse allegations were unfounded and indicted 21 year old Alisha Owen, an alleged victim, on eight counts of perjury. The same grand jury also indicted multiple officers of the credit union, including King, for crimes related to the embezzlement of funds from the credit union. Alisha Owen served 4-1/2 years in prison.

“Historian Philip Jenkins explored how hot topics such as the Franklin allegations, whether or not they are worthy of attention or credible on their own merits, are seized by political opportunists for their own purposes. He also described how cases such as the Franklin allegations can acquire credibility, even if they lack any credibility inherently, when reported in various media in a credulous voice. Numerous conspiracy theories evolved and persist, claiming that the alleged abuse was part of a widespread series of crimes including devil worship, cannibalism, drug trafficking, CIA arms dealing and links with the first Bush Administration.

This preceding is the entire text of the Wikipedia article on Wednesday, 5 February 2014.

Of the several problems with this article, including the missing fact the lead investigator’s private plane disintegrated in mid-air and the grand jury had been mislead by prosecutors, most remarkable is the omission of any reference to the “Conspiracy of Silence” documentary film funded by the Discovery Channel and produced by Yorkshire Television of Britain. This suppressed film contains video testimony of several of the professional participants in the investigation, absolutely refuting the Wikipedia article, as well detailing how the FBI engineered a cover-up of the Franklin Scandal (Author’s note: this video was killed at youtube on 15 July 2014, when this article took off with hundreds of hits. Fortunately, vimeo provides an alternative site to watch)

And then you have:

“What you have to understand, is that sometimes there are forces and events too big, too powerful, with so much at stake for other people or institutions, that you cannot do anything about them, no matter how evil or wrong they are and no matter how dedicated or sincere you are or how much evidence you have” -Former CIA Director William Colby to “Franklin Coverup” author John DeCamp.

Further refuting Wikipedia is the work of Nick Bryant, a journalist who not only penned “The Franklin Scandal” but has unimpeachable credentials:

Nick Bryant’s writing has recurrently focused on the plight of disadvantaged children in the United States, and he’s been published in numerous national journals, including the Journal of Professional Ethics, Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, Journal of Social Distress and Homelessness, Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, and Journal of School Health. He is the co-author of America’s Children: Triumph of Tragedy, addressing the medical and developmental problems of lower socioeconomic children in America” -franklinscandal.com

What more do you need to know? The Penn State child rape [Sandusky] scandal has ties to the Franklin case:

“The Penn State Sandusky scandal is getting weirder by the day. Besides the delays in reporting a serial child molester for years, in the past week conflicts of interests in presiding judge as well as Penn State investigating committees, we have learned that Sandusky’s lawyer impregnated an underage teen in the past, and a bizarre Sandusky interview with Bob Costas made news. The most amazing link however has been identified by researchers into [Penn State President] Graham Spanier’s past. If it is not odd enough that Mr. Spanier was complicit in not reporting the Sandusky rape to the police, Mr. Spanier has a direct link to the sordid “Franklin Scandal” in Omaha, Nebraska (child kidnaping for sexual abuse and trafficking scandal). Looking at Mr. Spanier’s biography, one can easily see that he served as Chancellor at University of Nebraska-Lincoln from 1991 to 1995 right towards the end of the Franklin scandal. Please note that Lincoln Nebraska is a short drive away from Omaha where most of abuses occurred. If the proximity is not creepy enough, Mr. Spanier’s long time friend and associate Ronald Roskens (former University of Nebraska chancellor and president) was directly linked to the Franklin Scandal as well as its ringleader Lawrence King. Roskens was fired in 1989 from his post when his involvement in various orgies was reported on (incl. surveillance photos of nude young boys in Rosken’s home) . It is shocking to realize this link when one knows of the abhorrent and deviant abuses which occurred in Omaha during this time and which in a similar fashion to the Penn State scandal was able to persist for too many years”

In fact Sandusky’s children’s charity, “The Second Mile“, was one of George H.W. Bush’s “1,000 points of light” This fact had not been killed by edits at Wikipedia (yet.)

“U.S. President George H. W. Bush praised the group as a “shining example” of charity work in a 1990 letter, one of that president’s much-promoted “Thousand points of light” encouragements to volunteer community organizations. Citing Sandusky’s work with The Second Mile charity to provide care for foster children, then U.S. Senator Rick Santorum honored Sandusky with an Angels in Adoption award in 2002″

Organized child rapes spanning three decades focused in Republican religious right circles with ties directly to the George H.W. Bush White House (children were given private White House tours prior to being raped by DC power brokers) cannot seem to be sorted by Wikipedia scholarship. And this is because you have CIA (among other organizations) editing Wikipedia. It does well to remember here, George H.W. Bush is a former Director of CIA.

Child Rape also has been authorized by ‘The Family’,  the organization sponsoring “The National Prayer Breakfast” (with stellar personalities like former NATO Supreme Commander General James Jones giving keynote speeches, not only Presidents of the United States) , also the group spiritually advises persons no less than U.S. Senator John Ensign, et al:

“David Coe, Doug Coe’s son and heir apparent, calls himself simply a friend to men such as John Ensign, whom he guided through the coverup of his affair. I met the younger Coe when I lived for several weeks as a member of the Family. He’s a surprising source of counsel, spiritual or otherwise. Attempting to explain what it means to be chosen for leadership like King David was — or Mark Sanford, according to his own estimate — he asked a young man who’d put himself, body and soul, under the Family’s authority, “Let’s say I hear you raped three little girls. What would I think of you?” The man guessed that Coe would probably think that he was a monster. “No,” answered Coe, “I wouldn’t.” Why? Because, as a member of the Family, he’s among what Family leaders refer to as the “new chosen.” If you’re chosen, the normal rules don’t apply” 

Other ‘family’ members:

“Sens. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Jim DeMint and Lindsey Graham, both R-S.C.; James Inhofe, R-Okla., John Thune, R-S.D., and recent senators and high officials such as John Ashcroft, Ed Meese, Pete Domenici and Don Nickles. Over in the House there’s Joe Pitts, R-Penn., Frank Wolf, R-Va., Zach Wamp, R-Tenn., Robert Aderholt, R-Ala., Ander Crenshaw, R-Fla., Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan., Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., Jo Ann Emerson, R-Mo., and John R. Carter, R-Texas. Historically, the Family has been strongly Republican, but it includes Democrats, too. There’s Mike McIntyre of North Carolina, for instance, a vocal defender of putting the Ten Commandments in public places, and Sen. Mark Pryor, the pro-war Arkansas Democrat responsible for scuttling Obama’s labor agenda. Sen. Pryor explained to me the meaning of bipartisanship he’d learned through the Family: “Jesus didn’t come to take sides. He came to take over.” And by Jesus, the Family means the Family” –Sex & Power inside the C Street House by Jeff Sharlet

The leading ‘liberal’ light under the guidance of ‘The Family’ ? None other than Hillary Clinton according to Mother Jones Magazine:

“in Living History, [Hillary] describes her first encounter with Fellowship leader Doug Coe at a 1993 lunch with her prayer cell at the Cedars, the Fellowship’s majestic estate on the Potomac. Coe, she writes, “is a unique presence in Washington: a genuinely loving spiritual mentor and guide to anyone, regardless of party or faith, who wants to deepen his or her relationship with God””

In case you miss the the significance of Ed Meese belonging to ‘The Family’, Meese mentored Antonin Scalia to the Supreme Court of the United States. Meese went on to found ‘The Federalist Society’, a corporate cesspool of religious right personalities loaded with both George Bush (father & son) associated personalities reading like a who’s who of the military-industrial rich and powerful and minions like Condoleezza Rice and torture lawyer John Yoo. Since, The Federalist Society has provided us with Supreme Court justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts. These religious right darlings then handed the USA to corporate entities via unlimited media spending with the decision ‘Citizens United.’ You are what you think.

“PAO (Public Affairs Office) now has relationships with reporters from every major wire service, newspaper, news weekly and television network in the nation. This has helped us turn some “intelligence failure” stories into “intelligence success” stories, and it has contributed to the accuracy of countless others. In many instances, we have persuaded reporters to postpone, change, hold, or even scrap stories that could have adversely affected national security interests or jeopardized sources and methods.” -Robert Gates, CIA internal memo (1991)

Jesus and Satan seem like twins here. One  of the biggest complaints surrounding the religious right is they take the bible too literally. Maybe the human sacrifice ritual ‘communion’ isn’t merely a ‘metaphor’ for all of these so-called Christians on Sundays, after all, Christianity, taken literally, compares well to Satanism. In this  case, Wikipedia doesn’t really need to take sides, eh? One’s lies are just as good as the other’s lies.

“The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media.” -William Colby, former CIA Director, cited by Dave McGowan in “Derailing Democracy

More than CIA, I wonder how many Wikipedia editors are employees of the FBI. Or the Defense Intelligence Agency. It’s doubtful child rape is the most pressing reason the Pentagon’s poster child, the National Security Agency, has the USA’s director of Intelligence James Clapper, backed by the FBI & Defense Intelligence Agency, begging in front of Senators for Snowden to return documents, many of which must yet be unread. In fact the journalists in possession of the documents, Snowden himself and admittedly, the intelligence agencies themselves, can’t yet know the full content of the NSA [Pentagon poster child] leaks, the amount is said to be vast. Nevertheless the USA’s top intelligence people and extreme Christian Dominionists running the Pentagon are freaking out and clandestine Wikipedia editors will have their work cut out for them for quite some time:

f6

There’s more truth in the above illustration than in many articles at Wikipedia. If you closely follow what is actually happening, it’s a more accurate portrait of western democracies military-industrial complex war profiteering responsible for social order breakdown and associated worldwide child rape phenomena than any pornographic image, considering:

“You could get a journalist cheaper than a good call girl, for a couple hundred dollars a month.” -CIA operative cited in “Katherine The Great” by Deborah Davis

And you shouldn’t dare trust Wikipedia for information on the so-called ‘Mena Conspiracy’

A number of allegations have been written about and several local, state, and federal investigations have taken place related to the notion of the Mena Intermountain Municipal Airport as a CIA drop point in large scale cocaine trafficking beginning in the latter part of the 1980s. The topic has received some press coverage that has included allegations of awareness, participation and/or coverup involvement of figures such as future president Bill Clinton.

An investigation by the CIA’s inspector general concluded that the CIA had no involvement in or knowledge of any illegal activities that may have occurred in Mena. The report said that the agency had conducted a training exercise at the airport in partnership with another Federal agency and that companies located at the airport had performed “routine aviation-related services on equipment owned by the CIA”

Rather trust what had actually been reported on but is widely suppressed by present mainstream media, not only suppressed by Wikipedia:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAyCIBB0b38

Because:

“There is quite an incredible spread of relationships. You don’t need to manipulate Time magazine, for example, because there are [Central Intelligence] Agency people at the management level.” -William B. Bader, former CIA intelligence officer, briefing members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, From ‘CIA and the Media’, by Carl Bernstein

“The Agency’s relationship with [The New York] Times was by far its most valuable among newspapers, according to CIA officials. [It was] general Times policy … to provide assistance to the CIA whenever possible.”CIA and the Media by Carl Bernstein

With the media having become an internet entity, it follows the several corporate entities fused with military and intelligence entities making up our western democracies ‘deep state‘, media is ever more easily manipulated by those whose capital and stocks benefit from the mass killings taking place planet-wide on daily basis. All of this destructive profiteering is engineered in the name of ‘terror’ and ‘security.’ This social engineering of violence catering to the insatiable greed of the western world’s institutions of leadership and associated corporate weapons profiteering personalities, requires a ‘you are what you think’ populace conformed to supporting the world’s greatest criminal endeavors. Wikipedia (not only the New York Times and Washington Post) is an excellent platform for these criminals to produce result on a grand scale.

Related :

Hillary Clinton in Four Short Paragraphs ‘Gott Mit Uns’

Deep State IV NATO & Gladio

Deep State V Economics & counter-insurgency

*

S1

Ronald Thomas West is a former U.S. intelligence professional

egregious liar

egregious |iˈgrējəs| adjective: outstandingly bad; shocking: egregious abuse of trust.

liar |ˈlīər| noun: a person who tells lies.

Lest anyone mistake my use of this definition in regards to Obama’s speech on the NSA, I mean this in the sense Obama is really good at telling lies. Alternatively, Obama is a pathological liar:

pathological |ˌpaTHəˈläjikəl| (also pathologic)
adjective
compulsive; obsessive: a pathological liar.

The National Security blog “Unredacted’ had yesterday quickly published a refutation of Obama’s claims with an excellent piece on official lies relating to the NSA’s surveillance programs. I will take this bit of work a bit further, pointing out how the USA has become so far removed from the rule of law as to convince our constitution has been utterly, entirely usurped, and Obama’s pro-active, purposeful participation in this world-threatening travesty. But first, keep in the back of your mind: a compulsive liar must tell an ever growing web of lies to cover any previous lies. When the liar has been busted (as Obama has in the ‘Unredacted’ blog), lies never intended to see the light of day must be covered with ‘half-truths’ completely unintended to set matters straight (i.e. more lies.)

Obama on the FISA (secret) court, June 16, 2013: “It is transparent…So, on this telephone program, you’ve got a federal court with independent federal judges overseeing the entire program. And you’ve got Congress overseeing the program, not just the intelligence committee and not just the judiciary committee — but all of Congress had available to it before the last reauthorization exactly how this program works”

Unredacted: “OpentheGovernment.org’s 2013 Secrecy Report notes, “the unchecked expansion in the growth of the government’s surveillance programs is due in large measure to the absolute secrecy surrounding the FISC and how it is interpreting the law. The FISC’s opinions interpreting Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act has allowed for a much broader collection of data than most national security and civil liberties groups, and even some Members of Congress, understood the law to permit””

Obama, June 16, 2013: “What I can say unequivocally is that if you are a U.S. person, the NSA cannot listen to your telephone calls and the NSA cannot target your e-mails”

Unredacted: “the NSA has significant latitude to collect and keep the contents of e-mails and other communications of U.S. citizens that are swept up as part of the agency’s court-approved monitoring of a target overseas.” This information is stored, for up to five years, and can be accessed as soon as the FBI gets a National Security Letter, for which there are still no requirements to seek approval or judicial review when sending”

Other than exposure of egregious lies by Obama and his minions detailed at Unredacted, the problem I have with this is the lack of challenging the secret court per se. My own position is (as a former adjunct professor of American constitutional law), there is precisely ZERO constitutional authority granted to Congress to create a secret court in Article III, section I…

“The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish”

…because of the Fourth Amendment language…

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized”

…Fifth Amendment langauge…

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”

…and the Sixth Amendment language…

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense”

…with the provisions of these amendments trampled by the very existence of a secret court. All of the preceding constitutional clauses are violated by the very existence of the FISA law. Obama, who still holds a constitutional law professor position at the University of Chicago, and Chief Justice John Roberts, both, know this. What has happened is, what should be a nonexistent distinction has been created between ‘legal’ & ‘constitutional’ in the American body politic, when in fact they must be one and the same. Consequently, unconstitutional (illegal) national security laws are crafted by the congress, signed by the president and upheld by the courts, and this is how ‘color of law‘ is substituted in lieu of constitutional principles (while pretending the constitution holds sway.) Now we have, as a nation, come to accept the idea what is called ‘legal’ but is illegal, is constitutional, when in fact the national security law patently violates the constitution, a national oxymoron. The secret FISA (FISC) court John Roberts should refuse to recognize, but instead has sole authority to appoint judges to, epitomizes a ‘soft power’ coup created by congress, usurping our nation’s rule of law. And so it is Senators like Diane Feinstein can claim “PRISM is legal” while ignoring the constitution (never mind her oath to uphold the same.)

But in fact Obama and Roberts, both trained constitutional law attorneys, know there was never any necessity for a secret court having to do with ‘national security’ on account of a well known principle of American law:

in camera
adverb
‘in camera’ law in private, in particular taking place in the private chambers of a judge, with the press and public excluded: judges assess the merits of such claims in camera. The evidence of the state had been examined ‘in camera’ on national security grounds [‘in camera’, late Latin, ‘in the chamber.’]

If this known principle were applied in normal federal courts, a judge would have the discretion to reject secrecy based on her or his opinion the government’s claims of ‘national security’ were spurious, false or self-serving when balancing any national security claims against a person’s rights when pursuing eavesdropping authority (still unconstitutional in some circumstance perhaps, but by far more legal integrity is preserved because a judge can weigh a wider scope of evidence and chastise the government in open court for misbehaviors.) Obviously this will not do in any state well on its way to being usurped by fascism and is  why we have a patently unconstitutional & subversive secret court. Relevant to this run amok trashing of our foundational law:

While running a murder ring in government as vice president, international criminal Dick Cheney’s top lawyer was Shannen Coffin, Coffin is a close friend of Chief Justice John Roberts. John Roberts appoints the judges comprising the FISC (secret court.) Obama and his Attorney General Eric Holder have persistently refused to investigate and prosecute these criminal personalities, rather working to protect their interests, at the price of our foundational law (constitution’s) promises of personal liberties. Should you be asking yourself why?

Obama Attorney General Eric Holder’s Department of Justice includes the FBI which failed to investigate high profile drug cartel crimes tied directly to politicians in the USA under former Director Robert Mueller. Bush appointed Robert Mueller’s past includes stonewalling international narcotics money laundering investigations. Following on Robert Mueller, Obama appointment James Comey went from drug money laundering HSBC board director to FBI Director. What should we think about that?

Attorney General Holder had, in his past, arranged immunity for and to conceal the identities of corporate personalities responsible for providing cash and machine guns to a designated terror group:

“Holder himself, using his influence as former deputy attorney general under the Clinton Administration, helped to negotiate Chiquita’s sweeheart deal with the Justice Department in the criminal case against Chiquita. Under this deal, no Chiquita official received any jail time. Indeed, the identity of the key officials involved in the assistance to the paramilitaries were kept under seal and confidential”

And the Department of Justice’s FBI strategy:

“The FBI is committed to sharing timely, relevant, and actionable intelligence with …. the private sector as part of its national security and law enforcement missions”

Do you suppose this preceding means sharing intelligence with corporations? I expect so. So does Bloomberg:

“Thousands of technology, finance and manufacturing companies are working closely with U.S. national security agencies, providing sensitive information and in return receiving benefits that include access to classified intelligence, four people familiar with the process said. These programs, whose participants are known as trusted partners, extend far beyond what was revealed by Edward Snowden, a computer technician who did work for the National Security Agency”

And if this were not enough, recalling the NSA is essentially a branch of the Pentagon, what should we all think of the ultimate bosses of the organization comprising what is essentially a hyper-right-wing ‘Christian Taliban‘ ?

Huh. It would seem Obama is covering up a LOT. How much? Obama’s end run on our constitution, allowing the Pentagon’s NSA to hand the USA gift-wrapped to organized corporate crime in the military-industrial complex is the tip of the iceberg folks:

Deep State I Foundation article

Deep State II FBI complicity

Deep State III Heroin, Bags of Cash & the CIA

In other words, you cannot believe a word this man (who has bragged concerning extra-judicial assassinations “I’m really good at killing people“) says in his speech on the NSA eavesdropping. Snowden is not the criminal. The criminal is the President of the United States. Imagine his saying (he does) “For more than two centuries, our Constitution has weathered every type of change because we have been willing to defend it” included in his most recent litany of lies:

28 January 2014 update: less than two weeks after Obama’s direction the USA no longer hold the bulk records of American citizens’ communications, this weasel has already ordered an end-run on his words (to mollify) the USA populace in regards to the constitution (why would anyone be surprised?)

Obama’s speech [egregious lies] of 17 January 2014

At the dawn of our Republic, a small, secret surveillance committee borne out of the “The Sons of Liberty” was established in Boston. The group’s members included Paul Revere, and at night they would patrol the streets, reporting back any signs that the British were preparing raids against America’s early Patriots.

Throughout American history, intelligence has helped secure our country and our freedoms. In the Civil War, Union balloon reconnaissance tracked the size of Confederate armies by counting the number of camp fires. In World War II, code-breaking gave us insight into Japanese war plans, and when Patton marched across Europe, intercepted communications helped save the lives of his troops. After the war, the rise of the Iron Curtain and nuclear weapons only increased the need for sustained intelligence-gathering. And so, in the early days of the Cold War, President Truman created the National Security Agency to give us insight into the Soviet bloc, and provide our leaders with information they needed to confront aggression and avert catastrophe.

Throughout this evolution, we benefited from both our Constitution and traditions of limited government. U.S. intelligence agencies were anchored in our system of checks and balances – with oversight from elected leaders, and protections for ordinary citizens. Meanwhile, totalitarian states like East Germany offered a cautionary tale of what could happen when vast, unchecked surveillance turned citizens into informers, and persecuted people for what they said in the privacy of their own homes.

In fact even the United States proved not to be immune to the abuse of surveillance. In the 1960s, government spied on civil rights leaders and critics of the Vietnam War. Partly in response to these revelations, additional laws were established in the 1970s to ensure that our intelligence capabilities could not be misused against our citizens. In the long, twilight struggle against Communism, we had been reminded that the very liberties that we sought to preserve could not be sacrificed at the altar of national security.

If the fall of the Soviet Union left America without a competing superpower, emerging threats from terrorist groups, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction placed new – and, in some ways more complicated – demands on our intelligence agencies. Globalization and the Internet made these threats more acute, as technology erased borders and empowered individuals to project great violence, as well as great good. Moreover, these new threats raised new legal and policy questions. For while few doubted the legitimacy of spying on hostile states, our framework of laws was not fully adapted to prevent terrorist attacks by individuals acting on their own, or acting in small, ideologically driven groups rather than on behalf of a foreign power.

The horror of September 11th brought these issues to the fore. Across the political spectrum, Americans recognized that we had to adapt to a world in which a bomb could be built in a basement, and our electric grid could be shut down by operators an ocean away. We were shaken by the signs we had missed leading up to the attacks – how the hijackers had made phone calls to known extremists, and travelled to suspicious places. So we demanded that our intelligence community improve its capabilities, and that law enforcement change practices to focus more on preventing attacks before they happen than prosecuting terrorists after an attack.

It is hard to overstate the transformation America’s intelligence community had to go through after 9/11. Our agencies suddenly needed to do far more than the traditional mission of monitoring hostile powers and gathering information for policymakers – instead, they were asked to identify and target plotters in some of the most remote parts of the world, and to anticipate the actions of networks that, by their very nature, cannot be easily penetrated with spies or informants.

And it is a testimony to the hard work and dedication of the men and women in our intelligence community that over the past decade, we made enormous strides in fulfilling this mission. Today, new capabilities allow intelligence agencies to track who a terrorist is in contact with, and follow the trail of his travel or funding. New laws allow information to be collected and shared more quickly between federal agencies, and state and local law enforcement. Relationships with foreign intelligence services have expanded, and our capacity to repel cyber-attacks has been strengthened. Taken together, these efforts have prevented multiple attacks and saved innocent lives – not just here in the United States, but around the globe as well.

And yet, in our rush to respond to very real and novel threats, the risks of government overreach – the possibility that we lose some of our core liberties in pursuit of security – became more pronounced. We saw, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, our government engaged in enhanced interrogation techniques that contradicted our values. As a Senator, I was critical of several practices, such as warrantless wiretaps. And all too often new authorities were instituted without adequate public debate.

Through a combination of action by the courts, increased congressional oversight, and adjustments by the previous Administration, some of the worst excesses that emerged after 9/11 were curbed by the time I took office. But a variety of factors have continued to complicate America’s efforts to both defend our nation and uphold our civil liberties.

First, the same technological advances that allow U.S. intelligence agencies to pin-point an al Qaeda cell in Yemen or an email between two terrorists in the Sahel, also mean that many routine communications around the world are within our reach. At a time when more and more of our lives are digital, that prospect is disquieting for all of us.

Second, the combination of increased digital information and powerful supercomputers offers intelligence agencies the possibility of sifting through massive amounts of bulk data to identify patterns or pursue leads that may thwart impending threats. But the government collection and storage of such bulk data also creates a potential for abuse.

Third, the legal safeguards that restrict surveillance against U.S. persons without a warrant do not apply to foreign persons overseas. This is not unique to America; few, if any, spy agencies around the world constrain their activities beyond their own borders. And the whole point of intelligence is to obtain information that is not publicly available. But America’s capabilities are unique. And the power of new technologies means that there are fewer and fewer technical constraints on what we can do. That places a special obligation on us to ask tough questions about what we should do.

Finally, intelligence agencies cannot function without secrecy, which makes their work less subject to public debate. Yet there is an inevitable bias not only within the intelligence community, but among all who are responsible for national security, to collect more information about the world, not less. So in the absence of institutional requirements for regular debate – and oversight that is public, as well as private – the danger of government overreach becomes more acute. This is particularly true when surveillance technology and our reliance on digital information is evolving much faster than our laws.

For all these reasons, I maintained a healthy skepticism toward our surveillance programs after I became President. I ordered that our programs be reviewed by my national security team and our lawyers, and in some cases I ordered changes in how we did business. We increased oversight and auditing, including new structures aimed at compliance. Improved rules were proposed by the government and approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. And we sought to keep Congress continually updated on these activities.

What I did not do is stop these programs wholesale – not only because I felt that they made us more secure; but also because nothing in that initial review, and nothing that I have learned since, indicated that our intelligence community has sought to violate the law or is cavalier about the civil liberties of their fellow citizens.

To the contrary, in an extraordinarily difficult job, one in which actions are second-guessed, success is unreported, and failure can be catastrophic, the men and women of the intelligence community, including the NSA, consistently follow protocols designed to protect the privacy of ordinary people. They are not abusing authorities in order to listen to your private phone calls, or read your emails. When mistakes are made – which is inevitable in any large and complicated human enterprise – they correct those mistakes. Laboring in obscurity, often unable to discuss their work even with family and friends, they know that if another 9/11 or massive cyber-attack occurs, they will be asked, by Congress and the media, why they failed to connect the dots. What sustains those who work at NSA through all these pressures is the knowledge that their professionalism and dedication play a central role in the defense of our nation.

To say that our intelligence community follows the law, and is staffed by patriots, is not to suggest that I, or others in my Administration, felt complacent about the potential impact of these programs. Those of us who hold office in America have a responsibility to our Constitution, and while I was confident in the integrity of those in our intelligence community, it was clear to me in observing our intelligence operations on a regular basis that changes in our technological capabilities were raising new questions about the privacy safeguards currently in place. Moreover, after an extended review of our use of drones in the fight against terrorist networks, I believed a fresh examination of our surveillance programs was a necessary next step in our effort to get off the open ended war-footing that we have maintained since 9/11. For these reasons, I indicated in a speech at the National Defense University last May that we needed a more robust public discussion about the balance between security and liberty. What I did not know at the time is that within weeks of my speech, an avalanche of unauthorized disclosures would spark controversies at home and abroad that have continued to this day.

Given the fact of an open investigation, I’m not going to dwell on Mr. Snowden’s actions or motivations. I will say that our nation’s defense depends in part on the fidelity of those entrusted with our nation’s secrets. If any individual who objects to government policy can take it in their own hands to publicly disclose classified information, then we will never be able to keep our people safe, or conduct foreign policy. Moreover, the sensational way in which these disclosures have come out has often shed more heat than light, while revealing methods to our adversaries that could impact our operations in ways that we may not fully understand for years to come.

Regardless of how we got here, though, the task before us now is greater than simply repairing the damage done to our operations; or preventing more disclosures from taking place in the future. Instead, we have to make some important decisions about how to protect ourselves and sustain our leadership in the world, while upholding the civil liberties and privacy protections that our ideals – and our Constitution – require. We need to do so not only because it is right, but because the challenges posed by threats like terrorism, proliferation, and cyber-attacks are not going away any time soon, and for our intelligence community to be effective over the long haul, we must maintain the trust of the American people, and people around the world.

This effort will not be completed overnight, and given the pace of technological change, we shouldn’t expect this to be the last time America has this debate. But I want the American people to know that the work has begun. Over the last six months, I created an outside Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies to make recommendations for reform. I’ve consulted with the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. I’ve listened to foreign partners, privacy advocates, and industry leaders. My Administration has spent countless hours considering how to approach intelligence in this era of diffuse threats and technological revolution. And before outlining specific changes that I have ordered, let me make a few broad observations that have emerged from this process.

First, everyone who has looked at these problems, including skeptics of existing programs, recognizes that we have real enemies and threats, and that intelligence serves a vital role in confronting them. We cannot prevent terrorist attacks or cyber-threats without some capability to penetrate digital communications – whether it’s to unravel a terrorist plot; to intercept malware that targets a stock exchange; to make sure air traffic control systems are not compromised; or to ensure that hackers do not empty your bank accounts.

Moreover, we cannot unilaterally disarm our intelligence agencies. There is a reason why blackberries and I-Phones are not allowed in the White House Situation Room. We know that the intelligence services of other countries – including some who feign surprise over the Snowden disclosures – are constantly probing our government and private sector networks, and accelerating programs to listen to our conversations, intercept our emails, or compromise our systems. Meanwhile, a number of countries, including some who have loudly criticized the NSA, privately acknowledge that America has special responsibilities as the world’s only superpower; that our intelligence capabilities are critical to meeting these responsibilities; and that they themselves have relied on the information we obtain to protect their own people.

Second, just as ardent civil libertarians recognize the need for robust intelligence capabilities, those with responsibilities for our national security readily acknowledge the potential for abuse as intelligence capabilities advance, and more and more private information is digitized. After all, the folks at NSA and other intelligence agencies are our neighbors and our friends. They have electronic bank and medical records like everyone else. They have kids on Facebook and Instagram, and they know, more than most of us, the vulnerabilities to privacy that exist in a world where transactions are recorded; emails and text messages are stored; and even our movements can be tracked through the GPS on our phones.

Third, there was a recognition by all who participated in these reviews that the challenges to our privacy do not come from government alone. Corporations of all shapes and sizes track what you buy, store and analyze our data, and use it for commercial purposes; that’s how those targeted ads pop up on your computer or smartphone. But all of us understand that the standards for government surveillance must be higher. Given the unique power of the state, it is not enough for leaders to say: trust us, we won’t abuse the data we collect. For history has too many examples when that trust has been breached. Our system of government is built on the premise that our liberty cannot depend on the good intentions of those in power; it depends upon the law to constrain those in power.

I make these observations to underscore that the basic values of most Americans when it comes to questions of surveillance and privacy converge far more than the crude characterizations that have emerged over the last several months. Those who are troubled by our existing programs are not interested in a repeat of 9/11, and those who defend these programs are not dismissive of civil liberties. The challenge is getting the details right, and that’s not simple. Indeed, during the course of our review, I have often reminded myself that I would not be where I am today were it not for the courage of dissidents, like Dr. King, who were spied on by their own government; as a President who looks at intelligence every morning, I also can’t help but be reminded that America must be vigilant in the face of threats.

Fortunately, by focusing on facts and specifics rather than speculation and hypotheticals, this review process has given me – and hopefully the American people – some clear direction for change. And today, I can announce a series of concrete and substantial reforms that my Administration intends to adopt administratively or will seek to codify with Congress.

First, I have approved a new presidential directive for our signals intelligence activities, at home and abroad. This guidance will strengthen executive branch oversight of our intelligence activities. It will ensure that we take into account our security requirements, but also our alliances; our trade and investment relationships, including the concerns of America’s companies; and our commitment to privacy and basic liberties. And we will review decisions about intelligence priorities and sensitive targets on an annual basis, so that our actions are regularly scrutinized by my senior national security team.

Second, we will reform programs and procedures in place to provide greater transparency to our surveillance activities, and fortify the safeguards that protect the privacy of U.S. persons. Since we began this review, including information being released today, we have declassified over 40 opinions and orders of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which provides judicial review of some of our most sensitive intelligence activities – including the Section 702 program targeting foreign individuals overseas and the Section 215 telephone metadata program. Going forward, I am directing the Director of National Intelligence, in consultation with the Attorney General, to annually review – for the purpose of declassification – any future opinions of the Court with broad privacy implications, and to report to me and Congress on these efforts. To ensure that the Court hears a broader range of privacy perspectives, I am calling on Congress to authorize the establishment of a panel of advocates from outside government to provide an independent voice in significant cases before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Third, we will provide additional protections for activities conducted under Section 702, which allows the government to intercept the communications of foreign targets overseas who have information that’s important for our national security. Specifically, I am asking the Attorney General and DNI to institute reforms that place additional restrictions on government’s ability to retain, search, and use in criminal cases, communications between Americans and foreign citizens incidentally collected under Section 702.

Fourth, in investigating threats, the FBI also relies on National Security Letters, which can require companies to provide specific and limited information to the government without disclosing the orders to the subject of the investigation. These are cases in which it is important that the subject of the investigation, such as a possible terrorist or spy, isn’t tipped off. But we can – and should – be more transparent in how government uses this authority. I have therefore directed the Attorney General to amend how we use National Security Letters so this secrecy will not be indefinite, and will terminate within a fixed time unless the government demonstrates a real need for further secrecy. We will also enable communications providers to make public more information than ever before about the orders they have received to provide data to the government.

This brings me to program that has generated the most controversy these past few months – the bulk collection of telephone records under Section 215. Let me repeat what I said when this story first broke – this program does not involve the content of phone calls, or the names of people making calls. Instead, it provides a record of phone numbers and the times and lengths of calls – meta-data that can be queried if and when we have a reasonable suspicion that a particular number is linked to a terrorist organization.

Why is this necessary? The program grew out of a desire to address a gap identified after 9/11. One of the 9/11 hijackers – Khalid al-Mihdhar – made a phone call from San Diego to a known al Qaeda safe-house in Yemen. NSA saw that call, but could not see that it was coming from an individual already in the United States. The telephone metadata program under Section 215 was designed to map the communications of terrorists, so we can see who they may be in contact with as quickly as possible. This capability could also prove valuable in a crisis. For example, if a bomb goes off in one of our cities and law enforcement is racing to determine whether a network is poised to conduct additional attacks, time is of the essence. Being able to quickly review telephone connections to assess whether a network exists is critical to that effort.

In sum, the program does not involve the NSA examining the phone records of ordinary Americans. Rather, it consolidates these records into a database that the government can query if it has a specific lead – phone records that the companies already retain for business purposes. The Review Group turned up no indication that this database has been intentionally abused. And I believe it is important that the capability that this program is designed to meet is preserved.

Having said that, I believe critics are right to point out that without proper safeguards, this type of program could be used to yield more information about our private lives, and open the door to more intrusive, bulk collection programs. They also rightly point out that although the telephone bulk collection program was subject to oversight by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and has been reauthorized repeatedly by Congress, it has never been subject to vigorous public debate.

For all these reasons, I believe we need a new approach. I am therefore ordering a transition that will end the Section 215 bulk metadata program as it currently exists, and establish a mechanism that preserves the capabilities we need without the government holding this bulk meta-data.

This will not be simple. The Review Group recommended that our current approach be replaced by one in which the providers or a third party retain the bulk records, with the government accessing information as needed. Both of these options pose difficult problems. Relying solely on the records of multiple providers, for example, could require companies to alter their procedures in ways that raise new privacy concerns. On the other hand, any third party maintaining a single, consolidated data-base would be carrying out what is essentially a government function with more expense, more legal ambiguity, and a doubtful impact on public confidence that their privacy is being protected.

During the review process, some suggested that we may also be able to preserve the capabilities we need through a combination of existing authorities, better information sharing, and recent technological advances. But more work needs to be done to determine exactly how this system might work.

Because of the challenges involved, I’ve ordered that the transition away from the existing program will proceed in two steps. Effective immediately, we will only pursue phone calls that are two steps removed from a number associated with a terrorist organization instead of three. And I have directed the Attorney General to work with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court so that during this transition period, the database can be queried only after a judicial finding, or in a true emergency.

Next, I have instructed the intelligence community and Attorney General to use this transition period to develop options for a new approach that can match the capabilities and fill the gaps that the Section 215 program was designed to address without the government holding this meta-data. They will report back to me with options for alternative approaches before the program comes up for reauthorization on March 28. During this period, I will consult with the relevant committees in Congress to seek their views, and then seek congressional authorization for the new program as needed.

The reforms I’m proposing today should give the American people greater confidence that their rights are being protected, even as our intelligence and law enforcement agencies maintain the tools they need to keep us safe. I recognize that there are additional issues that require further debate. For example, some who participated in our review, as well as some in Congress, would like to see more sweeping reforms to the use of National Security Letters, so that we have to go to a judge before issuing these requests. Here, I have concerns that we should not set a standard for terrorism investigations that is higher than those involved in investigating an ordinary crime. But I agree that greater oversight on the use of these letters may be appropriate, and am prepared to work with Congress on this issue. There are also those who would like to see different changes to the FISA court than the ones I have proposed. On all of these issues, I am open to working with Congress to ensure that we build a broad consensus for how to move forward, and am confident that we can shape an approach that meets our security needs while upholding the civil liberties of every American.

Let me now turn to the separate set of concerns that have been raised overseas, and focus on America’s approach to intelligence collection abroad. As I’ve indicated, the United States has unique responsibilities when it comes to intelligence collection. Our capabilities help protect not only our own nation, but our friends and allies as well. Our efforts will only be effective if ordinary citizens in other countries have confidence that the United States respects their privacy too. And the leaders of our close friends and allies deserve to know that if I want to learn what they think about an issue, I will pick up the phone and call them, rather than turning to surveillance. In other words, just as we balance security and privacy at home, our global leadership demands that we balance our security requirements against our need to maintain trust and cooperation among people and leaders around the world.

For that reason, the new presidential directive that I have issued today will clearly prescribe what we do, and do not do, when it comes to our overseas surveillance. To begin with, the directive makes clear that the United States only uses signals intelligence for legitimate national security purposes, and not for the purpose of indiscriminately reviewing the emails or phone calls of ordinary people. I have also made it clear that the United States does not collect intelligence to suppress criticism or dissent, nor do we collect intelligence to disadvantage people on the basis of their ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation, or religious beliefs. And we do not collect intelligence to provide a competitive advantage to U.S. companies, or U.S. commercial sectors.

In terms of our bulk collection of signals intelligence, U.S. intelligence agencies will only use such data to meet specific security requirements: counter-intelligence; counter-terrorism; counter-proliferation; cyber-security; force protection for our troops and allies; and combating transnational crime, including sanctions evasion. Moreover, I have directed that we take the unprecedented step of extending certain protections that we have for the American people to people overseas. I have directed the DNI, in consultation with the Attorney General, to develop these safeguards, which will limit the duration that we can hold personal information, while also restricting the use of this information.

The bottom line is that people around the world – regardless of their nationality – should know that the United States is not spying on ordinary people who don’t threaten our national security, and that we take their privacy concerns into account. This applies to foreign leaders as well. Given the understandable attention that this issue has received, I have made clear to the intelligence community that – unless there is a compelling national security purpose – we will not monitor the communications of heads of state and government of our close friends and allies. And I’ve instructed my national security team, as well as the intelligence community, to work with foreign counterparts to deepen our coordination and cooperation in ways that rebuild trust going forward.

Now let me be clear: our intelligence agencies will continue to gather information about the intentions of governments – as opposed to ordinary citizens – around the world, in the same way that the intelligence services of every other nation does. We will not apologize simply because our services may be more effective. But heads of state and government with whom we work closely, and on whose cooperation we depend, should feel confident that we are treating them as real partners. The changes I’ve ordered do just that.

Finally, to make sure that we follow through on these reforms, I am making some important changes to how our government is organized. The State Department will designate a senior officer to coordinate our diplomacy on issues related to technology and signals intelligence. We will appoint a senior official at the White House to implement the new privacy safeguards that I have announced today. I will devote the resources to centralize and improve the process we use to handle foreign requests for legal assistance, keeping our high standards for privacy while helping foreign partners fight crime and terrorism.

I have also asked my Counselor, John Podesta, to lead a comprehensive review of big data and privacy. This group will consist of government officials who—along with the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology—will reach out to privacy experts, technologists and business leaders, and look at how the challenges inherent in big data are being confronted by both the public and private sectors; whether we can forge international norms on how to manage this data; and how we can continue to promote the free flow of information in ways that are consistent with both privacy and security.

For ultimately, what’s at stake in this debate goes far beyond a few months of headlines, or passing tensions in our foreign policy. When you cut through the noise, what’s really at stake is how we remain true to who we are in a world that is remaking itself at dizzying speed. Whether it’s the ability of individuals to communicate ideas; to access information that would have once filled every great library in every country in the world; or to forge bonds with people on other sides of the globe, technology is remaking what is possible for individuals, for institutions, and for the international order. So while the reforms that I have announced will point us in a new direction, I am mindful that more work will be needed in the future.

One thing I’m certain of: this debate will make us stronger. And I also know that in this time of change, the United States of America will have to lead. It may seem sometimes that America is being held to a different standard, and the readiness of some to assume the worst motives by our government can be frustrating. No one expects China to have an open debate about their surveillance programs, or Russia to take the privacy concerns of citizens into account. But let us remember that we are held to a different standard precisely because we have been at the forefront in defending personal privacy and human dignity.

As the nation that developed the Internet, the world expects us to ensure that the digital revolution works as a tool for individual empowerment rather than government control. Having faced down the totalitarian dangers of fascism and communism, the world expects us to stand up for the principle that every person has the right to think and write and form relationships freely – because individual freedom is the wellspring of human progress.

Those values make us who we are. And because of the strength of our own democracy, we should not shy away from high expectations. For more than two centuries, our Constitution has weathered every type of change because we have been willing to defend it, and because we have been willing to question the actions that have been taken in its defense. Today is no different. Together, let us chart a way forward that secures the life of our nation, while preserving the liberties that make our nation worth fighting for. Thank you

^ None of what Obama has stated, can be believed

*

EXBERLINER (3)

EXBERLINER Issue 122 (December 2013) is sub-titled ‘The Berlin Book Issue.’ It is largely about publishing and personalities associated with book retail sales in Berlin (and not so much about books.) I’ll begin my ‘review’ of this issue with the ‘not books related’ article on Berlin’s so-called gentrification, move superficially through the articles on publishing and wrap up cover of BERLINER issue 122 with giving the presumed ‘expert’ political commentator Konrad Werner the attention I’d promised at the close of my last review of this stealth ‘chic’ tabloid (in guise of socially responsible news outlet.) Let the review of EXBERLINER begin with Dan Borden’s crocodile tears:

“A snowball in hell” is Dan Borden’s title for an article encapsulizing the ‘gentrification’ of Berlin with a short (very short) essay on the demise of Hotel Bogota. Speaking of snowballs and the area the article locates in, Kurfurstendam, if I had an Olympic arm, I could have nearly hit the armed guard standing outside Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle’s apartment, from outside my window in Charlottenberg (November 2010 – March 2012.) So, I know the neighborhood.

Borden’s article is a thumbnail sketch of Hotel Bogota’s history and lament of loss. Kurfurstendam is already lost to so-called ‘gentrification’ and I question why, however historic, a nearly un-noticed remnant structure in a 3 kilometer stretch of marble and glass, bearing no resemblance to the area admired by my friends with Cold War past as ‘spooks’, is the focus of the article. Shouldn’t the focus rather be on what can be saved in Berlin as opposed to what cannot? Hotel Bogota stood no chance of resisting swallowed by the Russian mafia influence which actually controls the district (when purchased by the corporate mafia which must accommodate this.)

Perhaps a more remarkable omission is brought up with mention of the ‘occupied’ hotel’s Nazi past as site for the Rich’s ‘Chamber of Culture’ deciding which film’s adhered to Hitler’s ‘code of decency.’ Nazis are not my favorite people (ranking right up there with certain present day German CSU personalities’ apparently never extinguished closet ambitions) but nevertheless one should be careful in any LBGT (Lesbian, Bi-sexual, Gay and Transgender) friendly publication to present carefully balanced facts, not only point to past extremes of persecution.

The person most empowered to reverse the ‘gentrification’ trend in Berlin and its phenomena of skyrocketing rents breaking up and driving out (persecuting) long established communities, is that man who has participated most egregiously in selling Berlin to the highest bidder: openly gay mayor of Berlin; Klaus Wowerweit. This is entirely overlooked (perhaps excused?) in Borden’s article. Responsible journalism as presented in LBGT community friendly format, should not come across to the outside reader as ‘cloistered’ or ‘removed from reality’ as I’d mentioned in my previous review of Issue 121. This ‘there are no sinners among us’ journalism of omission cannot pass muster.

*

Borden’s less than candid article is followed on by the ‘Best of Berlin’ two page section on some of Berlin’s hot spots, in this case four scenes people might like to check out.

Dodo Beach in Schoeneberg does nothing for me, but if your into the old school ‘long play’ (LP) records and have some ancient high fidelity stereo equipment, I suppose you could be entertained here for hours on end. It is a front for commercial promoters of concerts (EXBERLINER states this more ‘gracefully’), in which case I will avoid this venue on account of my appreciation for Nine Inch Nails statement on their music: “Steal this album” when in conflict with (and protest of) commercial rip-off of customers by music publishing houses.

The Russian sauna scene in Marzahn, TEREMOK, seems inviting, perhaps I would actually check this out for myself.

Club Marx is a shameless rip-off appealing to the faux-left upwardly mobile liberals and is to be avoided in any case of search for intelligent life, would be my best guess. But if you don’t mind paying a ten Euro cover charge for the right to buy drinks and dance with the ‘suits’ inside, well, that’s your problem, not mine.

The last mentioned place, a jewellery shop, I won’t bother to name, only mention 90 tonnes of crushed rock in community poisoning cyanide heap leach in 3rd world countries produces enough gold to make a single wedding band. Way to go EXBERLINER! I think we know now just how serious a magazine this is, in relation to social (and related environmental) justice.

The next (one page) “Fashionistas” section begins with “A Bold Reality” which is dedicated to a clothing label inspired by the ‘gifted’ degenerates William S Burroughs and Jack Kerouac. Heroin junkie and CIA reject Burroughs shot his wife dead in a “William Tell stunt gone wrong” (one of the times he wasn’t getting 12 year old boys drunk while seducing them or maybe to shut her up over his habit of getting 12 year old boys drunk while seducing them) and the compulsive liar & rabid misogynist Kerouac had his own litany of comparable crimes to live down. So what did Burroughs and Kerouac (together with their resolute compatriot Allan Ginsberg) do to get ‘some’ people to forget these ‘small details’ and become great? They adopted the left, together with an anti-war stance, to en-noble themselves. Perhaps this section should have been better named ‘degenerate fashionista-ettes on the left.’

*

The following sections on agents, e-publishing and whatnot, are (mostly) worthwhile reads about (mostly) smart, strong women in Berlin’s publishing scene, and other publishing specific information that might be helpful or useful to aspiring authors. These sections are of little interest to myself personally, since I fired my publisher and these days all of my literature is free on the net. This free (and highly entertaining) literature includes ‘Penucquem Speaks’ with its rave review by a truly honest and great personality on the left: Howard Zinn. But if you wish to be in the book market in Berlin, have a read of EXBERLINER Issue 122, you might see opportunity and the break you are looking for.

*

‘Best Niche Bookshops’ section is correct to include Marga Schoeller (lovely people to do business with, my personal experience) but misses Dave Solomon’s ‘Books in Berlin’ at Goethestr 69 (Charlottenberg) where you’ll find the often distracted, nearly always disheveled, truly caring in cause of social justice (this should count for something), helpful and well informed shop proprietor. Give Dave your business and be entertained, whether he is in ‘stark raving mad’ mode or merely level mood.

*

And FINALLY we can get to EXBERLINER’s political ‘expert’, Konrad Werner (I am so glad to be nearly finished with this blog.)

Werner appears to have ‘tried hard’ to get it right in EXBERLINER Issue 122. But he did not win any cigars. Only promotion from ‘expert moron’ to ‘aspiring competent amateur.’ But I fear he will relapse. Werner is an incorrectable idiot because he is an idealist (like myself) but not a realist (unlike myself.) In Werner’s political column in Issue 122, he deplores the present day co-opted state of democracy with “imagine inventing a cure for cancer and then not giving it to your children.” And then goes on to propose repair to the failed western model of government. Hurdle number one to Werner’s desired democratic ideal is this:

“In any democracy, ethics, self restraint, tolerance and honesty will always play second fiddle to narcissism, avarice, bigotry & persecution, if only because people who play by the rules in any democracy are at a disadvantage to those who easily subvert the rules to their own advantage” -Ronald Thomas West

Mister Konrad Werner, I must inform you that ‘democracy’ is a failed experiment on account of this maxim (preceding.) So while correctly inferring the idea a return to fascism is a clear and present danger, in the meanwhile you had better pull a miracle cure for democracy out of your ass, to move western society forward intelligently. Or come up with a better idea (than western society.)

Then, Werner presciently proposes his cure with ‘referendum’ as true democratic model for future. Not. Even. Close. Refer to preceding maxim and consider ignorance and bias in the population responsible for voting and… who creates the referendum language? Which ‘free speech’ protected corporate media lies and related bought off politicians beholden to EADS, Boeing and other war profiteering corporations milking ‘humanitarian violence’ for all it’s worth, will spin your ‘referendum’? All of the preceding and too many more criminal corporations and bought off politicians to count? (again, refer to maxim.)

You see, dear readers, when ‘free speech’ in western media is not lying to you deliberately, they are lying to you by default when, as Werner (and EXBERLINER) does, they lie to themselves about the possibilities…

One end note: my preceding review of EXBERLINER (Issue 121) had noted the CSU in Bavaria was set to profit from re-publication of Hitler’s Mein Kampf. In the one month and few days since I’d pointed this out, it appears a panicked scramble had taken place (Hans-Peter Friedrich‘s people read here, this I know) and now the plan has been scrapped. That is result of effective journalism (even if the dropped plan is covered by a self-serving CSU lie.) This, my friends, is actually the important news about books.

Omission note: the article on the striking shop-workers somewhat defied explanation. Somewhat similar to the German psyche often defies description. Or perhaps it was my simply being disgusted with the rank cowardice and often shallow hypocrisy (by the male writers particularly) in EXBERLINER and this had caught up with me. I thought of comparing the events described in shop-workers striking to the ‘Keystone Cops’ or a so-called ‘Chinese fire-drill’ but satire failed me. So, in the spirit of lampooning nearly anything (my forte) I have simply decided to put up a select video (substitute for article coverage) with eye to outrage the feminism aligned editors of EXBERLINER; in spirit of suggesting having a psychologically castrated requirement as prerequisite to men writing for the magazine will have the inevitable result of unintelligent product.

Enjoy!

*

EXBERLINER (1)

EXBERLINER (2)

EXBERLINER (3)

EXBERLINER (4)

Post Modern Teutonic Vision (a.k.a. Werner blogged me!)

Mephisto

A Mephisto assessment of reality

*

 

Fourth in the series on the original Plains culture (matriarchy)

*

ismetpi001p1

^ Pierre-Jean ‘father’ DeSmet

“They [the Blackfeet] are plunged in coarse superstitions which brutalize their souls, they worship the sun and the moon and offer them sacrifices and propitiation and thanksgiving” -Pierre-Jean DeSmet, Society of Jesus (Jesuit)

Lying was not a common phenomena in the ancient Native American world. Likely this stems from the fact a high value was placed on interpretation of reality as accurately, factually as possible. Not only would this factual perception of reality through reliable reporting lend itself to survival in an existence fraught with danger, it would lead to a tendency to develop a high state of personal evolution.

There is a story of occasion where the Salish had captured a Blackfoot warrior, I do not recall his name, and tied him to a post at the center of their camp. The community then had gathered to witness his death by torture. The point of the torture was to see if this warrior could be made to cry, as he was slowly cut to bits. If this could be accomplished, it could then be reported back to the Blackfeet people how their warrior was weak when faced with death. It would never occur to the Salish to send a false report of the man’s behavior when meeting his end.

As it happened, this warrior fully being cognizant of the purpose of his death ritual, devised a strategy to circumvent the intended outcome. When the Salish man with first right to begin slicing him with a knife had approached and proceeded to cut and taunt the Blackfoot, the Blackfoot had kept his cool and returned insults as to be so vile, the Salish lost his temper and swiftly killed the Blackfoot in a rage. And this fact of circumstance of death is what was reported to the Blackfeet people.

The arrival of the Jesuits changed all this. If the destruction of the Buffalo had destroyed the Blackfoot nation physically, it was the Jesuits broke the spiritual back of the community. The Jesuits destroyed the lived truth of these people, destroyed the equilibrium between the sexes, destroyed the respect they had enjoyed in relation to each other as a whole and destroyed their spiritual relationship with nearly everything under the Sun. Here is how it happened:

It was inconceivable to the Indians a lie would be told by holy people. As Floyd HeavyRunner had precisely, correctly stated, this phenomena was exploited by the Jesuits, when using the Blackfeet women to make their inroad into the spiritual life of the community. It was the tempting (and subversive) idea if the Blackfeet community would embrace the Jesuit philosophy of only ONE man had to die, to correct everything in the afterlife, these women would be reunited with the many fine men they had lost to the extreme peril of historical Blackfoot existence, an existence that claimed a disproportionate number of men. The woman allowed the Jesuit Nicolas Point (sent among the Blackfeet by ‘Father’ DeSmet) to arrange the education of a number of children and in a single year’s time, with children taught Original Sin caused all of our world’s ills and this is the fault of WOMAN who is cursed, and that because ONE man died, you may be excused from taking responsibility for your own actions in this life, the damage was done. By the time these woman realized a great mistake had been made, it was too late. If these children had been killed outright per the native philosophy of eliminating any ugly life aberration, the Blackfeet would have been better off per their own cultural view, but the law of Blackfeet citizenship these new aberrations violated, in a paradox, prevented this. Nor would the consequence of not killing these children be seen immediately, it had to wait for them to grow up and see the infection mature.

The result had been, in a single generation, fratricide, it came to this; certain men had begun abusing women and became rapists, nearly unknown social phenomena in previous times. Subsequently, the worst of these among the Pikuni became exiles, they were pushed out and formed a distinct breakaway tribal entity. This in turn saw the group’s Pikuni men experience their women turning on them and become killers of their husbands, when the Blackfoot women’s warrior tradition in egalitarianism became socially inverted (these Blackfeet families know who they are, it’s not important to identify them by name here.)

This preceding is but early example of what occurred on a society-wide scale, with the badly damaged larger Blackfoot nation forced onto reservations and the subsequent kidnapping of entire generations of children into missions for education. Life became a lie and the law of Niitsitapi as had been known and practiced for countless generations, had become largely dead.

It was the great priest of Okan, Brings Down the Sun, made it his life mission to correct these mistakes in the Pikuni people. Recognizing the new Christian way could not be rolled back, one compromise he tried to make was to advise women to begin to submit to their husbands, but this was not easily swallowed by the women. What finally happened was, a compromise of Okan and other Blackfoot practices pursued distinctly and altogether separately from the Christianity forced onto these people, one might belong to both but they were carefully separated, never mixed. But these were never again Indian people in any sense close to what had been, lying and abuse of women has become a way of life in the case of by far too many Indians to count. And since the forced mission education days, the added curse of inter-generational pedophilia has gained a foothold as well. Of course the Jesuits will NEVER take responsibility for having wreaked this havoc, they can always arrange to be ‘forgiven’

“Christians are the meanest people on Earth” -A Blackfoot Holy Man

All that said, my experience has been, because of the unique traditions which had survived in small pockets, I discovered some of the finest, most brave, generous, kind and ethical people in this world, whilst living among the modern Blackfeet.

*

Essay 1 ‘Tobacco’

Essay 2 ‘War

Essay 3 ‘Women

Essay 4 ‘Conflict

Essay 5 ‘Birds

Related:

Life in Indian Country

Collected stories, folklore and anecdotes concerning my many years life with Blackfeet Indians and traversing Native American territories

Third article in the series on Plains culture (matriarchy)

The Women Warriors

“Always when there is a woman in the charge, it causes the warriors to vie with one another in displaying their valor” -Rain in the Face, Lakota

Moving Robe was a Lakota woman who was a leader of the initial counter-attack against Custer’s surprise of the Sioux and Cheyenne camps at Little Big Horn. Consistent with the statement of Rain in the Face, it is clear this was not a unique event but had been repeated throughout Lakota history; because a woman’s leadership in war is long known in the Plains tradition of warfare:

“Moving Robe: One of the best-known battles in the annals of Indian-American warfare is the 1876 Battle of the Greasy Grass in Montana where Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer was defeated. One of those who lead the counterattack against the cavalry was the woman Tashenamani (Moving Robe)”

Next, note the Crow chief and warrior Fallen Leaf, a person of great recognition, was married to two women and this is not in any sense considered unusual:

“Fallen Leaf: While Fallen Leaf was a Crow warrior, she was actually born to the Gros Ventre nation and was captured by the Crow when she was 12. After she had counted coup four times in the prescribed Crow tradition, she was considered a chief and sat in the council of chiefs. In addition to being a war leader, she was also a good hunter and had two wives”

And we have two Cheyenne woman warriors, absolute peers to any male. The first, Buffalo Calf Robe is accorded recognition for high valor in combat, equal to any man:

“Buffalo Calf Robe: In the 1876 battle of the Rosebud in Montana, American troops under the leadership of General Crook along with their Crow and Shoshone allies fought against the Cheyenne and Lakota Sioux. The Shoshone and Crow shot the horse of Cheyenne Chief Comes in Sight out from under him. As the warriors were closing in to finish him off, Buffalo Calf Robe (aka Calf Trail Woman), the sister of Comes in Sight, rode into the middle of the warriors and saved the life of her brother. This was considered to be one of the greatest acts of valor in the battle”

When I move on to Pita-makan, our famous Blackfoot war chief, there is a special noteworthiness in the Cheyenne warrior Yellow Haired Woman, per the notation of her membership in a closed (to men) women’s society:

“Ehyophsta (Yellow-Haired Woman) was a Cheyenne woman. She was the daughter of Stands-in-the-Timber. She fought in the Battle of Beecher Island in 1868, and also fought the Shoshone that same year, where she counted coup against one enemy and killed another. She fought the Shoshone again in 1869. She was also a member of a secret society composed exclusively of Cheyenne women”

With its many differing superficial details between tribes, original Plains culture (matriarchy) is remarkably consistent nevertheless:

Pita-makan was the last great awau-katsik-saki (Blackfoot woman war chief).  Her story as commonly known in the literature is difficult to accept for the fact of male reporting on her history, particularly the reporting of James Willard Shulz. Shulz was a self aggrandizing liar who romanticized his life among a Christianized band of Pikuni (southern Blackfoot.) His reports were from an European male perspective, for articles he sold to eastern publications. Another complication would be any native narrative solely from the man perspective, there were distinct oral histories, the woman’s and the men’s. These histories would not differ so much in metadata content, but in the nuance of the telling and the men refraining from telling women’s aspect of the history, which is the province of women. Nearly the entirety of history reported from the Blackfeet nation has been from western cultural perspective, essentially male oriented anthropological reporting and almost all of this reporting is unreliable.

What we can reliably know is, Peta-makan was a war chief of many years. She was successful in war leadership against the Crow and Salish on multiple occasions. When she was killed during a raid, she was a war leader of the ‘Braves Society.’ Her authority as a war chief was never questioned by anyone. She never married and when at war, was considered in the eyes of the Nitsiitapi (Blackfoot law of citizenship or the wider Blackfoot community) as equal to any man. Pita-makan was highly respected by male Blackfoot society as the absolute equal of, and even superior to, many competent male warriors in combat.

What has been unknown in the literature to now but we can also reliably know is, Peta-makan would have been determined as suitable for leadership in war by the women who educated all Blackfoot children to puberty. This would have happened when the ‘Notokis’ leadership of the Pikuni tribe, made this determination. The Notokis were the Blackfoot nation’s sole (and secret) women’s society that all Blackfeet women (and only women) belonged to.

Consequently Pita-maken would have been sent with the young Blackfoot males about her age to become a ‘Moskito’ when she entered higher education at early puberty. Pita-makan’s  peer group, when entering the male Moskitos society, would have averaged 9 to 12 years age and they would be a band of ‘brothers’ kept intact by tribal custom, throughout their lives. Blackfoot law would determine Peta-makan advance through subsequent Blackfoot age-determined male warrior societies, together with her peers throughout her war career. Subsequently we can know as a member of the ‘Braves’ society, she had advanced as a war leader to about age 40-44, when she had been killed in combat by the Salish.

In her personal life, Peta-makan would have had a choice of whether to live as a man or woman (she chose to be a woman and accordingly did not take a wife or wives but also did not marry any man.)

It is worth mentioning here, the women had their own warrior tradition altogether distinct from that of the men, as defenders of the camp. When the men were largely absent on the hunt or at war, the women were organized as a military force and would engage any attempted predations by enemy tribes.

The Plains women were absolutely entitled to exercise male rights and authority. When I’d initially asked Floyd HeavyRunner about a Blackfoot woman’s chief authority, whether their rank put them a par with men, his answer was the women chiefs were “a little bit higher”

WomanChief

Blackfoot Wild Gun’s wife in Chief Bonnet (left)

*

Essay 1 ‘Tobacco’

Essay 2 ‘War

Essay 3 ‘Women

Essay 4 ‘Conflict

Essay 5 ‘Birds

Related:

Life in Indian Country

Collected stories, folklore and anecdotes concerning my many years life with Blackfeet Indians and traversing Native American territories

First essay in the series on the original Plains culture (matriarchy)

Tobacco

“The ones who complain and talk the most about giving away Medicine Secrets, are always those who know the least” -Frank Fools Crow, Lakota

I’m glad Frank stated this, because I am going to give away some ‘medicine secrets’ in this essay of what is intended to become a series (in which I will be giving away more so-called ‘medicine secrets’)

First off, there were no ‘secrets’, only a reluctance to share knowledge with people who live stupidly. In today’s world, where the majority of MANKIND is living  stupidly, including many so-called ‘traditional Indians’, the native principle of paradox comes into play. That is to say, when an old habit has come to be counter-productive, the old habit must be turned on its head.

The old native world was never ‘traditional’ in present day context or in the way people seem to think this definition applies, because the native reality was fluid, dynamic, evolving, the dream changes. New dreams revealed themselves and life adjusted accordingly. Within this context, there were some immutable rules, including exceptions to immutable rules! The rules of ‘tobacco’ were not an exception except in the case of a law-breaker chief, an accepted (but rare) phenomena. So, turning this all on its head (again) I will point out the rules of tobacco should be kept in the old way, mostly without exception. And these rules are not what many people might think.

The ‘Sacred’ is Sensual

So, tobacco goes into a pipe, correct? Well, not in every case. But in the same moment, yes, it all does, or should, sooner or later. Am I speaking in metaphor? Maybe, it all depends on how far ‘tobacco’ has taken you in understanding or negotiating reality, which is multi-layered, multi-faceted.

300 years Jesuit poisoning of Native American mentality might jolt some of you (Indians particularly) when I point out the stone appendage jutting out from beneath the bowl of the MAN pipe is your boner (that’s right, a man’s erection.) A woman’s pipe does not ‘sport’ this. So right off, sex is integral to the ‘sacred’, which has absolutely nothing to do with those modern cretans or so-called Medicine Men or Holy Men who use the power of their position to gratify themselves sexually, by preying on their female students. In fact, ‘traditionally speaking’ men did not have female students until a woman had reached menopause, and then only if a woman wished to exercise her ABSOLUTE right to enter into the male knowledge. Men did not, DID NOT, on the other hand, have any ‘right’ to enter into the women’s knowledge but only arrived there by invitation of the elder women and this invitation only extended to man reaching the women’s knowledge in a limited way and was highly restricted. Got that? The point is, this was matriarchy (which is different to matrilineal, don’t confuse these two.) The main point of these initial paragraphs are to point out the rules of tobacco originated with the women, and the man’s pipe (ancient tribal law for men) originated with women. A woman might exercise her right to smoke a man’s pipe but a man had no right to smoke a woman’s pipe. A woman smoking a man’s pipe is not recommended in these modern times because most women would not know (have the cultural teaching) how to properly do this (something where even the men often come up short, regarding the present times.)

Recalling an old Indian healer stating “the only worthless person is someone who cannot appreciate a good joke”, I’ll close these initial thoughts with a real life joke I pulled on a ceremonial leader; he is gay, no big deal, celibate gays were among our tribes most effective shamans, historically. This guy was sitting outside his sweat lodge, cleaning his man’s pipe. When he began to suck on the opening where the stem goes, to clear it, I told him, “No, the other end” and he snorted his laugh through his nose.

If you are a so-called ‘traditional’ Indian and you have a problem with these preceding paragraphs, well, indeed you do have a problem, it is called a Christian cultural mentality, pointing to the Jesuit poisoning of your cultural understanding.

The Rules of Tobacco

The ancient native world was separated into what I will call the ‘heavy’ (when the women sent their men to learn, to be healed, to war, the hunt, to council and to perform ceremony) and the ‘serene’ (which is supposed to be everything else.) Tobacco is central to the ‘heavy.’

  1. Modern people seem to think they can own a native person of knowledge (get what they want) by giving tobacco when in fact in the old way, the person you give tobacco to, actually owns you. Lets’ do a hypothetical circumstance with healing, learning or ceremony employing the old rules, as I have both witnessed or participated in, many times, here is example of seeking a healer:
  1. In the old way, when approaching a person of knowledge/healer (man or woman, if a woman is the healer you employ a woman’s pipe you will not smoke with her if you are a man, this is set in stone, if a woman recruiting a male, the reverse is generally but not always true), you bring certain gifts, typically ‘smudge’, a blanket, prints (uncut cloth) of specified color(s) and you have to ‘catch’ them. If you can catch them (find them, if they know you are coming, it is perfectly permissible to hide from you), they will sit and you must kneel and plead your case. To initiate the relationship of healing, ceremony or learning, et cetera, the prints are to acknowledge ‘spirit’ and the blanket is about ceremonial respect for the earth, or ‘sitting on the ground.’ This must be acknowledged with gifts. The tobacco itself is communion and the ‘smudge’ (typically sweetgrass, proper cedar or a special pine) is communicating through spirit.
  1. If the healer accepts (they are not required to) the pipe you have pointed at them, wedged into the blanket and prints, they OWN YOUR LIFE. You have already failed in your own knowledge to solve the problem by this time and this is why you seek out the healer. The healer will perhaps give physical remedies (especially if a medicine woman, less typically a man), and look at your life, make some changes and return it to you with a new rule or set of rules (the anthropologists might call these ‘taboos’ but they really don’t have a clue.) And you MUST live this, to honor what you have set out to do. This same ceremonial surrender is required to initiate finding a teacher, a trained ceremonial sponsor or person (for the duration of the ceremony beginning with the ‘acceptance’) and much more.
  1. What you see today, simply handing tobacco to someone, to get what you want, is patent bs. How this came about is likely mixing up the ‘giving tobacco’ ceremony (utilizing the pipe) with the sincere native ‘thank you’ gift of tobacco to someone you felt grateful to for some reason.

All that said, if you had example of someone come in looking for an elder, perhaps to ask advice, you might see something like this: an old woman in a room apart, talking one on one, alone except for the one other person. A new arrival might ask ‘are they smoking’ which is an inquiry into whether they are in deep discussion or ‘council.’ It is a figure of speech alluding to more formal proceeding on a larger scale of ceremony. If the answer is ‘yes’, they will not invade. Maybe that person only brought tobacco. This would be like ‘thanks in advance’ and is only permissible within extended family or intimate associations with close relationship of longstanding and does not apply to interaction as pertains to formal learning, ceremony and healing. And there is so much more… things are not as they were and ‘traditional’ in the modern day is a complete misapprehension of reality in too many cases to count. If by chance you know how to submit yourself to women and are culturally in contact with some strict old ladies who are willing to kick your butt until you can get it right, count your blessings… because you might become a real Indian in authentic sense of ‘traditional’

Bageera

My life of many years, it is truly good-

*

Essay 1 ‘Tobacco’

Essay 2 ‘War

Essay 3 ‘Women

Essay 4 ‘Conflict

Essay 5 ‘Birds

Related:

Life in Indian Country

Collected stories, folklore and anecdotes concerning my many years life with Blackfeet Indians and traversing Native American territories

Pat.sweat.2

„Oh man, Ron, the way those nuns beat us..“  Pat Kennedy

There is no such thing as an Indian in the generic sense. There are a few tribes where the aboriginal language is still fairly widely spoken, several tribes that the language is surviving but is endangered, and some tribes have lost their language altogether. In a scientific sense, language defines culture, and to be really, truly Indian, to think in aboriginal terms, it is very difficult to imagine that you could be, for instance a Blackfeet, and not speak your language. Much more true is the idea that person would be Blackfeet American, like an Irish American or Japanese American, an American of Blackfeet descent, culturally speaking. It is possible to see the world in aboriginal terms in English or other western languages, but it would not be easy or likely for most. The problem is context.

My observation, having been in Blackfeet country for twenty-five years, and most of that time associated with those Blackfeet that still speak their language, is that 80% or more  of the English speaking only Blackfeet were raised out of context of their real culture. Blackfeet blood at birth, hanging out at a few Pow-wows, even growing up dancing on the pow-wow road and being raised in Browning, does not necessarily create a Blackfeet Indian. Likewise, celebrating Saint Patrick and drinking Guinness does not an Irishman make. It would be generous to think that 20% of today’s enrolled tribal members are real Indians in the old sense. That the 80% who are not Indian actually think they are Indian, is a tragedy that reinforces the idea of the ongoing Human Rights abuse perpetrated on these peoples through the continued forced Anglo-centric education in Indian Country. The Whiteman teaches the Indians what the Whiteman wants the Indians to think. And this is what the Blackfeet learn in the Browning schools. Regardless of whether the teachers skin color is White or Red.

The Whiteman’s Social Science is fully aware these people are no longer aboriginal by definition. Language largely defines culture. But nobody has taught this to the English speaking Blackfeet in these public schools. They only learn what the Whiteman intends for them to know. Red Whitemen are teaching Indians in schools on reservations, in English, in the classroom setting of Western Civilization that they are Indians. It simply is not true, culturally speaking. So some things have not changed since the Blackfeet first came under the control of the United States. The Indians continue to be lied to.

Ten years ago I could still follow conversational Blackfeet, but my toungue was never able to shape the pronunciation. If you  wrongly pronounce Blackfeet, in the smallest way, it will more often than not  change the intended meaning and sound silly, even dangerous. So I never spoke. But one of the unquestionable masters of Blackfeet language and Oral History, Floyd Heavy Runner, was my friend and explained the language to me for many years. So I am not afraid to go into what is generally a forbidden area of discussion in the Indian world. Whether real Indians speak their language.

Speaking of who or what is an Indian is problematic these days because of language. My experience was, that to be truly Indian, in no uncertain terms, has almost everything to do with the primary language you speak.

I do have empathy for the people that have lost their language and still identify as Indian, but there needs to be some explanation of why their priorities are messed up.. why aren’t these people largely proactively learning their language rather than playing into a set of circumstances that lets the native languages, and the community of thought and behaviors associated with those languages, continue to die. One big reason for the continued death of native languages is the mandatory western education in Indian country today, the public schools, are not equipped to teach Indian languages, languages which are not predicated on the same ideas as western languages. Teaching Blackfeet in a western school setting is nowhere near as simple as teaching Spanish or German. Not even close.

Definitions of what constitutes an Indian are a major part of that problem. An Indian language definition of what an Indian is cannot be found in an English dictionary. This Indian language definition would be the non western terms in which you see and interact in this world. In short, how it is about you live your life in relation to aboriginal ideas.  If you are not recognizable as able to interact in these terms, which are largely unknown to western  educators, you are not a complete Human Being in the old aboriginal concept. You are not really an Indian in the old sense of what that meant. This is because in the native language, that is where it has not yet been christianized, people are holographic expressions of manifest nature, they are already are everything they need to be, there is only a journey of discovery through observation in the natural world. Here, there is no concept of coincidence, there is no concept of seperation, i.e. the temporal and sacred, and there is no clear boundary between dream and reality. In this world, the native speaker’s focus is allowing for personal space, self restraint, and non interference. These are the boundaries that are emphasized. And it is impossible to ask the typical western educator to teach something they have no concept of. This would include western educators that racially identify as Indian, but are not native language proficient.

Those who don’t have their thinking shaped by native language see themselves as Indian by birthright in Anglo or western terms, conceived of in degrees of blood. This perception is without validity, it falls far short of the original Indian concept, that is, if it is the aboriginal concept that gives the definition of what it means to be native. Because to be Indian is to see the world you live in, in a certain way. This has little to do with whether or not you are full blood, half breed or non native blood, if the definition of Indian stems from the language of the original peoples inhabiting the Americas.

Native membership (in the old sense) was never predicated on race, but on perceptions, especially how the community perceived you. If you think like an Indian, a Human Being, one of ‘The People’, then your actions in the community enabled you to be recognized as such. Many, perhaps most of today’s Indians, would be unrecognizable as Human from this old perspective.

Those who speak the native language fluently are more apt to approach life with great care according to laws built into the language (the stories.) Life itself is lived as an observational meditation in concert with nature in many respects. There are things these people are at great pains not to do. Ever. This is the approach that created the wise old people, the ones that can bring ceremony meaningfully to the people.

Those who do not speak Indian are much more likely to live their life carelessly from the original Indian perspective. Theirs’ is a dangerous road that damages the entire Indian nation. The result associated with this is tragedy. Oftentimes these people are too dangerous to bring into ceremony. Many of them do not know how to be quiet and listen. Frequently they cannot seem to learn the old ways in an authentic sense. Largely they do not evolve through the course of their lives as would be expected of the old way Indian.

This is because Indian Languages formed the development of the mind and shaped the perceptions of the native world. Unlike the western world, where deeper insights into truly useful knowledge are the provence of higher education, and acquiring social skills and learning the basic education are stepping stones for those privileged with opportunities for higher education, the Indian language world provided every child equally a language integrated opportunity for higher education, beginning at birth.

First, in the Indian World, the child learned to see his/her surroundings in terms of the animate. Suckling at mother’s breast, the child sees the effect, hears and feels, the movement of the breeze in the aspen groves and the language sounds associated with that natural phenomena. Already the child is learning, but not about single objects, rather that life and being alive already is an integrated whole, that all things are inter-related. Aboriginal language has already laid the foundation for an advanced understanding of physics, but not in the western abstract. From the first understanding of speech, the native language child knows already that they are a part of everything that is, that in some sense they embody everything that is. Already this child has a foundation laid that will be atypical of nearly all of the children in Anglo society. And it is only after this first great lesson of inclusiveness that they learn to differentiate. But these next lessons will differ from the Anglo concept as well.

Now the stories begin. Again in nature, the stories of Coyote, Magpie and King Fisher, with their sounds integrated into songs (Cree King Fisher song “Kay-kay, Kay-kay, Kanawa Bum), everything that is, in the natural world, is taught in stories that do not differentiate people from animals. The differentiation is in the personalities of nature of which people are an integral part. And because of those personalities, and the stories associated with them, the child is learning the difference between foolish and sound behaviors as well as risks, and how to handle risk. It is all about personal responsibility in the context of nature, with all of nature taught as a single sacred, humanity integrated social concept.

Now the native language child learned to play. And the child’s play was predicated on these stories. By the time this sort of child is ten years of age, he or she already knows how to become a Chief, Medicine Man or Holy Woman. It is all about how you live your life and personal responsibility. At this age, a mere ten years, nearly every child in Indian speaking society could, in a by far greater sense than White children ever knew at the same age, be depended upon to perform responsibly as citizens of their respective nations.

Already these native children were prepared to attend the native language equivalent of higher education, the so called (by the anthropologists) age grade societies. Now, they would be observed by their communities in their personal evolution, with a premium put on an intelligent balance between audacity and self restraint. Having lived right, and advancing through these societies and serving these communities, generally by the age of 45 or 50 years (the truly gifted might arrive at this status sooner) these native language citizens might have earned the right to speak in council as leaders of their respective families, clans, societies,  and nations.

But with the advent of the missionaries and the destruction of the language, a different Indian emerged. When the Native American populace became prisoner on their respective reservations, they were subjected to enforced Anglo educations and a super tragedy ensued.

The early western educators of the American Indian were the missionaries. Other than the basic rudiments of reading and writing, the focus was not on the practical well being of the Indian children in their charge, but their so called ‘spiritual’ well being. The rank superstition the Christian missionaries held concerning native beliefs systems, demanded that the language and associated stories of Native America be crushed in the children. And those languages were destroyed in brutal fashion, through actual physical torture, the figurative rape (and oftentimes literal rape) inclusive of systematic murder, of several generations of native speaking children in government run or approved boarding schools.

How could this happen? Christian ideologues were most concerned with advancing Christianity in native peoples. These Evangelicals, whether Catholic or Protestant, were  not primarily concerned with matters of science and education, rather rank cult superstition is what they taught, and tolerance of the language, ideas and lifestyles of other cultures was not in their curriculum. Either you knew Christ or you burned. Having known the burn of smallpox and measles, now the Indian children were subjected to this new and unnatural disease of spirit, a dark ages cult belief in man’s dominion over the earth, the conquest and control of nature, and the burn of shame in who you would now will become, a thing born in Sin, in a world that will be destroyed because of wickedness. And all Indian thoughts, philosophies and languages were suddenly wicked.

Imagine being 9 years old, not speaking a word of English, suddenly being picked up by the police without notice and delivered to a prison full of Indian children where you are beaten with an iron fire poker the first day you are there, for daring to speak in Indian: the only language you know. As a child, you have been born again in Evil. Because you are not allowed to speak, except in the terms and new language of this apocalyptic event visited upon you, you discover a new life birthed through a violence that came upon you from nowhere, and you could be trapped in this Dantean Hell for years.  Your physical torture, absolutely brutal beatings, even to death, only stops with the rote memorization of Bible verse and complete capitulation to the idea that your former life was shit.

In the original native sense, the survivors among these Indian children were drowned as functional Human Beings in this evil. The strongest amoung them died, those who were most Indian, beaten to death. Association with the original language and stories became so traumatic for the survivors, the Indian children that broke, that these individuals never passed the language to their children. Indian languages, and the knowledge of what it actually meant to be an Indian, in countless cases, died across the Americas.

But you could still be Indian in a sort of lying way. You look Indian. The civilization that physically beat the Indianess out of you still identifies you as Indian, because of the new lie of Race. So now, a generation later, you think that you are Indian, but you struggle to know what that means. You know it means you were conquered. You know it means your civilization was destroyed. You know it means your ancestors spoke, and maybe a handful of your tribesmen speak, a different language. You might believe that because you are able to dress like your ancestors and dance at a pow-wow, you are traditional. But inside you know this is not really true. And it makes you angry. Now your babies sit in front of a television and learn in English what an inanimate object is. The lie grows.

Unemployable, you sit and play Cribbage and Black Jack, endlessly, surviving on welfare and government commodities, your children grow up emulating the behaviors they see on the TV, become criminals and either die or go to prison. “Indian Love”, the beatings that were introduced to your community by the boarding school returnees, the primary lesson learned there, pass on to generation after generation. Whether because you are broke and drunk, or consequently just socially stupid, real ceremony is no longer a part of your life. But ceremony, the ritual observation of and interaction in natural phenomena, is what Indian life really is. But these beaten Indians cannot know it.

But there are the Indians that were not destroyed as Human Beings. In bits and pieces, in a handful here or there, there is a spark of life, the language, the stories, and a more real idea, a greater original understanding of what it means to be Indian, survives. And that idea, that there are still Indians, has rubbed off on some of these otherwise culturally deprived in the community.  But there are still huge problems.

Now, the third generation children of the boarding school Indians want to come home, figuratively; to become Indian in reality. But they do not speak Indian. And for that fact, they cannot easily come home. English language thought and associated Christian culture precludes this homecoming, more often than not. Because the Indian child, these days, receives a western education with both little and inferior knowledge about what it really means to be an Indian from substandard schools that are not equipped to teach language in an aboriginal context. To be westernized, to speak English only, and understand ceremony in the aboriginal Indian sense is not impossible, but is a difficult path.

The first circumstance necessary for the non native speaking Indian to become real, is the ability to realize that non-western knowledge, in this case pre-western Indian knowledge, is not superstitious evil, hocus pocus, or a beliefs system that is foolish and stupid. This is more easily overcome in the present day Indian Country than it is in the Anglo community, because the time of this pre-western knowledge is still close, even functional in some people. Some of the Medicine people can still heal. Some of the ceremony can still demonstrate an ability to manifest phenomena in nature. There is nothing like seeing is believing. Those culturally deprived Indians that have distanced themselves from the fundamentals of Evangelical Christianity and have had a look in the window at their ancestral native world, can see there is something to it. That is the first essential step to their return to being Indian.

But if they stop there and simply imitate ceremony, they are only half way home and stuck. Real ceremony requires the manifestation of natural phenomena in concert with the act of ceremony itself. Whether Buffalo Calling had brought the Buffalo, or Weather Making had brought the weather, these were the empirical proof in the old Indian way of ceremony.

But knowing it can be made to happen, and knowing how to make it happen, is not the same thing. Imitating ceremony, copying it from how it was seen or remembered, often doesn’t work, is not necessarily real. It can be seen as empty and hollow, a ‘nothing’ event. Because the necessary concept to manifest the phenomena is oftentimes not present in the ritualizing individuals. This is the missing language. The native understanding of nature, and an observed cause and effect relationship that is not limited in the sense of Newtonian physics, but is a much wider idea, is built into the language through the stories. Place, time, ritual and manifest natural phenomena, learned from what the stories teach about observations in nature, all will intersect for the real Indian.

But a copied ceremony from the past, absent the authentically trained Medicine people, only serves to reinforce a self-stereotype of what it means to be Indian, among people who only think they are Indian. They look Indian and have Indian ancestry, but reality is they are not complete Indians in the old sense of what that meant. I am not saying this is true in every case, but my own observation is that it is true for most of the Indians I had met that were not proficient in Indian language.  This would especially include the many non native speaking tribal members that actually seem to believe they are “traditional.”

A necessary circumstance to bring real ceremony, absent the language, into your life is the idea that meaningful life is an observational meditation interacting with nature. The idea that the most powerful prayer you can know is how you live your life in respect to all other life. But in English, this idea is nearly impossible to separate out from monotheistic influences because of socially permeated cultural associations and strictures attending western languages generally. The typical English language associated ideas of prayer and meditation instantly invoke separation, the sacred distanced from the temporal, and nature, seen largely in terms of economics, is centered in the temporal. How can that split be mended in a language, English, whose culture generally forbids that they mix? English language civilization acts out the idea of man taking dominion over the earth, nature is subjective and separate, not integral and sacred.

However it does happen, the English language split can be bridged, but it is rare.

A balanced, respectful personality with good observational skills and a strong education in, or a natural gift for, the natural and social sciences, together with possessing a highly conceived knowledge of non-western or pre-western thought that precludes rank superstition of the evangelical stripe, can learn natural ceremony of a high order, and manifest natural phenomena in the original native sense. But what are the chances of that in a community with a boarding school legacy, in a prairie ghetto that knows largely crime, poverty, sub standard education and little opportunity. Consider it is rare already in the educated Anglo world. Can it be made easier? A working model in the wider Indian community has not yet been demonstrated.

The answer, for Indian peoples, THE ANSWER is, can only be, properly taught native language. The lessons, laws and relationships built into native language will reduce crime. Self esteem discovered through native language will reduce poverty. Native language is the door of opportunity, not necessarily into the Whiteman’s world, but into the sense of self and lost opportunity rediscovered. Native language can transform Indian country. The present western educational model has shown it cannot.

Around 1920, the Mohawk language was nearly dead. Today, nearly all Mohawks speak their language. So there is a precedent to becoming Indian in community again through language. But to accomplish this, there must be a motivation to learn the language. It seems someone must tell the ‘almost’ Indians, the Indians who do not speak their language, that they are short, they have missed the mark. They are not really Indian in the old sense. They are truly pitiful Indians at best. I have that on the most solid authority.

When I sat and listened and watched old Mary Ground ceremonially paint the Indians that came to her for Black Tail Dance, I paid close attention. Each Indian was asked their name by Mary, quietly, in Blackfeet. All those that could not respond in Blackfeet, which was most of the people under 40 years of age in the early 1980’s, and a fair number older than that, these Indians were admonished by Mary in English: “It is a pitiful Indian that cannot speak their language” as she painted them with obvious love none the less.

In the early reservation days the Browning Blackfeet, socially speaking, were roughly split into three groups. The “Pagan” Blackfeet, the Christian Blackfeet and the Half-breeds. The Pagan followers of Three Suns were largely centered south of Browning towards Heart Butte. These people were discriminated against by the United States for the entire following century when the USA eventually placed all of the tribes resources and power in the hands of the largely Christian Blackfeet community at Browning.

These ‘favored’ Christian Blackfeet were taught that they were culturally superior to their aboriginal brethren, and eventually the growing class of mixed bloods springing from these people came to see themselves as racially superior as well. The whiter you were, the more educational opportunities you received, and the doors into power were opened for you. This legacy is largely on account of the United States policy of that time favoring Evangelical Christians as the Indian Agents overseeing the reservations. It was purposeful, forced assimilation into “Christian” society. Those Indians that voluntarily gave up their ways to become like the Whites were rewarded. That is historical fact. And this was the beginning of the erosion of the Blackfeet language. Blackfeet who still spoke their language, but growing up in these Christianized families, stopped thinking in terms of praying ‘through’ the Stones, the Trees. They were taught that this was Devil Worship, not to go there. Already, still speaking a language that was aboriginal in origin, these people were ceasing to think in aboriginal terms.

But progress in assimilation was not satisfactory to the United States. In the case of Three Suns people to the south of Browning, aboriginal language continued to be a vehicle for perpetrating aboriginal thought and belief. And this was true for groups in other tribes as well. So the Boarding Schools were instituted. In short, several generations of Indian children were slave labored, beaten, and in many cases raped into christianity, even murdered. Half of the Indian children did not survive. I know of a case of an Indian child having his mouth washed out with soap for daring to speak Blackfeet, but the child did not speak English and thought he was supposed to eat the soap, which was a fatal poison, lye, with his intestinal tract slowly dissolved, it must have been a horrible death.

Indian culture was sent by this treatment of its children on an accelerated road to destruction.

This Boarding School event was fortified by the American Indian Religious Crime Code, law making it a crime to initiate or attend aboriginal ceremony. This policy worked in some cases and in other cases it did not. It is just all about human character. The weaker among these children cracked and let go of being Indian. In the stronger, it just bred their personal resentment. These mentally stronger among them likely were mostly beaten to death, but some survived to come home and went back to being Indians, and used Blackfeet coined phrases such as still existed and I heard in the south of Blackfeet country during my times there.. admonishing little children that “The Whiteman will make you into stew” if they strayed from their parents gaze. This idea would originally stem from the alien Christian communion (reinforced by the legacy of the cannibal ‘Liver Eater’ Johnson, a mountain man terrorist of Indians) and the subsequent fact that the Boarding School generations were forcefully taken from their families, or kidnapped into these schools if found alone, out and about on their own. Half of them never lived to return. Most of the survivors had been “Broken” into Christians, in the sense you would ‘break’ a horse, and ceased to be Indians. Now, they only looked like Indians.

Still, this was not enough. There were never enough boarding schools for all of the Indian children, and the reservations had many small countryside schools where the more remote communities could send their children. The problem for the Whiteman with this was these Indian communities still continued to survive as real Indian peoples because of the nature of their social organization in these remote areas. Indian language and ways were not dying off fast enough. The answer to this Whiteman dilemma, for the Blackfeet, became a social disaster.

The Blackfeet Reservation’s country side ‘allotted lands’ had been initially assigned to individuals that wanted to be in proximity to each other. Now, a generation later, there were extended families and Clan affiliated communities in this countryside as a result. The language and culture continued to survive through these original traditional Indian community oriented relationships. From the Whiteman point of view, this had to be broken up. So the small country schools were shut down, and it was made against the law not to put your children into the remaining schools at Browning and many Blackfeet were forced to abandon their life and land in the countryside and move into town to put their children into school. The consequence was threefold. It created a crime ridden ghetto on the Southside of Browning and it caused many land related self sufficiency skills in these people to be lost. It also destroyed the social fabric of Blackfeet society that kept the clan relationships together and violence in check. The resultant social cost is staggering. High alcoholism and death rates attend this policy, crime is rampant, social values degraded, inroads have been made by gangs, and, murder, Blackfeet fratricide, almost unknown before, is now common.

The economic cost is no less burdensome. The cost of maintaining subsidized urban housing, taken together with the Busing and buildings maintenance budgets associated with this failed social experiment, the price of attempting to police this unnecessary ghetto created on the high plains of Indian country, all self cycle into draining away resources that might otherwise lift these same people from their grinding poverty.

However forced out of their family, band and clan relationships, taken out of the observational nature based context of the Blackfeet language form, and forced into a large regimented English language only school setting, the desired result of the Whiteman was accomplished. Blackfeet language, and consequently Indian ways, had finally begun to die out.

And it is from this new pool of talent, this ghetto, that we are now finally gifted with the Racist Red Indians, and also the educated Indians that turned their backs on their own people. And neither of these distinctly modern mutant social species is truly Indian, they are not aboriginal, though of aboriginal descent, they are not Human Beings in the sense of the ancient Blackfeet ways, rather they both are variants of the new Blackfeet Americans. And not only the Blackfeet. This is the case with nearly all of today’s tribes.

Let’s look at the Racist Red Indians first. These Indians make up a part of the Indians today that identify themselves as ‘Traditional Indians.’ Nothing could be further from the truth, and the pity of it is they do not even realize this themselves. They are racist because they are angry at the Whiteman. Well, who could blame them? Just review the preceding pages. This is inter-generational anger, well justified. But justified anger will not make these people into Indians.

Wearing ‘FBI’ (Full Blood Indian) baseball caps while singing at a Pow Wow drum, they believe they are traditional Indians. It’s not true. I have personally outdone thousands of these Red wannabee Indians with the sweat  equity time I have invested, given to their own elders and I did not see these people there, over the span of 2 ½ decades. Where were they? Busy impressing people with their Indianess at pow-wows. Pow-wows are not even one hundred years old. The pow-wow as we know it today, is a modern invention in Indian Country. Dance contests for money. Fancy Dance. Indian Tacos. Catholic Mass in the Arena on Sunday Morning. You think this is Indian? It’s simply not true. These people need to sober up, go home and learn their language. And then look at becoming part of real ceremony. In that case you might see someone with a Red skin become an Indian.

This is what AIM needs to do. Yes, the American Indian Movement was justified as a political movement. But now it is time to evolve. Are these people, having won the right to be Indians, now going to throw the hard won opportunity away by continuing to be angry? Many AIM members see themselves as Warriors, but they do not have the whole idea of what this term implies, many of these people did not have access to the traditional teachings of their ancestors. Warriors are not soldiers and they are not mercenaries. Warriors, in native tradition, knew violence only as a self defense on behalf of their people and protection of their territories, and in a more limited sense as a right of passage in daring, in sometimes solo encounters with rival tribes. But these latter were more like inter-tribal Olympic events and less like wars in the Anglo sense. These events were steps in a learning process and personal evolution. That process, ideally, leads to a humility and wisdom that secures the future of Indian peoples. This process of a journey in life, of which being a fighter is only a part, was intended over the long term to prepare fair and balanced leaders. Fair and balanced leaders, by definition, cannot be angry. And this is the core reason that these descendants of the Boarding School Indians did not, could not, seek out their elders. Anger.

Anger cannot learn from the winds that are spirit. Anger cannot pray through the trees. If you are angry and you think you are at Sundance, you are only fooling yourself, the gods will not see you in their dreams. Instead, your anger is reflected back and it hits you. These thoughts, from an angry person, do not go through, the gods do not look at them. And in the old ways, if the gods do not see you, there is a diagnosis. The Medicine Men would determine you have lost your shadow. In the old Indian scheme of things, that meant you were no longer a complete Human Being. Another way the truly authentic Medicine Men have described these lost Indian people among themselves is to consider they are domesticated creatures, like cattle, in the same terms as they see the Whitemen in the most general sense.. as separated from reality, devoid of the understanding of the spirit forms called ‘Naaks’, the real communications and the real dreams that come from living in a proper context with nature are alive in these people no more.

And we are, nowadays, living in a world that is nearly without shadow or the undomesticated spirit that sees the real relationship of Man to Nature through the living ceremony. What can be done about that? The answer can only be had from looking inside. Looking inside, in the Indian sense, means finding home. Go home and be Indian. Learn your language. Bring your elders a Pipe and ask what can be done about your anger. Learn to be an Indian. Discover what it means to know of the Naaks.

If you cannot do this, it means in the final sense that victory belongs to the Evangelical Whiteman.

Now, let’s have a look at the other Blackfeet American, the collaborators, the educated Indian that took his lessons from the Whiteman’s world and turned on his own people. These are the ‘Christianized’ Indians that accepted their reward for turning their backs on their culture. When did I ever see these people at ceremony? They were not there either. Since early captivity times, there has always been a privileged class of Indian, beginning with the first collaborators, the Indians that worked with the United States to subjugate their own peoples. And these people were favored with superior opportunities. Ultimately, these were the Indians that were entrusted with the wealth and power of the new, non traditional Tribal Governments imposed on the tribes by Washington, DC. These people became a new Royal class of Indian that looked down on their Indian brothers that had kept the old ways as ‘Uncle Tom Toms.’ Seeing themselves as superior in every respect, they had no respect whatsoever for the people whose lives they were to dictate for many decades.

In the case of the Blackfeet at Browning, one of these Half-breeds that saw himself as racially and culturally superior to his Blackfeet relatives, Joe Brown, cynically held the first election for a Tribal Council under the newly imposed council system at a curious time. Nearly all of the majority tribal members that would have opposed this new government imposed by the United States (and Joe Browns implementing it) were literally out of the country. Sundance was legal in Canada, and the Montana Blackfeet relatives, the Blood Indians, held this event just across the border. All of Montana’s real Blackfeet Indians were there. So this was the moment that Joe Brown held this new and foreign election for a government to replace the traditional Chiefs with the Whiteman invented Tribal Council. Under the rules mandated by the United States for this election, it required only 1/3 of the tribal membership participate. This would be the Christian Blackfeet that did not Sundance, they would be home to vote. Joe Brown, president of the election board set up to oversee this election, certified himself as the first ever elected Blackfeet Tribal Council Chairman in 1936. If Joe Brown, who supervised the ballot count, was honest when he elected himself the first modern Blackfeet leader, then 16.65 percent + 1 ballot of the tribal membership was all that was required to institute the Blackfeet Nation as we know it today.

But it is not likely at all that Joe Brown was honest. This corrupt inception of the present day Blackfeet Tribal Council persisted for at least fifty years. In the middle 1980’s I was with Pat Kennedy at the Pow-wow at Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana. Earl Old Person, Blackfeet Tribal Chairman, was the Master of Ceremonies. During a break in the proceedings he came over to our Drum, the Starr School Singers, to visit. Mickey Pablo, the Flathead Indian Tribal Chairman also came over. I had once heard Mickey state that his father had told him all he would ever need to know about tribal politics could be learned from Earl Old Person. I was sitting at the drum together with Pat Kennedy when Mickey and Earl began joking about stuffing ballot boxes, tribal elections were coming. The joking abruptly ceased when I picked up our  microphone, and held it up towards them as though I would turn it on.

These Christianized Blackfeet see themselves as a superior Indian. They were indeed a new Royal class of Indian under the protection and patronage of this new Blackfeet form of government. For decades the election process was rigged, this did not matter to the United States, these were the people they wanted in power. Tribal wealth became the personal treasury of these people. One of the plums tossed to the new class of Royals that were not actually on the Tribal Council was to be appointed to the Blackfeet Tribal Credit Program.

A partial audit was done internally for the credit committee, apparently to ‘get the goods’ on a single member. It smacked of vendetta. The terms of the audit, to a private outside contractor, was that only a certain one member of the credit committee’s accounts were to be reviewed. Also it was stipulated the result was to be provided to the committee only, per the statement of the auditor at the beginning of his written findings:

“It is understood that this report is solely for your information and is not to be referred to or distributed for any purpose to anyone that is not a member of the committee of the Blackfeet Credit Program.”

A copy of the report was given to me. This report demonstrated the tribal credit committee members loan themselves, their relatives, their “significant others”, and their friends, monies meant for their Blackfeet peoples, and that these loans among themselves are unrestricted, unsecured, and many times are delinquent or defaulted on when new loans are made to themselves, their lovers, families, and friends. Even though the audit zeros in on a singe credit committee member’s accounts, it implicated other credit officers that had signed off on these criminal acts. The audit states as much with the closing remarks:

“Had we performed additional procedures or had we conducted an audit of the financial statements in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, matters might have come to our attention that would have been reported to you.”

The entire program is corrupt. Many loans are unrecorded, these loans add up to tens of thousands of dollars for single individuals, and I have heard first hand, countless times over the years, from Blackfeet living on the poverty side of the reservation that they were unable to secure fifty dollars emergency money from tribal credit because they had no collateral.

The hard documentation of this corruption was provided to the United States Attorney for Montana and nothing was ever done. Only when the Indians interests directly conflict with the purposes of the officials of the United States, or the USA’s friends in corporate industry, is the United States there to make certain business comes off as it thinks it should. The Blackfeet Nation is intended to starve, to live in perpetual poverty, well into the 21st Century. Amazingly, soundly governed Indian Nations continue to be perceived as a threat by the bully USA, and the cycles of poverty instituted for these peoples by purportedly the greatest nation on earth, must endure.

And it is from this Christianized class of Indian Royals, especially the mixed bloods that were taught to see themselves as both culturally and racially superior to their undeserving ‘Uncle Tom Tom’ relatives, a Royal Class created in the several diverse tribes, that the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs draws its talent pool of employees. Small wonder that somewhere upwards of an estimated one hundred billion dollars is unrecorded, and unaccounted for, to this day, from the treasury that should have served to support these starving peoples.

Relating to the several Indians suing the Department of the Interior over these missing monies in the Federal Court of Judge Royce Lamberth, this is one very salient point that will not come up because neither side will dare open the door to the judge: the fact that the billions of dollars at stake were stolen by the BIA employees in concert with the Tribal Councils and employees of the tribal administrations.

During my years working the investigative case concerning the Blackfeet tribe and looking into Human and Civil Rights abuses by the tribal council, I was familiar with the very issues represented in the lead plaintiff Eloise Cobell. I have first hand knowledge of Blackfeet poverty, and the United States dealings with that tribe, and it is clear to me the marriage between the USA’s Indian Affairs office and the Tribal Councils is incestuous, relating to and driven by control of tribal monies by these Royal criminal cabals.

The history of document shredding relating to these missing monies in contempt of Judge Lamberth’s orders over these past several years should have been red flag enough. I am amazed that the Judge has not ordered a criminal investigation under the circumstance. And has anyone noticed the largely remarkable public silence of the several tribal administrations relating to the records destruction? It is not only the political problem at Interior, that no one wants this to break open on their watch, just try to keep a lid on it until another administration is in place and let them deal with it: The other question is, the follow-up question, is what was the tribal administrations role in the missing monies?

The social history is succinct. Indian Agents in the Department of War in the 19th Century were corrupt administrators charged with creating the original bureaucracy to administer tribes on location. Utilizing for the most part Missionized mixed blood or ‘Christianized’ Indians as assistants who were completely subservient to these administrative heads, the Indian Agents, appointed to their locations by the then so called Great White Father, corruption and embezzlement learned from example became habit within certain privileged Indian families. These Christianized Indian mixed bloods were both favored with tribal administrative positions by the United States and taught to see themselves as superior to their darker, native speaking relatives with whom they no longer shared traditional customs and religion. But now they were responsible to care for these hapless Indians they despised, their ‘heathen’ Blackfeet speaking cousins. When the Department of Interior took over from the Department of War, these same mixed bloods largely moved over to the new Indian Affairs office at Interior, and in tandem with the new Royals in the tribal administrations, the Tribal Councils created by the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, they refined the theft of their own people’s wealth to an art.

Today it is an entitlement, this theft that has sustained certain families or Cabals within the tribes and the Bureau of Indian Affairs for generations. That’s right, an entitlement. Because the idea unchristianized Indians were unworthy was taught, instilled and sustained by the USA for generations in the new Indian Royalty created in the families that have historically controlled the tribes affairs: this has become a part of tribal culture.

The devil in the argument before the court is that neither side will dare tell the truth. But the truth is, it is the old criminal cabal at the tribal local administrative level that is winning. The tribal councils long time partner in crime, Interior, will never be able to admit that it fostered the environment for its own new Royal employees at Indian Affairs to steal the wealth of the Native Nations in tandem with the new Royals that have historically controlled the tribal councils and shared the stolen wealth.

The ultimate irony is the cynical genius in the suit brought by Cobell- and her own past relationship and closeness to the Royals in her own Blackfeet tribe bears investigation. This is a tribe that has one of the worst Human Rights records in all the Americas when it comes to theft and lack of accountability of tribal wealth while keeping its own people forcibly locked in the deepest poverty.. despite this tribes considerable resources.

If Cobell, who bears the family name of the army scout Cobell that riding together with Joe Kipp, lifted his rifle and shot Chief Heavy Runner dead at the 1870 massacre of the Blackfeet on the Marias River, were to win this case relating to not only tribes accounts, but especially individual tribal member accounts and there is restitution or payout, then one (among several) of the most corrupt administrative organizations ever to exist in the western hemisphere will stand to be monetarily reinvigorated for many years, in this case the prime example given: the Blackfeet Tribal Headquarters/Bureau of Indian Affairs administrative complex at Browning Montana. Now the missing billions will be in a position to be stolen twice. Shouldn’t the head of Interior really be asking the plaintiff Cobell “Et tu Brute?” It is the only sensible question that could come before the court.

Perhaps Cobell’s former position as a finance officer of the Blackfeet tribe is a circumstance of heat that was a little too close for comfort and is what caused Chief Earl Old Person to get cold feet and disappear from this suit. Earl in fact vanished from view in this case precisely at the time he was due to give a sworn deposition and produce documents. Cobell wanted him out and asked for his removal, Interior wanted him in and fought his removal. Earl remained missing for months. What could be the real reason why?

Earl wants Interior to keep jurisdiction over the monies. If the Department of Interior had to give up the trust fund to an independent trustee, then chances are much greater that any historic and present ongoing systematic thefts of these monies would come to light.

These many billions of missing dollars will never be found. The most frustrated Federal Judge in North America, Royce Lamberth, presiding for years over the case trying to account for these monies, should offer an amnesty to BIA employees, just so the Indian Nations and the American People can understand the money has vanished, that the United States created Indian Royal Class has stolen and spent it, these monies can never be recovered. And then the United States Interior Secretary Gail Norton can quit lying to Judge Lamberth about the disposition of the plundered Indians treasury. Then Judge Lamberth could quit repeatedly holding successive Department of Interior heads in contempt of court for failing to provide a lawful accounting that in fact cannot exist. Subsequently the Congress could let Norton’s Bureau of Indian Affairs finish the job of shredding the incriminating documents. The truth would be too terrible to behold. And at least one nonsensical fight will have ended.

Unlike the angry AIM, people who can become Indian again, these Royals can never see home. They dare not look inside and go home. They have murdered by theft, through poverty, starvation and opportunity lost, entire generations of their own Peoples. They can never be Indians again.

A chapter from Penucquem Speaks, my book written at the request of Pat Kennedy. Pat had a nearly complete draft of the book read to him by Lorna McMurray, the completed work was published in 2006, not much more than a year after Pat  had died.

Related:

Lost Shadow

Life in Indian Country Collected stories, folklore and anecdotes concerning my many years life with Blackfeet Indians and traversing Native American territories

Spy

A book review by Ronald

A former intelligence officer, Le Carre presenting a proposed corporate ‘Deep State’ is refreshing in and of itself. Le Carre’s proposal has individuals in the intelligence and diplomatic services fighting this cancer with a deep, personal conviction the rule of law should prevail. This is noble and patriotic. Le Carre’s implied extent to which this “Deep State’ cancer has advanced is not necessarily detached from reality. With his background, one must presume he knows what he is writing about.

As a former American intelligence professional who’d worked with Special Forces  veterans of CIA operations, I am not intimately familiar with the British services but the novel rings true nonetheless. If the assertions Le Carre lays out in his novel were sworn affidavits presented in a court of law, none of the assertions would surprise me. I would draw a comparison of the character ‘J Crispin’ to Erik Prince and his fictitious corporation ‘Ethical Outcomes’ could easily be Blackwater. Keith Olbermann’s four part series (exposé) of Blackwater is not dissimilar:

 

Le Carre’s implied portrayal of neo-liberalism (New Labor) being essentially indistinct from neo-conservatives, is actually not far off the mark. These two necrotic social phenomena, more often than not, share strategic goals in the Middle East, if for differing motivations, with narcissistic neo-liberal ‘humanitarian violence’ imposing western values on the one side, and a neo-conservative de facto war on Islam generating terror while pursuing the so-called ‘war on terror’ on the other. Both appear equally willing to subvert western democracies constitutional order to achieve their ends. When all is said and done, both serve the interests of a war profiteering motivated, corporate board based ‘Deep State’ imbedded throughout government via corruption. Despite the two sides differing philosophical motivations, when contrasted in reality in a practical sense, Le Carre is absolutely correct to conflate the outcome. The present day irony of the Bush/Blair partnership swapped for Obama/Cameron partnership, with seamless USA/UK policy continuity, fits LeCarre’s fused neo-liberal/neo-conservative ‘Deep State’ hypothesis quite well.

The Le Carre novel ‘A Delicate Truth’ is interesting for the right reasons and presents a superior counter-point to the neo-conservative David Ignatius’ visceral Islamophobia driven, false patriotism in the much inferior novel “Body of Lies.’ Le Carre treats the innocent Muslim victims of an illegal, botched ‘anti-terror’ operation with a compassion that demands respect for humanity via the rule of law, regardless of race, religion or creed; as opposed to Ignatius seeming to believe the CIA’s 2 wrongs, 10 wrongs or 100 wrongs violating the rule of law, can arrive at a ‘the end justifies the means’ or a ‘right’ outcome in the western democracies engagement of the Islamic world. The juxtaposition of the two is interesting to me, as one wonders how far removed from reality it might be to propose a competition within the British spy institutions, pitting ethics motivated personalities against a corporate board corrupt, ‘Deep State’ compelled control over institutions of government. Le Carre’s novel suggests precisely such a competition. Human nature alone would back his implied proposition and I would expect Le Carre had philosophical discourse on the subject with current British intelligence professionals and knows what precisely what this is about. As well, his descriptions closely match some dissident intelligence assessments in the American intelligence world. The character ‘Toby’ could easily be an Edward Snowden personality, were the novel a historical fiction set in the USA. In this sense, the book is very nearly prophetic. Insofar as British similarities described by Le Carre, to what I will call ‘neo-American’ corruption of the USA’s democratic institutions in reality, delivers a well earned irony to the term ‘special relationship.’ That Americans play a significant corruption role in his novel of a corrupted British state, pretty much says it all.

Separately altogether, the first chapter having no context, but brought into context by well paced following chapters, as a literary device, could lose readers who do not pick up a book again, when a first chapter seems to make little sense. For this reason and especially because of the needless, gratuitous violence in the beating (nearly to death) of protagonist ‘Toby’ at the novel’s close, I gave the book four stars rather than five. Heroes do not require brutal beatings to prove they will have done the right thing in any case. By this time the reader will already, as well Toby in the novel, quite clearly understand the evil nature of the people Toby is contending with.

A synopsis of the legal rationale of this article is this: when the USA joined the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (a multi-lateral treaty with force of international law) but held out the treaty would be “non-self-executing”, the USA essentially claimed its own constitutional principles would enforce the treaty’s provisions. This places the USA in a unique circumstance of substituting its own provisions of law for the provisions enumerated in the International Covenant. In this case, Snowden should argue the Obama administration’s demonstrable violation of foundational American principles of law are subject to interpretation relevant to his rights under the treaty, in any nation he should apply for asylum in. Restated, Snowden can put the USA’s record, in relation to its own civil liberties provisions, on trial in any suit he might bring in jurisdiction where the treaty may be enforced, examples given, Germany and subsequently the European Court of Human Rights.

Use of ‘The Espionage Act’ to prosecute whistle-blowers by the Obama administration is unfortunate reality. It is unprecedented persecution by a sublime neo-liberal political liar & cohorts, but it is presently matter of fact circumstance and what people like Snowden must contend with when considering any act of willful transparency in defiance of secrecy law.

Because it is unlikely use of the Espionage Act to prosecute whistle-blowing will be struck down by the courts, particularly with a Supreme Court majority aligned with the ‘Federalist Society’ whose neo-conservative agenda will sometimes converge with neo-liberal objectives, particularly in philosophy of supremacy concerning the executive in matters of security, one must develop a robust constitutional foundation for defense of whistle-blowing.

In the case of Snowden, he also should show a valid rationale of why the United States Constitution’s Article Six ‘supremacy clause’ .. “and any treaty made shall be the supreme law of the land” applied in the offensive sense versus the United States, as opposed defending himself, in regards to claims the multi-lateral treaty “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights” should protect him.

How this is a legal necessity in Snowden’s case arises from the USA being party to the treaty and how the treaty might or might not be applied in American courts. Legitimacy of claim for political asylum must be established in relation to not only the treaty’s general provisions, but it must be shown the USA’s relationship to the treaty is presently a relationship of bad faith.

Other issues that play in any defense of Snowden, to show he is not in violation of the Espionage Act, is Private Manning’s conviction & what constitutes a legitimate whistle-blow as opposed to malicious leaking of secrets, what is a valid press vehicle (Manning and WikiLeaks? Snowden and the Guardian? Yes or no in individual and separate circumstance) and how Snowden’s case would likely sort out in American courts in the present climate of law and politics. And it must be shown the decision to pursue Snowden is a political persecution at odds with law.

This defense of Snowden begins with disposing of Manning as a comparable case.

The neo-liberal New York Times has on several occasions resorted to torture lawyer John Yoo for legal opinions and recently Yoo had suggested WikiLeaks does not qualify as legitimate journalism under the American philosophy of law governed by the American constitution’s First Amendment. In other words. WikiLeaks cannot be claimed as a valid outlet for whistle-blowers under American law, particularly in relation to the case of Private Manning.

Manning’s case is significantly different than that of Snowden, and in any case Yoo’s suggestion would not apply to Snowden who leaked to The Guardian. But let’s look at the at-large & uncharged criminal Yoo’s idea, to compare the two cases a bit, particularly in regards to the Espionage Act and what constitutes legitimate journalism or a free press in American law.

Firstly, American military law, the “Uniform Code of Military Justice”, should not be conflated with the American federal criminal code and associated case law, they are separate animals. When you enter the military, you surrender your politics in relation to performing your duty and the only natural avenue of dissent is to refuse illegal orders. In effect, as a soldier, the only possibly justifiable leaks would be having to do with war crimes, orders to commit crimes or concealment of crimes by the military per se, or crimes against the constitution by your superiors. Politics do not play as a defensible action for whistle-blowing in the American military. To quote an Admiral addressing a West Point graduating class, in relation to the United States military having always been under civilian control, if you don’t like the policies “vote with your feet” (leave the military.) Manning could have taken that advice to heart, his defense of moral conscience had no chance in the military justice structure. This is old news in American military experience, quoting Robert E Lee’s observation on his artillery slaughter of advancing Union soldiers: “It is good war is so terrible, or we should become too fond of it.” Manning could not expect to act on a social conscience in relation to military experience, having joined voluntarily an organization whose nature is apolitical violence, however that violence might be at the direction of politics, politics is not the soldiers job.

The hard truth is, the American constitution’s First Amendment protects several things and political lies are protected speech. In this respect, until there were to be a change to the foundational law, American law is amoral. In the case of the ‘cables’ leak, example given, there Manning made no defense of any crime against the American constitution and in fact the greater or overall thrust of the cables, as despicable as this is, concerns revealing perfectly legal political lies in geo-politics. Insofar as Yoo’s assertion of WikiLeaks as a whistle-blowing platform having no press freedom protection under American law, he may have it ½ right. When considering charges brought under the Espionage Act in an American court, one would need a trump card and crimes against the American constitution should constitute such. But Manning did not present any defense related to this and WikiLeaks has never made a case the USA’s purported violations of press freedoms meet this test per American law in relation to any failure to conform to its international law obligations. To conform to journalism standards protected by the American First Amendment, when faced with charges brought under the Espionage Act, one would have to convincingly show a political nature of the prosecution attending crimes against the constitutional order. Massive dumps of  unrelated and unorganized or functionally incoherent information do not meet the necessary legal test to qualify as journalism in this regard. In metaphor, Manning & WikiLeaks fail the law on account of behaving as a harvested organs black market as opposed to acting as a legitimate medical professional’s prescribed transfusion in a proper setting of surgery. They didn’t conform to presenting cohesive facts in telling a story that highly restricted the leaked documents to a context of making points in a socially responsible and news worthy presentation, serving society in a positive sense.

The military judge’s niggardly acknowledgement Manning was patently and illegally treated (tortured) in his detention is an altogether unrelated issue in law with no bearing on the present subject.

The case of Snowden is fundamentally different.

In the case of the USA signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in relation to American basic or foundational law, The American constitution’s Article Six is straightforward on its face “any treaty made shall be the supreme law of the land.”  But it is, of course, not this simple. The treaty in question has been ratified by the Americans in large part as “non-self-executing” which is a legal fiction indicating American law already covers the most fundamental rights promised by the treaty. In other words, the USA claim in relation to the treaty is one of ‘our laws are already in compliance and we have all of the treaty’s demands covered.’ And so it is, in any USA court, although a judge may consider the treaty in her/his ‘finding of facts and conclusions of law’, the laws applied will in fact be American laws and interpretations in relation to any question of rights promised by the International Covenant.

This preceding would place Snowden’s rights squarely in the case law of the USA were he to be tried in any American federal court, in actuality the rights promised in the treaty itself are already become in a sense moot in relation any American prosecution, where there is no political will to enforce the treaty’s provisions, demonstrated in the decision to prosecute to begin with.

To show pursuing Snowden is a political decision trumping the rule of law, one must examine the facts of how American laws are applied in a negative political light.

In the USA, federal judges are political appointments, pure and simple. The executive provides lists of desired appointments to fill court positions to the senate for confirmation and that is it. That the senate often fights among themselves over the appointments, that the appointments are often long delayed, cannot conceal the fact every sitting United States federal judge is the result of raw politics. That merit does not presently play in this process is amply demonstrated by the fact Bush administration torture lawyer Jay Bybee became a sitting federal appellate judge and there is no movement whatsoever to impeach and remove Bybee from the bench since it had become public knowledge Bybee authored memos justifying torture.

That American judges are not bound to the rights promised in the International Covenant is ably demonstrated by the fact a sitting supreme court justice had, as a federal judge, let an innocent man rot eight additional years in prison on a rules technicality, when exculpatory evidence showing the man’s innocence had been produced for the court, prior to the justice’s appointment by  Obama and confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States.

In the United States theory of law there is a known and in the past applied concept called ‘color of law.’ Color of law is when the apparatus of state puts up a pretense of legitimate authority to pursue what are in fact illegal acts.

 In the case of the FISA court authorizing PRISM and one must presume XkeyScore revealed by Snowden, there is ZERO constitutional foundation for any secret jurisprudence violating citizens’ rights laid out in the first through eighth amendments or American Bill of Rights, which the FISA court in fact sets out to do. When the constitutional language authorizing congress to create courts is construed in a way to cancel out other clauses of the constitution, there cannot be legitimacy where a constitutional oxymoron has been created. It is precisely the American Bill of Rights the USA holds is binding it to conformity to the International Covenant.

Congressional leaders Diane Feinstein and John Boehner have used the terms ‘treason’ and ‘traitor’ in relation to Snowden, poisoning the jury pool on a national basis, HOWEVER; 

any actual criminal acts defined as treason in the American sense under any authentic American ‘de jure’ rule of law are those persons putting forth a pretense the secret court authorizing civil liberties violations are legitimate. This points first to the Congress authoring patently unconstitutional legislation, then second, to any president signing and implementing such unlawful authority and subsequently, any Chief Justice appointing members of said secret court, and finally those persons accepting and serving FISA, these are the ‘traitors’ if the USA constitution were to mean anything in the present day, when in fact it would appear it does not. 

Obama must have been a terrible law professor or he has simply thrown out any principled view of American foundational law when ensconced in the halls of power. Diane Feinstein claiming “PRISM is legal” (one must presume she holds the same view of XkeyScore) because it had been approved by the FISA court, is patent ‘color of law’ and should be held as precisely such in any un-politicized judicial determination.

Obama’s disregard for the American foundational law is perhaps best demonstrated by his vote as Senator giving immunity to the telecoms, when the telecoms had played ball with criminals in the Bush administration (we now know likely had been authorized by the FISA court, on account of Snowden’s revelations), participating in what amounted to warrant-less searches and eves-dropping without a warrant, stealing and handing over peoples personal information in criminal acts Americans had been historically protected from by the USA constitution and pertinent laws, the 4th Amendment of the USA Bill of Rights particularly.

These violations should have opened the telecom corporations to both criminal penalties and civil liabilities. There were crimes committed which should have been prosecuted and people have a right to sue. The potential liability looked pretty big and the telecoms lobbied for immunity. The following constitutional violations were endorsed by Obama’s Senate vote:

1) ex post facto. The USA constitution specifically prohibits Congress making any “ex post facto” law, as typically or historically applied that means a behavior cannot be criminalized after the fact and applied retroactively, or more broadly, new laws cannot be made governing an event that is in the past. In this 2nd case we have a valid constitutional claim prohibiting making a law excusing past criminal civil liberties violations against our citizens, violations which had created liabilities. What is required for the criminal aspect solely, is a PARDON

2) legislative pardon: Congress cannot give pardons to the individuals within the telecoms who’d signed off on and perpetrated the crimes, that is reserved by the USA constitution to the president and neither can the congress or the president pardon corporations in any manner excusing civil liability, the corporations must be held accountable and seek any leniency based on possible mitigation factors from the courts, because [3 & 4 combine to make a constitutional principle]

3) the” right to petition for redress” is promised to every citizen who has been wronged and

4) “suit at equity”, that is, the courts existing to do what is right by the citizen, is the avenue provided by the USA’s constitution to fulfill the promise of every wronged citizen’s ‘right to petition for redress’ or it should be said there is no right of corporate or government impunity. Citizen’s petitions for remedies and compensation may not be preemptively denied fair hearing, in the USA’s courts of law by the Congress

The oath to uphold the USA’s constitution had been meant to prevent such patently wrong laws in the first instance. When this oath is become patently meaningless, as in the case of the majority of congress, points squarely to the core of corrupt process usurping the USA foundational law.

Obama’s proposal to create a court to oversee the USA’s drone strikes are an admission the targeted killings of Anwar al-Awaliki and his son, both American citizens, were extra-judicial assassinations, that, and congressmen proposing to amend the FISA law to create an advocate for the American public in presentations before the secret court, which to now has only heard the executive side arguments, are an admission there is no compulsory (constitutionally required) due process for citizens in the secret venue. Both of these proposals underscore overwhelming fact the USA institutions of governance have become removed practically altogether from its foundational rule of law. The very fact nearly the entirety of any ‘legal rationales’ related to the preceding phenomena are classified ‘state secrets’ reinforces the argument of a regime denying the people and the peoples advocates any avenue to right the ship of state per the constitutional order.

This degenerate state of American law, beginning at the top, with Obama, should be Snowden’s first line of defense, where he can correctly testify he was trapped by law requiring secrecy surrounding crimes against the constitutional order, and it had to be the American oath to “uphold the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic”, as a personal conviction, prevailed.

That Snowden cannot get a fair trial in the USA would be his follow-on argument in presenting the persona or legal track record of Obama’s Attorney General; Eric Holder.

Point one in fact, Snowden should not have been charged by Holder’s Department of Justice in the 1st instance, we can already see the prosecution is political punishment for revealing crimes against the American constitutional order.

To give additional legitimate legal cover to any State that would provide Snowden asylum under the International Covenant, having already shown the American political establishment holds its own citizens’ rights in contempt, we look at top American law enforcement officer Eric Holder, a political appointment who serves at the pleasure of Obama, and his track record in relation to a person’s rights.

REPEATEDLY, Holder’s Department of Justice has denied discovery in evidence in suits brought by victims of both; torture and warrant-less surveillance, citing “national security” and “state secrets” arguments, which have been routinely rubber stamped by American federal courts, denying the fundamental “Right to petition for redress” per the American foundational law. This, despite a past Supreme Court decision finding federal common law prohibits executive privilege or state secrets denying the right to petition for redress in the case of six unknown (to the plaintiff) federal agents in an illegal invasion of a private home, pointing to the present regime of American law patently ignoring its own principles. Holder’s Department of Justice should have settled rather than shut down the cases of the plantiffs.

Holder’s Department of Justice has assiduously protected the Bush criminal regime by refusing to bring warranted prosecutions. Directly relevant to this, because of Snowden’s revelations, we now know both the Bush and Obama administrations had engaged in egregious crimes against the American constitutional order, all with the approval of the secret FISA court

It should be noted as well, Holder having been at the nexus of a ‘color of law’ arrangement (legalized bribe) where Chiquita Corporation paid a fine, and in return the identities of those Chiquita executives responsible for giving cash and machine guns to the AUC terrorist group which went on to murder approximately 4,000 people, had their identities concealed under seal in lieu of prosecution. Obama’s Attorney General altogether fails on Ethics, he should be prosecuted for frustrating the course of justice but instead has been elevated to Attorney General of the United States and you don’t get much stronger evidence of a state in violation of its own rule of law.

Another note would be judicial forum shopping, where Holder’s Department of Justice would almost certainly choose to prosecute Snowden in the federal district most likely sympathetic to the government’s stance in this case. With a judge willing to deny any line of argument to Snowden based on his obligation as a patriotic American compelled to act on crimes against the constitutional order, his fate would be sealed, as any jury would not be allowed to consider such argument in Snowden’s defense.

How the preceding arguments can be tied to the American obligations to the International Covenant is quite simple; “no nation may go against its own acts” is an international common law principle as old as Rome, and when the USA asserts its own constitutional principles are the glue that binds its obligation to uphold the International Covenant with its ‘non-self-executing’ ratifying rationale, the USA cannot undermine its own constitutional principles in regards to individual rights and be construed to be in good standing with the treaty. It is not only going against the act of its own foundational law, it is doing this violation having bound its foundational law to the International Covenant and is therefore going against the treaty it has committed itself to, when by act of non-self-executing rationale, it entered Snowden’s American constitutional rights per se into force of international law, subject to adjudication under the general principles of the International Covenant in diverse jurisdiction.

With this preceding outline fleshed out with the copious evidence available in the public record, Snowden could retain excellent German lawyers, walk this legal argument into the German embassy in Moscow, file it with a petition for political asylum and sue in the European Court of Human Rights when or if asylum were turned down by Germany and subsequently the German courts.

Insofar as associating with WikiLeaks, Snowden cannot help Manning’s case except to provide fodder for pro-Manning political cannons, but association with and any legal comparisons to Manning’s case certainly could eventually bring Snowden’s case down in abject failure. A personal note to Snowden: you are being used by WikiLeaks, and this could be to your absolute disadvantage.

© Ronald Thomas West. This article may be reproduced in full with attribution to the author

 

S1