Video courtesy of StormCloudsGathering
Video courtesy of CorbettReport
Video courtesy of Gallawayist.
Video courtesy of Chris Conquers
Video courtesy of The Corbett Report
by A.C. Johnson
Is Edward Snowden a whistle-blowing patriot or a lying traitor? After watching his recent interview with NBC News anchor and softball player Brian Williams, I have the answer. Snowden is not telling us the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Why is that a surprise? By his own admission, Snowden is a spy. Spies lie.
The interview makes it evident Snowden is here to snow us into believing the official 9/11 fairy tale, the Boston Marathon street theater, and to make us believe our national security apparatus lacks competency. His job is to make sure we know the extent of NSA surveillance conducted upon us, while pushing the story that this intelligence is incompetently interpreted and processed: a giant “haystack” that the NSA lacks the ability to understand.
What a joke. What a lie. What a useful fellow he is.
Snowden is lauded as opening a dialogue about mass surveillance yet one year later not a single major NSA program has been halted. Nothing he has revealed so far is novel information. The PRISM leak was already known. In these weak revelations, the true Snowden agenda emerges.
It is important that we know we are being spied on constantly so we watch not only what we do, but what we say and what we write. This is a critical component of a surveillance agenda. The final piece of that puzzle is ensuring that the sheeple police themselves because that creates a mental habit: Watch what you think.
Snowden is part of a grand tradition of officially sanctioned whistleblowers that includes Daniel Ellsburg, Thomas Drake and Julian Assange (who ‘hid’ in Britain where MI5 apparently couldn’t find him). Like Assange before him, Snowden has gotten a lot of press. You can be certain that Hollywood does not make movies or give airtime to real whistleblowers.
Why do you think Oliver Stone is making the Ed Snowden story and not the Willy Rodriguez story?
Look at what is missing in his 9/11 film, “World Trade Center”. William Rodriguez was the last man in the North Tower and rescued 15 people from the WTC. This man risked his own life, re-entering the Towers three times. He survived the collapse by diving under a firetruck at the last minute. His story would make a great film. But Rodriguez openly talks about the explosions he heard in the Tower before it was hit with a plane. Rodriguez, a true whistleblower, is ignored by the elite-controlled mainstream press.
When the spying revelations were revealed, Obama promised modest changes to NSA surveillance while reinforcing the false narrative of 9/11 and claiming that “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…”
The result was passage of the USA Freedom Act, a piece of legislation that does little to impede domestic spying. The Orwellian named Freedom Act was supposedly a bipartisan effort to restore Americans’ civil liberties in the wake of Snowden’s revelations. But of course the most important reforms in the USA Freedom Act fell by the wayside during negotiations, leaving a law that, in the words of Rep. Justin Amash, “codified a large-scale, unconstitutional domestic spying program.” Mission accomplished.
My first red flag was when Snowden showed up virtually at the TED2014 conference for a conversation with TED curator and Snowden’s legal advisor, Chris Anderson. Snowden tells us how we can take back our online privacy which, according to this technical specialist/cybersecurity expert, means “enabling SSL or web encryption on every page you visit” to prevent intelligence agencies from finding out what you are looking at online. Because the NSA can’t break your over-the-counter encryption? Call me skeptical, but that sounds like bullshit.
The second red flag was reading Noam Chomsky’s article in TruthOut on June 2, 2014 titled Edward Snowden, the World’s Most Wanted Criminal. Chomsky calls Snowden “a courageous fighter for freedom” and lauds his actions in revealing the massive scope of NSA spying, along with Snowden’s collaborator, Glenn Greenwald. While describing the “instructive lessons on the nature of state power and the forces that drive state policy” provided by Snowden’s reveal, it is noteworthy that Chomsky does not acknowledge the leverage that spying provides – through coercion and blackmail – in the management of both foreign and domestic policy.
It is the kind of significant oversight expected from somebody so carefully selective in his dissenting views. Chomsky tries to distract from the most important conclusion to be drawn from the reality of a massive spy program – how can we trust our officials, our judges or our politicians when they may be compromised?
If we didn’t have Snowden to convincingly reinforce the surveillance agenda, the State would not be able to rely on us frisky citizens to police ourselves. It would be forced to pull off the velvet gloves and punish us for what we say. If that happened, Americans might actually stand up on their hind legs and start roaring.
Call me a dreamer, I still think they might.
One of history’s most ironic statements was made by then president George W. Bush on September 20th, 2001. Addressing the world arena in a highly publicized address to a joint session of the House, he declares: “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”
Once again, our contemporary Orwellian world is realized through Merriam-Webster’s definition of terrorism:
For example, the state uses violent acts of torture to extract a confession, which serves the political purpose of supporting the torturer’s narrative. Fear is the message received by both the gullible and the suspicious. The gullible accept the establishment’s fable and fear the purported enemy du jour. Those who suspect the reliability of a confession extracted through torture live in fear for a different reason. Anyone can be tortured into confessing anything.
Imagine if our country was the genuine recipient of an attack by rogue, extra-governmental outside invaders. If the state had a sincere desire to locate and prosecute the culprits, it would recognize the absurdity of using torture to achieve its end. In today’s reality, torture is a tool for propaganda aimed at promoting the official doctrine of state terrorists.
State torture is an act of terrorism. It adheres to the definition of terrorism unless the state throws that definition into the memory hole where the Bush legal team dropped a previous definition of torture.
Under the watch of George W. Bush, the U.S. Attorney General’s office attempted to legally sanctify the use of torture by introducing a variety of ‘permissible methods of interrogation’ in the wake of 9/11. Sleep deprivation, binding in stress positions, and waterboarding were some of the techniques approved by the Bush administration’s legal counsel. Over a year ago, the Constitution Project released a 600 page report about detentions and torture since the 9/11 attacks. The project’s report clearly states “it is indisputable that the United States engaged in the practice of torture” and further elaborates about the extent to which torture was entertained in the Bush administration. While atrocities occurred in past wars, members of the Constitution Project have never before seen:
the kind of considered and detailed discussions that occurred after 9/11 directly involving a president and his top advisers on the wisdom, propriety and legality of inflicting pain and torment on some detainees in our custody.”
There was careful deliberation over political outcome of various torture atrocities after 9/11. Below is an illustration of those in the Bush hierarchy involved with the planning, justification, and execution of torture policies still in effect under the Obama Administration. If forensic evidence fails to overcome the cognitive dissonance of those who still believe the official explanation for 9/11, remind them of today’s suspicious, extreme measures used in the continual harvest of 9/11 patsies.
It is the aim of a nation ruled by terrorists to render its population defenseless. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, having no qualms about the fast and furious distribution of arms to the Sinaloa drug cartel in Mexico, wants to hamper U.S. gun owners with biometric locks.
To get an idea of the extent of Holder’s desire to disarm the public, a video of his address to the Women’s Democratic Club in 1995 shows him instructing the group to promote distaste, contempt and fear of a common tool that was historically essential for winning their freedoms. Gun hysteria must metastasize with “every day, every school, and every level”.
This earlier campaign planted the seed for the now infamous incidents of children being disciplined for pointing pencils like pistols or eating pop-tarts in an impressionable manner. This is the culture diverting generations away from their natural rights through the diminished expectations behind a curriculum like Common Core which is designed to accommodate a fresh damaged batch of impressionables crippled by environmental toxins, geo-engineering, deadly food additives, genetic modifications and vaccines,
Like any other terrorist, Eric Holder clearly intends to avoid any pushback from his victims. He has actively paved the way for an ideal circumstance that creates a gross imbalance of power. One intimidating demonstration of this imbalance is the act of terrorism that killed U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki without due process. Under the banner of the so-called ‘war on terror’, this particular U.S. war crime relies on the executive branch as a ‘suspected’ citizen’s accuser, judge, jury and executioner. The public is to understand that there would be no opportunity for this undesirable citizen to realize he is targeted, know what he is accused of or confront his accusers. That unruly person has somehow already sealed his fate according to Obama’s executive star chamber. Eric Holder serves as an accessory to this crime by actively misleading the public as to the legality of such extrajudicial executions and pushing public acceptance of a government without a constitution. Clouding the appearance of these types of crimes, Holder cries “extraordinary circumstance” and ironically refers to the two most preventable of extraordinary circumstances – 9/11 and Pearl Harbor. See how he pretends to be obtuse about the U.S. Constitution under a gentle inquiry:
Holder is fully aware of how the Constitution constrains government over-reach. He’s simply violating his oath of office by misleading the public about the purpose of various rights like the 2nd Amendment. In the first video clip above, he talks about how a citizen is able to “enjoy their Second Amendment rights” by using an electronic bracelet that enables the ‘authorized owner’ to use a specific gun. Holder is perpetuating the illusion of the 2nd amendment being useful only for outdoor sports. When somebody is exercising their 2nd amendment rights as they were intended, it is hardly an enjoyable experience. Expect life threatening situations involving the stress of combat for fending off an attacker or a tyrannical government. It’s Holder’s intent to make it difficult to exercise what the 2nd Amendment was truly intended to protect. This is a logical goal for a terrorist regime and the Constitution has a remedy for situations like these:
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
— Declaration of Independence, 1776