Third Party Debates and UFAA Offer a Road Map for Political Success

Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post
October 26, 2012

At times in America, it seems like there are at least two very different but parallel realities in existence. In one of these realities, the population has accepted total government/corporate control over the entirety of their lives; whereas, in the other, the population has rejected that notion.

Likewise, there appears to be a universe where perpetual war is accepted by the masses as a necessity; while, in the other, the populace recognizes the necessity of ending it.

Concurrently, one philosophy holds that a ravaged planet, large-scale death, and a constant culture of want is nothing more than collateral damage, while the other is doing its best to envision a world in which these conditions no longer exist.

Of course, those individuals participating in the second version of reality – the one seeking to free humanity from the clutches of the first – have a vast disagreement on how to do so. While some may approach the implementation of much needed changes from the left, others may approach it from the right. Others may approach changing the establishment from a completely unique position.

Regardless, it is undeniable that it is the first set of individuals who are granted virtually all of the air time and all of the so-called “credibility” in any given debate. In polite and traditional society, alternative (itself a pejorative term) ideas are ridiculed if they are ever able to slip by the gatekeepers of the phony left-right paradigm seeking to relegate the human mind to malevolently-constructed boundaries.


However, on October 23, 2012, it seems that alternative voices did manage to slip past those boundaries even if it was only for a brief hour. Of course, this was not because there is a groundswell of American voters who will be voting third party this year; and it certainly was not because the mainstream media decided to abruptly shift gears and begin covering legitimate news and opinion. It was because, despite the enormous roadblocks placed in front of any third party candidate, four “third parties” simply went ahead with a debate that they have been banned from having in front of a mainstream audience ever since recent memory permits.

In keeping with the “parallel universe” theme, the third party debate -- thanks in large part to the participation of Larry King who brought with him some level of mainstream media capital -- aired an alternative path to many Americans watching the Obama/Romney theatre. The true positive aspects of the airing of the debate was not in the outcome in the upcoming election (no one truly has any expectations of this), it was in the fact that in an election year where the two candidates struggle even to appear different in the presentation of their messages, visions of an alternative America, for a split second, managed to slip through.

Obviously, we should not overemphasize the effects of the third party debate. We cannot allow ourselves to be overtaken with false hope or an inflated sense of what has taken place. However, we must not fall into the trap of hopelessness either. If anything, the third party debate should encourage those of us who are actually fighting to change the wasteland that is America into a garden of plenty that much more reason to continue our work.

Wars cannot be won using a purely defensive strategy. Nor can they be successful by using only one type of offense. Civil disobedience, non-compliance, and education all have their place and all three are indispensable methods of resistance. However, we cannot ignore the political system as a mechanism for bringing about the change we desire to see.

On October 30, 2012, a second “third party” debate between the candidates who received the most votes from the viewing audience at the first event is scheduled to take place. This time, the hopes are that even more attention will be focused on the event than there was the first time around, particularly the attention of the average American voter.

The second debate, organized by Free and Equal, comes three days on the heels of the United Front Against Austerity conference, which takes place on October 27, a gathering of noted individuals opposed to the economic and civic implosion of the United States and specifically the implementation of austerity measures upon the American people. Most notably, it is the goal of the UFAA to hammer out a platform of demands by which to base a true revolution and political movement.

The development of a set of demands has, of course, been one of my own talking points for the better part of a year as one may read in my article, “The American Corporate Party and the Derailing of Revolution” and my book, Five Sense Solutions.

The UFAA conference will involve a series of addresses, both live and recorded, from distinguished speakers, as well as 4+ hours of moderated presentation of proposals and subsequent debate.

The UFAA is not only focused on a platform, however, it is also focusing on the development of organization, a strategy and road map for political success, and the attraction of leadership to the cause.

In the end, for all of the obstacles that we face and with the overall worsening of the condition regarding the fate of free humanity on a global scale, there are avenues of resistance that not only provide outlets for that resistance but for its success. These two gatherings – the next Free And Equal third party debate and the UFAA – may very well be the first hints of motion by one of the many vehicles we may use to free ourselves.

Without a doubt, we must take advantage of every opportunity that comes our way.

For more information on the dates and times or other general inquiries into these events, please see the following:

Free and Equal Third Party Debate                          United Front Against Austerity

Tuesday, October 30 2012                                            Saturday, October 27, 2012

FreeAndEqual.org                                                           www.againstausterity.org

9-10pm EST                                                                         12-6 pm EST

RT America and RT.com                                                 Live Streaming available at this link

INN World Report Auditorium
56 Walker St. New York City, NY

Read other articles by Brandon Turbeville here.

Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Mullins, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor's Degree from Francis Marion University and is the author of three books, Codex Alimentarius -- The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, and Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident. Turbeville has published over 175 articles dealing on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville's podcast Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV.  He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.

Romney's Corporate Ties Point to Election Fraud on November 6

Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post
October 23, 2012

Author’s Note: This article should not be interpreted as favoring one candidate over another or as suggesting that there is any difference between the two – only as making an attempt to present concerns regarding potential election fraud in Ohio that may influence the Presidential election.

Anthony Freda Art

Amidst the farcical election fury being hyped and circulated by the mainstream media, political pundits are already hailing Ohio as a battleground state. After all, with statistics showing that no Republican President since JFK in 1960 has ever been elected to the position without receiving Ohio’s electoral votes, this can hardly be denied.

Without waxing too hard on Ohio, it is clear that the state, as it is in every Presidential election, is one of the important ones.

This is precisely why the Romney-backed voting machines which are going to be in place in at least two Ohio counties this election day is so concerning.

Essentially, via the family equity fund Solamere and its filtered investments in H.I.G. Capital, both the Romney family and campaign hold a serious share and connection to three out of 5 board members in Hart Intercivic, a company that itself owns the voting machines to be used at select locations like Hamilton County (Cincinnati) in Ohio, as well as other locations across the country. It should be noted that the Hart Intercivic machines are notorious for their malfunctions.

As previously stated, the initial source of connection between the Romney faction and the Hart Intercivic machines begins with the family equity fund known as Solamere, which coincidentally bears the name of the wealthy Utah ski resort frequented by the Romney family.

As Lee Fang of The Nation reports, the Solamere fund was founded by Mitt’s son, Tagg Romney as well as Mitt’s campaign finance chair, Spencer Zwick. Both Mitt’s wife, Ann, and his brother, G. Scott, are also invested in the fund. Obviously, Mitt Romney himself has contributed some money of his own, $10 million to be exact, as “seed money,” even personally speaking at the fund’s first full investors conference.

It should also be noted that Romney’s western regional finance coordinator, Kaitlin O’Reilly, and his finance director, Richard Morley, have both come from Solamere’s roster with O’Reilly being listed as an executive assistant at the equity fund.

O’Reilly is also listed as an executive assistant at SJZ LLC, a campaign finance consulting firm founded by her boss and fellow founder of Solamere as well as Romney campaign finance chair Spencer Zwick. As Truthout mentions, SJZ LLC has billed the Romney campaign over $2 million for its services in his presidential run. Also bearing notice is the fact that the firm has billed around $9,687,582 to other Congressional campaigns.

One more individual deserving dishonorable mention is Marc J. Leder, the host of the private fundraiser where Mitt made his now infamous “47%” remarks. Leder is the co-CEO of Sun Capital, another “partner” of Solamere.

Unfortunately, Solamere’s website has been reduced to a single front page, making it that much more difficult to discover the rest of the fund’s “partners.” However, some rare but real reporting is beginning to aid in the piecing together of the puzzle.

It is important to understand that Solamere is different from other private equity firms in that it does not make investments in companies directly. Instead, the fund invests with other funds, which it calls partners, and then directs the investments from there.

One of these co-called partners with the Solamere fund is H.I.G. Capital, the fund used to invest in the third largest voting machine manufacturer in the nation.

As reported by Truthout.org, H.I.G. Capital maintains at least three close associates of the Romney family on its board of directors. Furthermore, Directors John P. Bolduk and Douglas Berman are both major Romney supporters and fundraisers. Likewise for the H.I.G. manager Brian Shortsleeve.

Even more interesting is that nearly one third of H.I.G.’s leadership personnel have previously worked at Romney’s Bain Capital firm of asset stripping fame. To date, approximately $338,000 have been raised for Romney’s campaign by  H.I.G. employees.

The make-up and the Romney-related investment connections of H.I.G. are relevant in regards to their subsequent relationship to Hart Intercivic, the company that owns the notoriously faulty electronic voting machines mentioned earlier.

Indeed, H.I.G. is a major investor in Hart Intercivic, and an indirect connection to the Romney family via Solamere, the family’s equity fund. With this in mind, one must wonder whether or not the indirect connection between the Romney clan and Hart Intercivic is not more direct than meets the eye. After all, the fund itself does not invest directly in companies, but in other equity funds; perhaps a design to further the distance between one’s family and the perception of impropriety.

With the media already hyping the possibility that Ohio, and Cincinnati in particular, could be “ground zero” in the 2012 Presidential election, the fact that Hart Intercivic’s voting machines are present in Hamilton County (home to Cincinnati) should raise some serious concerns.

As Bello, Fitrakis, and Wasserman write for TruthOut:

. . . these Hart machines are deeply flawed and widely known to be open to a troubling variety of attacks and breakdowns. There is no legal or other means to definitively monitor and re-check a tally compiled on Hart or other electronic voting machines. Ohio’s current governor and secretary of state are both Republicans.

As Fitrakis and Wasserman wrote in a separate report on the issue:

US courts have consistently ruled that the software in electronic voting machines is proprietary to the manufacturer, even though individual election boards may own the actual machines. Thus there will be no vote count transparency on election night in Ohio. The tally will be conducted by Hart Intercivic and controlled by Husted and Kasich, with no public recourse or accountability. As federal testimony from the deceased Michael Connell made clear in 2008, electronically flipping an election is relatively cheap and easy to do, especially if you or your compatriots programmed the machines.

However, the Daily Kos reports that influencing the election via Hart Intercivic’s machines might be a bit easier than simply reprogramming, preprogramming, or hacking voting machine codes. The article reads:

But, before people get carried away with scenarios of stolen elections using dodgy computer code, let me point out that it would be quite easy to 'influence' an election without all that much effort. All one has to do is control machine deployment. If the number of 'functional' machines were to become in short supply on election day, and if the 'malfunctioning' machines tended to be in key precincts, it would certainly be possible to affect an election, possibly decisively.

Such a scheme is far safer than actual screwing with the code, since, despite what you read online, is not as easy as some would have you believe without leaving evidence of tampering. No, machine failure is far easier to manage (and is a simple variation of vote suppression being perpetrated in states right now) especially as the code in these machines are the software equivalent of the Ford Pinto.

Election fraud, often misleadingly referred to as voter fraud, has run rampant in virtually every Presidential election in modern history in one form or another, with results varying in scale. The 2000 “election” of George W. Bush will, of course, live on in infamy in the context of election history.

However, in terms of Ohio votes, specifically, the 2004 elections that saw Bush victorious over Kerry bear a striking similarity to the possibilities discussed above regarding the 2012 elections. Again, as TruthOut summarizes:

The widespread use of electronic voting machines from ES&S, and of Diebold software maintained by Triad, allowed Blackwell [then Ohio Secretary of State] to electronically flip a 4% Kerry lead to a 2% Bush victory in the dead of election night. ES&S, Diebold and Triad were all owned or operated by Republican partisans. The shift of more than 300,000 votes after 12:20 am election night was a virtual statistical impossibility. It was engineered by Michael Connell, an IT specialist long affiliated with the Bush Family. Blackwell gave Connell's Ohio-based GovTech the contract to count Ohio's votes, which was done on servers housed in the Old Pioneer Bank Building in Chattanooga, Tennessee. Thus the Ohio vote tally was done on servers that also carried the e-mail for Karl Rove and the national Republican Party. Connell died in a mysterious plane crash in December, 2008, after being subpoenaed in the King-Lincoln-Bronzeville federal lawsuit focused on how the 2004 election was decided (disclosure: we were attorney and plaintiff in that suit).

Diebold's founder, Walden O'Dell, had vowed to deliver Ohio's electoral votes---and thus the presidency---to his friend George W. Bush. That it was done in part on electronic voting machines and software O'Dell happened to own (Diebold has since changed hands twice) remains a cautionary red flag for those who believe merely winning the popular vote will give Barack Obama a second term.

In a flashback to the 2004 election, many Ohioans will once again go to the polls and cast their ballots on machines with close ownership ties to the Republican candidate. Also as in 2004, the Ohio Governor is a Republican, this time the fascist John Kasich who, according to TruthOut, is a millionaire via his work at Lehman Brothers and Fox News Network.

Truthout highlights that “Murdoch wrote Kasich a game-changing $1 million check just prior to his winning the statehouse, an electoral victory shrouded in electronic intrigue. The exit polls in that election indicated that his opponent, incumbent Democrat Ted Strickland, had actually won the popular vote.”

Furthermore, the Ohio Secretary of State is also a reactionary Republican who is currently suing in the US Supreme Court to put a stop to voting on the weekend prior to election day. Like Blackwell and Taft in 2004, Husted and Kasich will wield significant control over the vote count in Ohio in 2012 which itself is largely free of true accountability and transparency.

While, in all actuality, there is absolutely no difference between the two Presidential candidates (another flashback to previous elections), the issue of election fraud is entirely separate from the platform of glorified puppets. Aside from the legal and moral issue, the general rule of thumb is that you should never allow an oligarch to attack you on his own time. Thus, exposing any amount of election fraud is paramount. At the same time, however, we must be diligent in our refusal to endorse the controlled opposition given to us by the same oligarchy that controls the victor.

Read other articles by Brandon Turbeville here.

Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Mullins, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor's Degree from Francis Marion University and is the author of three books, Codex Alimentarius -- The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, and Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident. Turbeville has published over 175 articles dealing on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville's podcast Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV.  He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.

Romney's Top Adviser, Dov Zakheim, Connected To 9/11

Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post
October 22, 2012

At this stage in the campaign, the claim that Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are virtually identical in every way can scarcely be denied. From their positions on healthcare, the implementation of economic austerity, and perpetual warfare, the Presidential candidate and the President himself are mirror images of one another with the minute exception of the political presentation of those polices and the much-exploited physical differences hyped by the media.

However, while Obama’s expansion of war and wholesale slaughter is accomplished through deceit and other covert forms of treachery, Mitt Romney’s war psychosis is manifested much more openly. As I detailed in my last article, “Open War Policy Revealed by Romney’s NeoCon Advisers,” Romney’s sprint toward a third world war of a potentially thermonuclear variety could scarcely be more clear, quite the rarity for Romney. 

With this in mind, I have written two articles dealing with Romney’s foreign policy advisers and their own ideological leanings. After all, regardless of the potential resting in the office of the President, the fact is that a President’s inner circle of advisers, as well as his cabinet, are, generally speaking, the foot soldiers in whatever foreign entanglements the country is set to find itself in.

Unsurprisingly, Romney’s foreign policy team is made up mainly of Neo-Cons left over from the boy Bush Administration, as well as other raving war hawks, Zionists, and imperialists.

In this regard, I encourage the reader to access my articles, “Open War Policy Revealed by Romney’s NeoCon Advisers,” (linked above) “Romney’s Foreign Policy Advisers Exposed As Globalists,” and “Mitt Romney’s 13 Globalist ‘Working Groups’ Exposed” for a summary of these individuals and their organizational memberships, affiliations, and past careers.

Yet, out of all the advisers listed as part of Romney’s foreign policy team, one member, Dov Zakheim, bears special notice, not least of which because he is considered to be the top adviser working amongst the publicly acknowledged branch of the team.

Episode 4 - Truth on the Tracks with Brandon Turbeville

Occupy the Vote: Guest Bev Harris on Occupy Interview ---Bev Harris Answers Three Questions Posed By Brandon Turbeville Via Email

Tuesday, October 16 Show Archive

Open War Policy Revealed by Romney's NeoCon Advisers

Brandon Turbeville

Activist Post

October 17, 2012

 

On October 1, 2012, Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney outlined his own version of imperialist American foreign policy before the Virginia Military Institute. What Romney described was, in its goals, no different than that of any other President since JFK.

As was made clear in his speech, the presentation of the mutated Manifest Destiny to be ushered in by Romney would be significantly more open than the “leading from behind” destabilization and coalition-based Obama treachery, as the candidate has clearly stated this on more than one occasion.

Essentially, while Obama has continued and accelerated every disastrous policy of the Bush Administration, Romney has openly announced his intention to do the same. The only difference is that the Romney doctrine will supplant the deceitful, secretive, and treacherous nature of Obama’s foreign policy for a more ham-fisted and brazenly aggressive position.

However, while the latter option is reminiscent of George W. Bush’s Iraq adventure, the fact is Romney’s presentation of American imperialism will no doubt be more cleverly constructed using the threat against “American interests” and “our friends and allies” as justification.

In his speech, Romney stated,

If America does not lead, others will, others who do not share our interests and our values – and the world will grow darker, for our friends and for us. I am running for president because I believe the leader of the free world has a duty, to our citizens, and to our friends everywhere, to use America’s great influence – wisely, with solemnity and without false pride, but also firmly and actively – to shape events in ways that secure our interests, further our values, prevent conflict and make the world better – not perfect, but better.

Romney’s plan thus echoes yet more of the “American Exceptionalism” that has been used as a cover for imperialist ventures for decades. It is, after all, an illusion that the majority of the American people have bought in to after years of movies, television, and related propaganda.

In this regard, Romney could scarcely be more clear (a rarity) as to what plans he holds for the United States military should he be elected. For instance, he stated, “It is the responsibility of our president to use America’s great power to shape history – not to lead from behind, leaving our destiny at the mercy of events. Unfortunately, that is exactly where we find ourselves in the Middle East under President Obama.”

Aside from the obvious falsity of Romney’s political jockeying regarding “where we find ourselves in the Middle East,” the Republican candidate’s statement seems to offer a brief representation of yet more American Exceptionalism, an even more warped version of Manifest Destiny, and the Freemasonic doctrine of directing nature and controlling the Force of the people.

Of course, the United States is no passive player in the Middle East under Barack Obama. Indeed, even the casual observer should be aware that the United States, along with other Anglo-American NATO powers has directed and controlled the Arab Spring and destabilization of Middle Eastern countries.

However, because of the Obama Administration’s penchant for “leading from behind” and directing the overthrow of sovereign governments via intelligence networks, pawning, destabilization efforts, or coalition-based “kinetic military action,” the talking heads on the Conservative Right are able to play upon the wasteland of the average American mind and subsequently propagandize that the Obama/Brzezinski method exemplifies weakness. The Neo-Con method, being more upfront, aggressive, and direct – is unfortunately the only presentation simple enough to capture the average American attention span and is understood as strength.

Thus, the Romney campaign does not criticize the Obama Administration for waging wars against Islam, sovereign nations, state-owned banks, or secular governments – its criticisms are that it does not do so in a faster, more aggressive manner.

A perfect example of both the political posturing and of the identical nature of both candidates and their respective parties can easily be seen in terms of the Syrian destabilization, itself directed by the Anglo-American, NATO forces in order to weaken and provoke the Iranians and the Russians, implement a system of privatized central banks, exploit the people and resources of Syria, and ignite the subsequent third world war that must inevitably follow.

In this regard, Romney firmly stated in Virginia that he will arm al-Qaeda forces operating inside Syria and will help them “to obtain the arms they need to defeat Assad’s tanks, helicopters and fighter jets.” Of course, Obama is already arming the Syrian terrorists, but the vast majority of Americans are completely oblivious to this fact (as they are to the fact that the “rebels” are actually fanatic terrorists) so the issue exists as a prime opportunity for political grandstanding.

Of course, no Romney foreign policy speech would be complete without some measure of beating the drums for war against Iran.

Needless to say, the Virginia Military Institute foreign policy speech was complete.

In regards to Iran, Romney stated, “we must make clear to Iran through actions – not just words – that their nuclear pursuit will not be tolerated.” He also committed to tighten sanctions and “restore the permanent presence of aircraft carrier task forces in both the Eastern Mediterranean and the Gulf region.” Romney said he would allow no “daylight” between the United States and Israel.

Like the references to war with Iran, it appears that no Romney speech will be complete without reference to the relationship between Israel and the United States and how American foreign policy might be outsourced to the colonial state of Israel.

While many Americans are still caught in the trap of voting for one of the two political parties (which are only different branches of the same tree), more and more are becoming aware of the fact that Presidents and Presidential candidates are nothing more than puppets and tools.

To suggest that these hapless and damaged individuals hold any true sway over the direction of the country in real life, regardless of their potential to do so, would be optimistic to say the least.

With this in mind, it is important to take a look at those individuals doing some of the legwork for the foreign policy presented through the two-sided mouth of Mitt Romney.

Indeed, it is particularly revelatory that many of Romney’s advisers are not only members of organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations but also of Neo-Con think tanks like the Project for A New American Century[1] of 9/11 fame. Specifically, Romney Foreign Policy advisers such as Eliot Cohen, Robert Kagan, John Lehman, Vin Weber, and top adviser Dov Zakheim are all members of PNAC.

Thus, with so many direct connections to an organization like PNAC (among many others), it is much more clear as to why the Romney rhetoric sounds so familiar to what we heard for eight years under the Bush Administration.

Nevertheless, as I wrote in my article “Romney’s Foreign Policy Advisers Exposed As Globalists,”

Considering Romney’s attendance at the 2012 Bilderberg meeting and the apparent tendency of the elite in leaning to Romney as the next president, it is imperative that those who are aware of the forces truly guiding the United States and the rest of the world be prepared to shift gears, even if it is only temporary, and begin to expose Mitt Romney as the criminal globalist that he is. 

Still, we must guard against being played like a tennis ball and rushing back into the arms of “Bush on steroids” Barack Obama. Unless we become significantly more streetwise than the general public has been in the past, the condition of the world will only continue to degenerate with every election, regardless of the results.

Below is a list of Mitt Romney’s foreign policy advisers complete with lists to many, but not all, of their groups, organizations, and affiliations that should be the focus of much concern.

Cofer Black; torture architect; Blackwater; Central Intelligence Agency; Department of State Coordinator for Counter-terrorism; Total Intelligence Solutions; CIA case officer in Zambia during the Rhodesian Bush War and Somalia during the Ethiopian/Somalian conflict; CIA officer in South Africa during the conflict between South African government and “anti-apartheid militias;” CIA officer in Zaire where he helped armed “anti-communist guerrillas” in Angola; CIA Station Chief in Sudan in 1993, the same time Osama bin Laden was allegedly located there; CIA agent in Afghanistan in 1998, at the same time Osama bin Laden was allegedly there; CIA Task Force Chief in the Near East and South Asia Division; Deputy Chief of the CIA Latin America Division; Director of the Counter Terrorism Center (position held on 9/11); well-known for having withheld important information regarding the alleged 9/11 hijackers; Department of State’s Ambassador At Large;

Christopher Burnham; Bush era appointee; Deustche Bank;

Michael Chertoff; Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; legally advised in favor of torture, body scanner beneficiary; Co-author of PATRIOT ACT; Covington and Burling;Chertoff Group; Institute For Cultural Diplomacy; Latham and Watkins; active in Whitewater Investigation; Assistant Attorney General;

Eliot Cohen; Project for A New American Century; Committee For the Liberation of Iraq; Zionist; Iran war supporter; Council on Foreign Relations; Trilateral Commission; Defense Policy Board; American Enterprise Institute; Aspen Institute; Praeger Security International;

Norm Coleman; Republican-Jewish Coaltion; Freemason; Iraq war supporter; American Action Network; Israel Project; National Endowment For Democracy; Republican Main Street Project; Ripon Society;

John Danilovich; Knight of Malta; Council on Foreign Relations; Globalization and “Free Trade” promoter as member of the Initiative For Global Development; Millennium Challenge Corporation; .

Paula Dobriansky; Council on Foreign Relations; Climate Change promoter; Trilateral Commission; Institute For Cultural Diplomacy; Belfer Center For Science and International Affairs;Bipartisan Policy Center; Freedom House; Hungary’s International Center for Democratic Transitions; Australia-American Dialogue; National Endowment for Democracy; American Council of Young Political Leaders;

Eric Edelman; Iran war proponent; Iraq war proponent; Foreign Policy Initiative; Center For Strategic and Budgetary Assessments; Council on Foreign Relations; Philip Merrill Center for Strategic Studies;

Michael Hayden; Former CIA Director, Former Director of the NSA (where he oversaw domestic wiretapping), Former Director of National Intelligence, Former Commander of the Air Intelligence Agency, Proponent of the Trailblazer Project, Former Director of the Joint Command and Control Warfare Center, Torture proponent, argued against Probable Cause, Council on Foreign Relations, principal at the Chertoff Group, Board of Directors of Motorola Services,

Kerry Healey; Council on Foreign Relations, State Department’s Executive Committee of the Public-Private Partnership for Justice Reform in Afghanistan (founded by Condoleeza Rice)

Kim Holmes; Council on Foreign Relations, Vice President of Foreign and Defense Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation, Institute for International Strategic Studies.

Robert Joseph; U.S. Chief Negotiator to Libya in 2003 (regarding nuclear weapons), National Institute for Public Policy (NeoCon Think Tank), Center For Security Policy (Pro-Israel Think Tank); Rumored to have been responsible for the Iraq-WMD-Niger claims circulated by the Bush Administration.

Robert Kagan; Brookings Institution; Project For A New American Century; Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; Foreign Policy Initiative; Council on Foreign Relations; political advisor to John McCain; Serves on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s Foreign Affairs Policy Board; Trilateral Commission; Committee for the Liberation of Iraq; Skull and Bones; US Committee on NATO; Henry Jackson Society;

John Lehman; member of the 9/11 Commission; Foreign Policy Research Institute; Project For A New American Century; National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon The United States; Heritage Foundation; Center For Security Policy; Committee on the Present Danger; J.F. Lehman and Company; Hawaii Superferry; Princess Grace Foundation – USA; Ball Corporation; Partnership For A Secure America; Council on Foreign Relations; Staff member to Henry Kissinger at the National Security Agency; Securing America’s Energy Future;Straight Talk America; Paine Webber;

Walid Phares, Foundation for Defense of Democracies; European Foundation for Democracy; Trans-Atlantic Parliamentary Group on Counter Jihadi-Terrorism; Wikistrat; Department of Homeland Security;

Pierre Prosper; Arent Fox;

Mitchell Reiss; served under Brent Scowcroft at the National Security Council; Council on Foreign Relations; Ford Foundation; Director of Policy Planning at State Department, Center For Strategic & International Studies;

Daniel Senor; Carlyle Group; advisor to Ambassador Paul Bremer in Iraq; Council on Foreign Relations; Foreign Policy Initiative;

Jim Talent; Heritage Foundation; Arent Fox;

Vin Weber; Project For A New American Century; Clark & Weinstock; National Endowment For Democracy; Humphrey Institute; Institute For Law and Politics; Council on Foreign Relations; Aspen Institute; America’s Success PAC; Americans for a Republican Majority; America’s Foundation; Bilderberg Group; Citizens Against Government Waste; Empower America; American Abroad Media; Progress and Freedom Foundation; New Republican Majority Fund; The Freedom Project;

Richard Williamson; Winston & Strawn; Special Envoy to Sudan (2008-2009); International Republican Institute; Council on Foreign Relations; Committee in Support of Russian Civil Society; Committee on the Present Danger; Straight Talk America;

Dov Zakheim; Council on Foreign Relations; The Vulcans; Project For A New American Century; SPC International; International Institute For Strategic Studies; Heritage Foundation;Center For Strategic and International Studies; Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) tasked with tracking down the Pentagon’s missing 2.3 trillion dollars; Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan; Senior Vice President of Booz Allen Hamilton; CNA Corporation; Center For Strategic and International Studies; Global Panel America; Chatham House; Royal Institute of International Affairs; Royal Swedish Academy of War Sciences; American Jewish Committee; System Planning Corp.; Northrop Grumman; McDonnell Douglas; London School of Economics;

[1] Griffin, David Ray. The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11. Interlink. 2004. http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Pearl-Harbor-Administration/dp/1566565529

Read other articles by Brandon Turbeville here.

Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Mullins, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor's Degree from Francis Marion University and is the author of three books, Codex Alimentarius -- The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, and Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident. Turbeville has published over 175 articles dealing on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville's podcast Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV.  He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.

UK to Introduce National ID Scheme Using Mobile Phones and Social Media Profiles

Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post
October 13, 2012

Click image to enlarge / credit: Independent

Early in 2012, I wrote an article regarding India’s implementation of the Unique Identification (UID) Program for all of its 1.2 billion residents entitled, “Cashless Society: India Implements First Biometric ID Program Despite Growing Concern,” where I detailed the history, mechanisms and ultimate goals of the program. I followed this report by an article entitled, “Japan Proposes Next Phase of Centralized Surveillance,” dealing with the new Japanese UID with a similar analysis. But, while news of India and Japan’s massive National ID program was met with much surprise by many even in the alternative media, it may once again come as a surprise that yet another push for a National ID push is on the way - this time, in the UK.

Like the Indian and Japanese ice-breaker, the UK program is being developed in concert and collusion between the UK government and international corporations.

To be clear, the English version of the National ID is not the same as the Indian program. Biometrics have yet to enter into the equation.

In fact, at this point, the UK is only attempting to implement a “virtual ID” under the Identity Assurance Programme. Yet, the scheme is still raising some ire amidst privacy advocates and those still conscious enough to be aware that they are passengers on a train headed for a system of total surveillance and control if the engine is not soon shut off.


Others, of course, simply recognize the “public/private partnership” required to develop this type of system as a threat to their personal data and a potential source of unprecedented identity theft.

Nevertheless, the new back-door National ID scheme is being ushered in to the UK using similar justifications as that used by the Indian government when the UID program began – i.e. that the new program will improve and streamline the process of requesting, granting, receiving, and distributing government benefits and/or aid.

While India argued that the UID would cut down on fraud, the UK suggests that the program will free up an already-clogged system (due to a ravaged economy) and allow for a smoother and more streamlined process of distribution.

As Ian Burrell of The Independent writes:

The Government will announce details this month of a controversial national identity scheme which will allow people to use their mobile phones and social media profiles as official identification documents for accessing public services. 

People wishing to apply for services ranging from tax credits to fishing licences and passports will be asked to choose from a list of familiar online log-ins, including those they already use on social media sites, banks, and large retailers such as supermarkets, to prove their identity.

Once they have logged in correctly by computer or mobile phone, the site will send a message to the government agency authenticating that user’s identity.

It has been reported that the Cabinet Office has held talks with agencies and organizations such as the “Post Office, high street banks, mobile phone companies and technology giants ranging from Facebook and Microsoft to Google, PayPal and BT.”

The system is supposed to be rolled out for trial in April when the Department of Work & Pensions introduces the system overhaul known as the Universal Credit Scheme.

Essentially, government “services” are being grouped together on one website, Gov.uk, which will be accessible via mobile phone. Those wishing to access the services will able to login with their already-established login IDs set-up with private companies.

The government claims that the ID systems and procedures “have been subjected to security testing before being awarded their ‘Identity Provider (IDP) kitemark, meaning that they have made the list of between five and 20 approved organizations that will be announced on 22 October.”

Those using the new virtual ID program will be asked to identify themselves by picking their preferred corporation from the NASCAR screen, the name of the logo-filled directory on the website.

As Ian Burrell describes:

Major web sites are able to recognise individuals by their patterns of use, the device they are accessing from and its location. Facebook, for example, asks users who sign on from an unusual location to take a series of security questions including identifying friends in photographs.

Much like the Japanese version of the Indian UID, the Basic Resident Register, the IAP is given the perception of being decentralized. For instance, the Cabinet Office has consistently stated that the data provided through accessing the IAP will not be held centrally by any government agency.

However, like the Japanese Juki-net, the fact is that the data will be included inside a centralized database. There is simply no way around it.

Thus, while the Cabinet Office states that the various corporations involved in the program will not know which government agency is requesting information, both the agencies and the Corporations are themselves a part of a centralized database, the very least of which being the Gov.uk website where individuals will go to access their services.

With this in mind, are we really to believe that such information will sit eternally unmolested by the UK central government? The Japanese made the mistake of resting with this assumption early on with the Basic Resident Register and the My Number Bill as well. Unfortunately for them, it was just a few years before the “localized” database became openly centralized.

Furthermore, simply setting up minuscule barriers, such as using the selected corporations as filters for inquiries and distribution of information, is largely meaningless in a world where such a small number of large corporations, banks, and other industry giants essentially own the government.

Again, the question must be asked: Are we really to believe that information sharing between such powerful corporations and governments will not occur due to the high ethical standards of either one? If the answer to this question is affirmative, surely, they jest.

Nevertheless, one must wonder how long it will be before the UK database becomes openly centralized like the Japanese Juki-net and Basic Resident Register program. One must also wonder how long the system will exist before reports of illegal information sharing begin to circulate within the media, subsequently culminating in the confirmation of such information sharing out in the open with no legal repercussions. How long will it be before the information sharing process is then codified into law?

If you think it sounds like the above questions are more a list of predictions than possibilities, you would be right. That’s because, using recent history as a guide, whether it be the Japanese Basic Resident Register, India, Germany, Argentina, Belgium, Colombia, Spain, Peru, or Italy, the same roadmap is almost always followed with the same results almost always being achieved – the establishment of a massive, all-encompassing (biometric) database containing information gleaned from every aspect of life by corporations, government, and other sources.

Of course, government databases and control are not the only concerns arising out of the new UK program.

As 21st Century Fix reports, there is also the issue of the commercial sale of the personal information submitted by the individual accessing his government services by the corporations facilitating that transaction. The report states:

I would, however, add a third reason not to proceed: I simply, frankly, don’t want to access government services using a privately contracted device I use in the rest of my life. That is to say, for me the real issue is the privatization of a virtual ID card system. That companies such as, for example, Facebook – with all its manifest privacy issues – should seriously be considered a partner in such a scheme is indicative of why so many social media sites now want us to use real identities. For there’s real money in them thar hills for owners of real-identity databases. 

The really long-term business plan becomes evermore clear, doesn’t it? 

Information creep was bad enough when governments suggested real-time Internet snooping. Knowing the efficiency of the private sector in extracting personal data from us to generate private profit, the Lord only knows what might happen when corporations get officially involved – and what’s more, with the full force of the law behind them in their every act and deed.

But while the concerns centered around the privatization of a virtual database are very real, as are those regarding identity theft, hacking, and centralization, the reality of the situation is much more grave than many of the opponents of the UK virtual ID are letting on. The true nature of the virtual ID scheme is rooted in the ultimate goal of creating an all-encompassing, top-down, cashless society combined with a Total Information Awareness network which includes every aspect of individual life.

While a “decentralized” voluntary virtual ID with allegedly built-in protections may seem like a far cry from a forced omnipotent surveillance state or a national ID, the fact is that the new scheme is merely one more step in that direction.

Obviously, the program will not be voluntary for long. As I have discussed in previous articles, the introduction of a program such as a national ID card, biometric data, or cashless payment technologies is always followed by the program becoming mandatory. The ultimate goal of an all-encompassing cashless surveillance program with no opt-out provisions is always introduced by stealth and the Gradualist Technique.

At first, the program is introduced as a way to speed up transactions, increase efficiency, and provide convenience. Soon, however, governments and businesses begin to transition out of the older methods of payment and identification and focus more on the new technology. Identification using the traditional methods remain as an option, but become viewed as cumbersome. Eventually, the alternative methods are phased out completely and mandates replace what was once a personal choice.

In the end, the statements and reassurances issued by the UK government (or any other government for that matter) should hold very little water with the English people. In terms of the development of virtual and/or biometric databases, government agencies have a track record of 0% when it comes to both honesty and integrity or having the best interests of their people at heart.

What governments cannot accomplish out in the open, they will accomplish by the backdoor as any American who has had experience with programs such as IDENT, NGI, and S-COMM can attest to.

History and experience both have shown that government cannot be trusted to tell the truth regarding potentially dangerous technologies and surveillance policies – much less be trusted to operate these programs with responsibility. It is for this reason that the English people must view the new virtual ID scheme with more than just a healthy dose of skepticism.

Read other articles by Brandon Turbeville here.

Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Mullins, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor's Degree from Francis Marion University and is the author of three books, Codex Alimentarius -- The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, and Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident. Turbeville has published over one hundred articles dealing with a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville is available for podcast, radio, and TV interviews. Please contact us at activistpost (at) gmail.com.

Episode 3 - Truth on the Tracks with Brandon Turbeville

Beyond the Propaganda: The Real Reason Why The U.S. and Israel Do Not Want a Nuclear Iran

Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post
October 4, 2012

As the war drums beat faster and louder for an aggressive assault against Iran amidst the shock and horror at the mere thought of Iran gaining an unproven and currently unfeasible nuclear weapon, there remains the occasional kernel of truth that manages to slip through the firewall of the mainstream media.

For instance, in an article published on October 2 in the Guardian entitled, “The true reason US fears Iranian nukes: they can deter US attacks,” Glenn Greenwald points out the fact that the main concern is not necessarily that Iran may be able to attack the United States or its allies (meaning Israel) with a nuclear bomb, but simply the fact that if Iran were to obtain such a weapon, it would be able to resist U.S. dominance and aggression more effectively.

Although clearly not the sole reason for a Western attack on Iran, Greenwald is correct to point out that destroying the ability of Iran to resist American assault is indeed part of the overarching agenda. Thus, soon after introducing the thesis of the article, Greenwald asks an important question.

That Iran will use its nuclear weapons against the US and Israel is rather obviously the centerpiece of the fear-mongering campaign against Tehran, to build popular support for threats to launch an aggressive attack in order to prevent them from acquiring that weapon. So what, then, is the real reason that so many people in both the US and Israeli governments are so desperate to stop Iranian proliferation?

He goes on to answer this question by writing, “Iranian nuclear weapons would prevent the US from attacking Iran at will, and that is what is intolerable.”

Ironically, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, whom Greenwald accurately refers to as “one of the US’s most reliable and bloodthirsty warmongers,” seems to agree with Greenwald’s thesis.

Military Employed For Crowd Control At College Football Game This Saturday

Dees Illustration

Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post

October 4, 2012

In yet another example of the blurring of the lines between civilian police and US military forces, Columbia, South Carolina police “officials” have announced that US Military Police from Ft. Jackson will be on the streets alongside civilian law enforcement after the South Carolina-Georgia football game this Saturday night, October 6.

According to reports by WISTV, Columbia will be spending more than $11,000 worth of overtime for 50 officers who will be placed in the Five Points and Vista areas after the game. The teams will be made up of University of South Carolina Campus Police, Richland County Sheriff’s Deputies, the South Carolina Highway Patrol, and Military Police from Ft. Jackson.

The plan will involve barricades, surveillance cameras, DUI checkpoints, and even observation towers “to keep the crowd under control.”

WISTV reports that the “Gang Unit,” “Narcotics Unit,” and the “Firearm Prevention Team,” “Quick Reaction Team,” and the “Special Unit For Quick Pickup of Detainees,” will be on hand for the massive police state buildup in Five Points. It should be noted that the “Firearm Prevention Team” will be receiving help from the ATF.

Citing a shooting and two mob assaults in the Five Points area after the South Carolina-Missouri game on Sept. 23 as justification for the Five Points buildup, Police Chief Les Wiser stated that regular police patrols would continue and that police presence in other parts of the city would not be limited.

While WISTV did state that the reason behind the presence of Ft. Jackson Military Police would be “in case any members of the armed forces are arrested,” it should be clear to all that US Military Troops working alongside civilian police is nothing more than a conditioning exercise designed to acclimate the American people to the sight of US Military troops acting as police and to see it as an ordinary event.

Unfortunately, the placement of military soldiers in civilian law enforcement capacity is not only a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, it is now an increasingly common occurrence.

In the last few years we have seen US Military troops deployed all over the country for the purpose of assisting domestic law enforcement. For instance, U.S. Army personnel were deployed to the streets of Samson, Alabama in 2009 for the purposes of aiding the local police in patrols after a gunman left 10 people dead.

Even more common, the US Military has been involved in aiding local and state law enforcement conducting roadblocks for some time, even, as was the case in Tennessee, amidst the objections of some state officials.

In Virginia, the National Guard has been involved in conducting “wellness checks” as well as patrolling downtown city locations and residential neighborhoods.

Yet, even more disturbing is the wholesale deployment of US troops inside the United States known as USNORTHCOM. As Susanne Posel of Occupy Corporatism writes:

USNORTHCOM and Leon Panetta, US Secretary of Defense, has readily admitted that US armed forces will collaborate with local law enforcement 'if called upon'. 

In fact, more than 20,000 troops were brought home and readied for deployment within the US to assist in 'civil unrest and crowd control'. 

The US military will prop up the US Secret Service 'for operational security reasons we do not discuss the numbers of military personnel and resources that are involved. Additionally, we do not share our operational plans,' said U.S. Navy Lt. Cdr. William G. Lewis. 

The extent of use of military forces on civilian matters, as reported by mainstream media (MSM) have included the reallocation of hundreds of military police officers being trained to 'assist local authorities' in investigation, crime scene and case building. 

An estimated 500 military police and dogs will be used as 'law enforcement battalions'. These soldiers, having served on tours in Afghanistan, will now be activated and based out of military bases across America to help local police forces.

Clearly, the American people are being conditioned to accept the US Military as a domestic police force by the slow acclimation process of introducing military presence in a variety of different circumstances. Unfortunately, if there is any question as to whether or not the average American will be successfully duped by the conditioning effort being implemented by the US oligarchs, we need only look as far as the NFL, whose fans can now be subjected to the invasive TSA-style pat downs before entering the event.

If sports fans are willing to subject themselves to this form of demeaning treatment for the opportunity watch a game, then the mere presence of military personnel in the streets is not likely to alarm them.

Read other articles by Brandon Turbeville here.

Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Mullins, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor's Degree from Francis Marion University and is the author of three books, Codex Alimentarius -- The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, and Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident. Turbeville has published over one hundred articles dealing with a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville is available for podcast, radio, and TV interviews. Please contact us at activistpost (at) gmail.com.

CFR Report Suggests U.S. Preparing For Upcoming Venezuela Coup, Exploiting Civil Unrest

image source

Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post
September 29, 2012

As election drama intensifies in Venezuela, Anglo-American plans to initiate yet another destabilization effort in a sovereign nation seem to be manifesting via the usual suspects – American ambassadorial staff and the Council on Foreign Relations.

Under the leadership of President Hugo Chavez, Venezuela has been a stalwart source of resistance to the plans of the Anglo-Americans for several years, particularly since the George W. Bush administration and, like all other imperialist policies, continuing through the Obama administration.

Likewise, for just as long, Chavez’ government has been the target of US/NATO-backed destabilization efforts, covert operations, and political pressure.

Although Venezuela and the United States are held together by joint business interests involving petroleum exports and imports, this fact has done nothing to soften the tension between the two governments. Venezuela is, after all, the biggest supplier of petroleum to the United States. In turn, the United States is Venezuela’s biggest customer.

Nevertheless, both countries have been without ambassadors since 2010 due to Chavez’ rejection of the nomination of Larry Palmer by the Obama administration and Washington’s subsequent dismissal of the Venezuelan ambassador in response. Furthermore, the imperialist US sanctions regarding countries, banks, businesses, and individuals that do business with Iran were applied to the Venezuelan state oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA), in May 2011 after the US State Department claimed that PDVSA delivered two cargo shipments of refined petroleum products worth approximately $50 million to Iran between the months of December and March 2010-2011.


In addition, as NewsMax reports,

The U.S. also imposed penalties on Venezuela's Military Industries Co. for violating the Iran, North Korea and Syria Nonproliferation Act by selling or buying sensitive equipment and technology related to nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missile systems.

Brandon Turbeville on End The Lie Radio - Episode 34

Episode 2 - Truth on the Tracks with Brandon Turbeville