The Stand

I just finished watching The Stand by Stephen King again. If you haven't seen it, rent it. It's long (it was made as a TV miniseries) but well worth it.

It's the classic battle between good and evil. That's the way I see the Green Party. We're a small group making a stand against the New World Order, which is worldwide fascism. The definition of fascism is rule by corporations, above the government and above the law. And that is what we are living with today, although they try to hide it.

So what are we to do? We need to stick together,and find more people who can see what's really happening to stand with us. We need to leave the old ways and the old political parties behind, and work for a new future.

I recently recieved the following from Carol,
who keeps me informed on conspiracy, and likes to read what other political groups have to say. Skousen is certainly a conservative, but not a fascist like Bush. Like the Progressive Democrats, he doesn't approve of where his party is going, but he just can't give it up. His World Affairs Brief shows how the corporations are really in power, not the government.

World Affairs Brief January 19, 2007 Joel Skousen.

UNITARY POWER: BUSH TELLS CONGRESS "I'M THE DECIDER"

In other words, Congress can go "stuff it." "I'm in charge here," says the president. It isn't that Bush is capable of total power or that he is a deluded dictator. He's a script reader who has been given instructions to defy the law openly so as to establish a legal and historical precedent for total, UNITARY power in the presidency. In other words, all this push for powers to the Commander-in-Chief has a much larger globalist purpose and will go far beyond the Bush presidency.

Glen Greenwald sets out part of this theory: "The Epilogue [to his book] emphasizes that the radical theories of presidential power adopted by the administration (and applied to general lawbreaking, warrantless eavesdropping, torture, indefinite detentions of U.S. citizens) applied clearly and fully to Iran, i.e., that those theories - which were and still are the formally adopted positions of the Executive Branch - absolutely mean that the president has the power to commence a war with Iran, and that not only would he not need Congressional approval to do so, but Congress would lack the power to stop him even if it tried.

"As a nation, we can and should engage in vigorous debates over whether a military offensive against Iran is desirable, prudent, disastrous, or just plain crazy. But it is just as crucial that we realize that the Bush administration has embraced theories of executive power which assert that the president has the authority to initiate a military attack on Iran regardless of whether the American people, or their representatives in Congress, approve of such an attack. ... As the Iran debate proceeds, it is necessary to remember that the president believes he is the 'sole organ' in all such matters, and he has full, limitless and unchecked authority to do whatever he wants.

"Last October, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was asked by members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee whether the president would circumvent congressional authorization if the White House chose military action against Iran or Syria. She answered, 'I will not say anything that constrains his authority as Commander-in-Chief.'" That tells you how this administration thinks.

It is my analysis that President Bush has tried way too hard to defy Congress and the Courts on issues ranging from wiretapping, privacy, and Habeas Corpus. The US government has done these things quietly and illegally for years. Why bring them out in the open and appear to defy the law? Why inflame public opinion with all these "signing statements" that basically tell Congress how he will interpret the law he signs (almost always against the intent of the law)? This is especially disconcerting when we consider Bush had a compliant Congress willing to give him anything he wanted anyway.

I think the reason was to establish the president's immunity from law, to put his role of Commander-in-Chief above the law, and to get the American people used to it - not simply as a legal technicality. In essence, he has done what Hitler did after the Reichstag Fire when he demanded the Reichstag give him dictatorial powers to deal with the crisis.

Now that we have an all-powerful presidency, you will notice, the president suddenly allows the FISA court to handle all foreign wiretapping cases. This was supposed to be a big compromise engineered by fellow conspirator Sen. Arlen Specter. Actually, it simply returns wiretapping back to the status quo before the crisis: the NSA continues to tap ALL electronic communication at will, and the government goes before FISA with a few hundred requests every year just to keep up the pretenses of legality. That's the way it is and that's the way it will stay. Everyone can go back to sleep now.

"SUCCESS" IS THE TRAP IN IRAQ - AND NOW AFGHANISTAN AS WELL

The administration is taking maximum advantage of Americans' extreme reluctance to accept "failure" and is using that fear of failure to shame the public and Congress into sinking more money and American lives into the quagmire of Iraq. And now the administration wants a troop increase in Afghanistan as well. The more lives we lose there, the greater the incentive will be to "salvage" this lost cause - a cause made unworthy by our own government's continuing secret provocations which sabotage the very success they claim to seek.

Vice President Dick Cheney said it all on Fox News Sunday when he put words into Congress' mouth, "We have these meetings with members of Congress, and they agree we can't fail ... ." Then President Bush and his spokesman Tony Snow repeat almost daily the devious challenge, "It's not enough to criticize the president's plan. It's incumbent upon those who criticize to come up with an alternative that promises SUCCESS in Iraq." That's the trap - limit the debate to the word "success" and it forces all players to stay in the game, throwing good resources after bad objectives. Having the courage to admit it was "all a mistake in the first place and leave" is outside acceptable discourse.

I watched Marine Corps General James Jones "oil his way across the floor" of The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, pushing for a troop increase in Afghanistan. "We are so close to success" he cooed. Really? There's that lure of "success" again, [paraphrasing:] "Just a few more troops and we'll be able to stabilize the Karzai government." Jones is the NATO Supreme Commander and was sent by the White House to Afghanistan and then back to the US, perfectly timed to provide TV commentary that "we need an increase in military forces" in Afghanistan. Defense Sec. Robert Gates said the "generals made a request for more troops" as well, and he was "inclined to support them." I'm sure he was delighted!

Jones is under pressure in Europe as well. People there are increasingly displeased with the rising casualties of NATO troops in Afghanistan. They want out. The Europeans correctly view this as America's debacle and want American's to die for Bush - not Europeans. US puppet President Karzai has effective control only of a small portion of Kabul, the capital, and the Taliban are gaining strength monthly in the south. The opium poppy trade is stronger than ever.

Jones talked as if he was powerless to stop the drug Lords that have prospered under US authority. If this is so, then why isn't the US attacking the smuggling convoys that use the mountains passes? Everyone knows what routes they take. Why aren't US forces using the same horrid defoliating chemicals on the poppy fields in Afghanistan as they are doing to the coca fields of Colombia? The answer is obvious. They want the crisis to justified continued intervention and occupation.

I smell the same double standard playing out here as in Iran and North Korea in the nuclear weapons arena. One nation is constantly pushed toward war while the other is offered complete immunity. This isn't merely blindness or stupidity. It is done on purpose and depends upon where the globalists want to trigger specific conflict. They are currently working on provoking war in the Middle East because in doing so they can engender a high degree of Islamic hatred toward the US without much backlash at home. At the same time, they have the tacit agreement of the two other world predators, Russia and China, who are willing to let Iraq, Iran, and Syria fall but not their darling North Korea.

A SURGE WON'T WORK

As Josh Marshall wrote this week, "In real military terms, the president's 'surge' concept is little more than a farce. Set aside the fact that most of the president's military advisers oppose his plans for escalation. If we follow what the U.S. Army actually says about counterinsurgency operations, the president's surge doesn't even come close to what our troops would need."

He's right. The troops know that the Iraq forces have so many mixed loyalties they can never be counted on to clean out the militias. Only a block-by-block presence of occupation forces can stop the violence and that would take ten times the troop increase and result in doubling or tripling our current casualty rate. No, it should be clear that this proposal is only to stall the judgment of the American public until a much larger war with Iran can be provoked that will shift everyone's focus to the "new crisis."

Meanwhile, the surge in troops is being used by the administration to justify all sorts of devious ways to "increase forces." The public isn't generally aware that a good portion of the "surge" is coming from extending the deployment of troops already in Iraq.

And, as the El Paso Times revealed, "For the first time since President Bush mobilized the National Guard and Reserve after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Pentagon is abandoning its limit on the time a citizen-soldier can be required to serve on active duty. Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters Thursday that the change would have been made even if Bush had not ordered an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq, further straining the Army and Marine Corps. Until now, the Pentagon's policy on the Guard or Reserve was that members' cumulative time on active duty for the Iraq or Afghan wars could not exceed 24 months. That cumulative limit is now lifted."

DECAPITATION AND OTHER PROVOCATIONS: The filmed hanging of Saddam Hussein, complete with jeering officials taunting "Muqtada al Sadr" wasn't enough, apparently, to provoke Sunni antagonism. The latest attempt at provocation can be found in the "botched" hanging of Saddam's half brother Barzan Ibrahim al-Tikriti, and it has tipped Sunni anger into violence.

Not only is the international community claiming that the "special court which sentenced the former Iraqi leader [and his cohorts] to the gallows was illegally set up and failed to meet international recognized standards," but the decapitation of Barzan was outrageous. Let me state clearly: hanging by falling three feet with a three-fourths inch rope around the neck does NOT cause the head to be separated. It breaks the neck with the jerk, and no known decapitations have ever occurred before with a rope. That means that some other intervention was used to cause this gruesome scene. I won't describe the possibilities. Like the former filming and release of the film, I suspect this too was a purposeful provocation of violence.

PROVOKING IRAN

The hanging-decapitation incident pales when compared to the open provocation going on in the US and in Iraq, which is attempting to induce Iran to do something stupid. First, there was the announcement that "the Iraqi government cultivates Iranian ties." "Horrors!" we are to think. Zalmay Khalilzad U.S. ambassador to Iraq chimed in, as if on que: "There cannot be and there should not be relations with security institutions of neighboring states that work against the interests of this new Iraq."

I've got news for Khalilzad: the "new Iraq" government is Shia and they are natural allies of Iran's Shiite regime. You knew that from the beginning. What our resident yes-man in Baghdad meant to say was, " ... against the interests of the US-controlled Iraq." Iraq's foreign minister was quite upset with the U.S. raid on an Iranian office in Irbil in northern Iraq. The Iraqi government was in the process of certifying such offices as local Iranian consulates. Now, thanks to the US raid all that is on hold. The Iraqi government has vowed to release the men.

Naturally, without providing any evidence or proof, the US claimed it found evidence that the Iranian officials taken into custody were working for Iranian Intelligence. Why should that surprise anyone? Every US embassy and consulate in the world has a large staff of CIA agents working undercover as embassy or consulate personnel.

The US military is still holding the five Iranians arrested in the raid. Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr. said, "I don't think there is any disagreement on the fact that these folks that we have captured are foreign intelligence agents in this country, working with Iraqis to destabilize Iraq and target coalition forces that are here at Iraq's request." Frankly, I don't doubt it either. Half the Iraqi government is probably working to undermine the US occupation as well.

The real question is whether the raid was done to halt such Iranian support for the Shiite side of the insurgency, or whether it was done to provoke Iran to war. As time goes on, we shall see that it's the latter that drives US actions, not any desire to see violence decrease.

The White House is also using a variety of shills to make the case in the media that Iran is responsible for supplying the insurgency with the triggering mechanisms for exploding the Improvised Explosive Devices (IED) that are "killing American troops." Once the phrase "Iran is killing Americans" starts circulating, you know it's getting close for the attack on Iran to start. In point of fact, several researchers have traced the IED triggering devices to the same British secret agents that supplied them to the IRA. We know from the capture of the two British agents in Basra (dressed as Arabs and firing on Iraqis with their weapons) that British secret services are very much involved in these kinds of dark-side operations meant to create civil war.

As Joseph Watson points out, one of the prime sources of the administration's finger pointing at Iran for the IED deaths (189 killed and 600 wounded) is former Assistant Sec. of State Martin Indyk: "Indyk is a prominent Israel Firster. He served as U.S. ambassador to Israel, directs the rabidly pro-Israel Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings, and is a member of the Middle East Strategy Group klatsch at the neolib Aspen Institute, where he rubs elbows with Henry Kissinger and Dianne Feinstein. Aspen is a pet project of the Rockefeller brothers and the Ford Foundation. [The Aspen Inst. is where the major planning takes place for the Bilderburger meetings - ed].

"As it turns out, these 'advanced explosive devices' triggering devices are from Britain, not Iran. Back in October of 2005, the Independent reported 'soldiers, who were targeted by insurgents as they traveled through [Iraq], died after being attacked with bombs triggered by infra-red beams. The bombs were developed by the IRA using technology passed on by the security services in a botched 'sting' operation more than a decade ago. ... This contradicts the British government's claims that Iran's Revolutionary Guard is helping Shia insurgents to make the devices."

The Independent on Sunday also revealed that the bombs and the firing "devices used to kill the soldiers, as well as two private security guards, were initially created by the UK security services as part of a counter-terrorism strategy at the height of the [IRA] troubles in the early 1990s ... . [T]he technology for the bombs ... [was] employed by the IRA some 15 years ago after Irish terrorists were given advice by British agents. ... Since its founding in 1997, the real IRA has been fully infiltrated by British intelligence - MI5." One agent rose to the number two spot in the IRA and even had other informers put to death to demonstrate his loyalty to the IRA.

To show that the US is purposefully spurning overtures for peace, the BBC is also reporting that the US rejected a chance to gain Iran's cooperation in cutting off support for Hezbollah in 2003: "Iran offered to cut off aid and support for the Lebanese Shiite militia Hezbollah and the Palestinian group Hamas, and promised full transparency on its nuclear program in a secret letter to the United States soon after the 2003 invasion of Iraq."

I found out this week that the number of Patriot missiles the US is moving to Iraq is 600. That is far and away the most conclusive evidence that the US sees a military conflict with Iran as inevitable and soon. Patriot missiles have virtually no use in countering the insurgency on the ground, who have no missiles.

Michael Carmichael of Global Research cites an Arab source as saying, "Washington has provided [the Saudis] detailed information about the forthcoming US hard-power attack on Iran's nuclear and oil industries. According to the un-named sources cited in the Arab Times, the US timetable is being driven by the retirement of George Bush's major ally, Prime Minister Tony Blair." Apparently, Bush wants British support as he starts this expansion of the war, knowing that once troops get committed almost any nation can be talked into "supporting the troops."

Carmichael also thinks that "analysts working for the Bush-Cheney White House predict that a concerted military attack against Iranian targets will weaken the regime and lead to the toppling of the government of Syria, as well." Much of this was discussed in the sudden visit of VP Dick Cheney to Saudi Arabia. Cheney made the case that Saudi Arabia is threatened territorially by the Iranian regime.

Carmichael continues: "In a separate statement, the highly respected US security expert, Col. Sam Gardiner(USAF retired) presents the sequence of tactical maneuvers that will unfold and precede the launch of the US military assault against targets in Iran - a project that Col. Gardiner deems to be an escalation by stealth leading to a broadening war in the Middle East. Col. Gardiner predicts, 'As one of the last steps before a strike, we'll see USAF tankers moved to unusual places, like Bulgaria. These will be used to refuel the US-based B-2 bombers on their strike missions into Iran. When that happens, we'll only be days away from a strike. ... The fuel for a fire is in place, however. All we need is a spark. The danger is that we have created conditions that could lead to a Greater Middle East War.'

"In the interim, we can expect to see an escalation of what Col. Gardiner and others have termed, perception management - the deliberate manufacture of propaganda by the Bush-Cheney government - a task that was briefly conducted by the Office of Strategic Influence that was established shortly after 9/11. Ex-Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, closed the Office of Strategic Influence when the exposure of its blatant disinformation operations precipitated an international outrage.

"[However], according to SourceWatch, Rumsfeld stealthily resurrected OSI in a variety of new guises: the Office of Global Communications; the Information Awareness Office (IAO) and the CounterInformation Team."

While the US denies there are any Special Forces inside Iran, there are numerous accounts of US covert intervention in Iran, especially in provinces bordering Iraq. Seymour Hersh said in The New Yorker that the administration "has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack."

Israel is very much in the plans as participating - if not directly instigating - this attack. And, it may not be with tactical bomber aircraft as in the attack on the Iraq nuclear reactor. Israel not only has strategic and tactical nuclear weapons, but the missiles to deliver them - without putting pilots at risk. Among Israel's arsenal is the Shavit rocket has been used to put satellites into orbit. It has a range of some 7,000 miles - enough to strike targets anywhere in the Middle East, Central Asia, and even parts of Europe.

IT'S TIME FOR ANOTHER TERROR ATTACK TO JUSTIFY GOING AFTER IRAN

The US just may be in for another high profile terror attack, which can be blamed on Iran. Newsweek reports that other terrorism officials also feel, "We're Going to Get Hit." "[An] even gloomier comment came from Henry Crumpton, the outgoing State Department terror coordinator. An ex-CIA operative, Crumpton told NEWSWEEK that a worldwide surge in Islamic radicalism has worsened recently, increasing the number of potential terrorists and setting back U.S. efforts in the terror war. 'Certainly, we haven't made any progress,' said Crumpton. 'In fact, we've lost ground.' He cites Iraq as a factor; the war has fueled resentment against the United States. ... 'We don't want to acknowledge we're going to get hit again in the homeland, but we are,' he said. 'That's a hard, ugly fact. But it's going to happen.'" Crumpton is getting out of Washington. He's leaving his post in two weeks.

BORDER PATROL AGENTS GO TO JAIL FOR DOING THEIR JOB

Wnd.com reports, "Amid protests and a flurry of last-minute efforts by congressmen, two border patrol agents are scheduled to begin long prison sentences for shooting and wounding a Mexican drug smuggler who was granted full immunity to testify against them. In an interview with WND, an angry Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., called President Bush a 'disgrace' for refusing to pardon Jose Alonso Compean and Ignacio Ramos, who were sentenced to 12 years and 11 years, respectively, in October ... . 'This is the worst betrayal of American defenders I have ever seen,' Rohrabacher said of the president. 'It's shameful this was done by someone who is in the Republican Party. He obviously thinks more about his agreements with Mexico than the lives of American people and backing-up his defenders.'" Bush claims he is still considering a pardon for the two officers, but that "they have to go through the process, which takes time." That "process" requires them to admit guilt--Catch-22. With that kind of deal, it's time to throw the rascal out and elect a true conservative.

RON PAUL BEGINS A RUN FOR THE PRESIDENCY
(Note from Chris..I left this section in, but I do not support Ron Paul or any other Republican, or Democrat, for president.)

Never before has there been a better time for someone to step forward and unify disaffected conservatives and libertarians against the Republican globalist establishment, which uniformly feigns allegiance to God, country, and limited government.

No one, friend or enemy, doubts Ron Paul's absolute commitment to liberty. He is universally respected, even among his enemies in Congress, because he is careful and well-spoken. He is not terribly charismatic, but he never compromises on core principles. He's virtually incorruptible compared to the normal politician. That's all part of why he may not be electable, given the power of the media to determine who becomes popular. But my message to Ron is he ought to try anyway. No one else can build the movement and create a wall of opposition to our current direction like Ron can. His exploratory candidacy needs our full support.

Ron Paul is the only national conservative figure capable of uniting the conservative and libertarian factions of the disaffected-with-Bush movement. The Constitution Party (CP) has tried to do this, and made some progress, but it won't go much higher without a candidate like Paul (if Paul runs under another banner when the GOP rejects him).

The CP has a tendency to pick presidential candidates who proclaim their religiosity too much, which only plays well to the CP core members. We Christians need to resist the tendency to push religion on the world in the name of public office. While I believe strongly that a national leader has the right to lead with references to God, and even prayer, he ought to use it sparingly and judiciously so as not to engender unnecessary backlash from unbelievers. Nothing stirs up resentment against religion more than the specter of a leader who the media can portray as extreme in his use of religion even if it isn't true. I am completely comfortable with a low-key, faithful, and religious person like Ron Paul. Ron's appeal extends to thinking Independents and even to disaffected Democrats, tired of their own leadership failing to stand up to Bush.

Joseph Paul Watson adds this: "Paul first ran for President as the Libertarian candidate in 1988, receiving a massive 400,000 votes. He now commands the support of those all across the political spectrum, from libertarians through anti-war Democrats to real paleo-conservative Republicans.

"The Texan represents a dying breed in Congress, those who actually cast their votes in accordance with the Constitution and not at the discretion of lobbyists or the fear that the elite will tarnish their political careers if they don't continually support the establishment. As a result Ron Paul is the elite's worse nightmare, simply having him on the ticket itself will be a massive public relations blow, and that's why media organs will probably be activated to try and discredit him before 2008.

"Paul was one of only a handful of Republicans to vote against the illegal invasion of Iraq, contending rightly that the Constitution clearly states that only Congress can declare war. In bucking a trend, Paul was anti-war long before the majority of the country came around to a similar way of thinking following the catastrophe of the occupation. While Democrats soft-peddle and cozy up to Bush, creating phony arguments about the level of troop presence in Iraq and ignoring the majority will of the country to bring the troops home immediately, Ron Paul's opposition to unnecessary wars of intervention has remained steadfast throughout his entire political career.

"If a gargantuan effort is made from now until the end of 2008 to heighten Paul's media profile and forward him as America's last hope, he truly has a significant chance of giving Jeb Bush, Rudy Giuliani or whichever elitist puppet the Republicans choose to put forward a real run for their money.

"At the very least it's a chance [probably our LAST] to attract attention to some serious issues and hold the establishment's feet to the fire. But with the favor of the political landscape continually swinging away from the scam repeatedly run by the Republicrats and Democans, we should really start off on a positive footing and consider the fact that Ron Paul, though still an underdog, has a real chance of becoming the next President."

Free-market movie maker Aaron Russo had this to add: "Congressman Paul will be the only uncompromising defender of the Constitution in the race. I can't tell you how grateful I felt, how full of heartfelt joy, and how much enthusiasm I felt when I heard the news of his Candidacy. I am 1000% behind him! Ron Paul has stepped up to the plate because he knows what we all know: the noose is tightening, and there isn't much time if we hope to restore to Constitutional Government. ... NOW is the time for the ENTIRE Freedom Movement, all Third Parties, ALL GOOD AMERICANS EVERYWHERE, from all political stripes and persuasions, to unite to overtake the weakened Republican Party. Stand firmly behind Ron Paul, and work to restore our Constitutional Republic."

Steven Yates added a final comment, "This is an opportunity for what might be a pursuit worth thinking about - retaking the Republican Party, now that the warmongering neocons have run it pretty much into the ground." True, they are running it into the ground of disrepute, and it won't be easy to retake given the mass of unthinking Republicans still out there who will be driven back to the "lesser of two evils" by the specter of Hillary Clinton in office. But when you think about it, what Democrat could have done to us what George Bush did?

CONGRESS TRIES TO RESTRICT GRASSROOTS LOBBYING

Richard Viguerie, my old boss at the Conservative Digest is back in full swing. He is warning conservatives about the latest evil being proposed by Democrats in Congress, labeled as "lobbying reform."

"Section 220 of S1, the [Senate] lobby reform bill, would effectively silence many grassroots organizations by subjecting them to onerous registration and reporting requirements which actually exceed what is required of the big lobbyists in Washington, D.C. [That means anyone with a mailing list of over 500 people, including yours truly, who makes any statements that might influence Congressional policy has to register with Congress as a lobbyist].

"Now, Senators Robert Bennett (R-UT), John Cornyn (R-TX), Jon Kyl (R-AZ), and Mitch McConnell (R-KY) have co-sponsored Amendment 20 to S 1, which would remove Section 220 from the bill. Please call both of your United States senators and tell them to support Amendment 20 to S 1, to delete the regulations on grassroots communications from the lobbying reform bill. Here's what you can say when you call: 'I oppose efforts to regulate my First Amendment rights and to silence critics of Congress. Please vote for Amendment 20 sponsored by Senator Bennett and others to remove Section 220 from S. 1, the lobbying reform bill.'"

THE McCONNELL-BOOZ ALLEN CONNECTION

There's a reason why the White House chose retired Admiral Mike McConnell to replace John Negroponte as National Intelligence Tsar - he's not only been an NSA insider, but also directed the highly secretive "private" side of intelligence too. DemocracyNow.com has the story:

"Mike McConnell, the man President Bush tapped to replace John Negroponte as National Intelligence Director, has been a leading figure in outsourcing U.S. intelligence operations to private industry. McConnell is a former director of the National Security Agency and the current director of defense programs at Booz Allen. ... Under his watch, Booz Allen has been deeply involved in some of the most controversial counterterrorism programs run by the Bush administration, including the infamous Total Information Awareness data-mining scheme. McConnell has also been a leading figure in outsourcing U.S. intelligence operations to private industry. [We interviewed] Tim Shorrock, independent journalist is currently working on a book about the privatization of intelligence:

TIM SHORROCK: Juan mentioned that he [McConnell] is into - talks about integration of intelligence services, because that's exactly what Booz Allen does. Booz Allen is one of about, you know, ten large corporations that play a very major role in American intelligence. Every time you hear about intelligence watching North Korea or tapping al-Qaeda phones, something like that, you can bet that corporations like these are very heavily involved. And Booz Allen is one of the largest of these contractors. I estimate that about fifty percent of our $45 billion intelligence budget goes to private sector contractors like Booz Allen.

"And Booz Allen Hamilton plays a very integral role in intelligence. It has a very close relationship, as you mentioned, with the National Security Agency. They advise them on their systems integration and things like this. They help bring intelligence together with other intelligence agencies.

"The NSA, the National Security Agency, is really sort of the lead agency in terms of outsourcing, and this began long before 9/11. It began in the late - you know, 1998, 1999, when they realized they were getting very behind the commercial world in technology. And so, you know, basically, the NSA has been leading this. Trailblazer was a very large program that they contracted to a company called Science Applications International Corporation, SAIC. [One of the largest of the insider mercenary companies]. And their job was basically, as you said before, data mining. They wanted to get all the intelligence they get from the phone intercepts, satellites, and get it into a form that their analysts can read and understand and analyze. And that's what SAIC has been doing. The project has cost about $4 billion, and it basically hasn't worked at all. [Not true]. There are all kinds of problems with it.

"But Booz Allen was a chief advisor to another program, which was the NSA's internal communications. This was a program called Groundbreaker. And all of these programs are analyzing, you know, the phone calls that they intercept, the government communications from abroad they intercept. And when they're intercepting phone calls between US citizens and people abroad, the corporations are involved. They have people there working not only as just technical advisors, but also doing analysis. And so, if the NSA is listening in on our phone calls, you can bet that Booz Allen is participating in that.

"JUAN GONZALEZ: And McConnell, not only has he been involved in contracting, but isn't he the chairman of the alliance of contractors that do business?

"TIM SHORROCK: Yeah. Over the last year, he became the chairman of this organization, the INSA, which represents the largest NSA and CIA contractors. So he's very involved in all levels of the contracting world, in terms of promoting the contractors and in terms of, you know, talking - pushing their interests in the government, within Congress. And so, you know, a guy like this running our intelligence services, as I said before, really is a serious problem.

"I think it's very important for your listeners to know and to understand that when talking about the intelligence office, eighty-five percent of the intelligence budget is controlled by the Pentagon. So we're talking about a military program here. Everything - the NSA is under the Pentagon. The National Geospacial-Intelligence Agency, which does mapping and imagery, they're under the Pentagon. The National Reconnaissance Office, which launches satellites, they're under the Pentagon. ... [T]here is a huge exodus of people from within government intelligence to these private contractors. ...

"It pays three or four times more. And a lot of these people [are] making $200,000, $250,000, $300,000. And it became such a problem that the last year the DNI actually put out a report saying, 'We're in trouble, because we're in competition with the contractors for our own jobs.'" That's the message Special Forces people get in Iraq when they see "retired" SF men working for SAIC and Dyncorp for ten times their pay.

MICROSOFT'S NEW OPERATING SYSTEM DESIGNED WITH NSA "SECURITY" IN MIND

StrategyPage.com says, "Microsoft Corporation admitted that it had worked with the NSA (National Security Agency) to improve the security of its new operating system, Vista." Improve or provide back doors for government snooping? It seems like the NSA loves to work with Google and Microsoft, and I don't think its all benevolent. [END]