Posts Tagged ‘Nixon’

trump-nixon-fuck-shit-up.png

The #Nixon vs. #Trump #Meme

Posted: October 22, 2018 in -
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Nixon-vs-Trump.png

 

Oh… P.S.

Trump Engaged in Suspect Tax Schemes as he Reaped Riches From His Father

reefer-23043

 

 

harveyw_21323111

Banned Woody Allen satire: Allen v. Nixon/Kissinger

 

ed_2633795b

by William Blum

Edward Snowden

Is Edward Snowden a radical? The dictionary defines a radical as “an advocate of political and social revolution”, the adjective form being “favoring or resulting in extreme or revolutionary changes”. That doesn’t sound like Snowden as far as what has been publicly revealed. In common usage, the term “radical” usually connotes someone or something that goes beyond the generally accepted boundaries of socio-political thought and policies; often used by the Left simply to denote more extreme than, or to the left of, a “liberal”.

In his hour-long interview on NBC, May 28, in Moscow, Snowden never expressed, or even implied, any thought – radical or otherwise – about United States foreign policy or the capitalist economic system under which we live, the two standard areas around which many political discussions in the US revolve. In fact, after reading a great deal by and about Snowden this past year, I have no idea what his views actually are about these matters. To be sure, in the context of the NBC interview, capitalism was not at all relevant, but US foreign policy certainly was.

Snowden was not asked any direct questions about foreign policy, but if I had been in his position I could not have replied to several of the questions without bringing it up. More than once the interview touched upon the question of whether the former NSA contractor’s actions had caused “harm to the United States”. Snowden said that he’s been asking the entire past year to be presented with evidence of such harm and has so far received nothing. I, on the other hand, as a radical, would have used the opportunity to educate the world-wide audience about how the American empire is the greatest threat to the world’s peace, prosperity, and environment; that anything to slow down the monster is to be desired; and that throwing a wrench into NSA’s surveillance gears is eminently worthwhile toward this end; thus, “harm” indeed should be the goal, not something to apologize for.

Edward added that the NSA has been unfairly “demonized” and that the agency is composed of “good people”. I don’t know what to make of this.

When the war on terrorism was discussed in the interview, and the question of whether Snowden’s actions had hurt that effort, he failed to take the opportunity to point out the obvious and absolutely essential fact – that US foreign policy, by its very nature, regularly and routinely creates anti-American terrorists.

When asked what he’d say to President Obama if given a private meeting, Snowden had no response at all to make. I, on the other hand, would say to Mr. Obama: “Mr. President, in your time in office you’ve waged war against seven countries – Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and Syria. This makes me wonder something. With all due respect, sir: What is wrong with you?”

A radical – one genuine and committed – would not let such a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity pass by unused. Contrary to what his fierce critics at home may believe, Edward Snowden is not seriously at war with America, its government or its society. Does he have a real understanding, analysis, or criticism of capitalism or US foreign policy? Does he think about what people could be like under a better social system? Is he, I wonder, even anti-imperialist?

And he certainly is not a conspiracy theorist, or at least keeps it well hidden. He was asked about 9-11 and replied:

The 9/11 commission … when they looked at all the classified intelligence from all the different intelligence agencies, they found that we had all of the information we needed … to detect this plot. We actually had records of the phone calls from the United States and out. The CIA knew who these guys were. The problem was not that we weren’t collecting information, it wasn’t that we didn’t have enough dots, it wasn’t that we didn’t have a haystack, it was that we did not understand the haystack that we had.

Whereas I might have pointed out that the Bush administration may have ignored the information because they wanted something bad – perhaps of unknown badness – to happen in order to give them the justification for all manner of foreign and domestic oppression they wished to carry out. And did. (This scenario of course excludes the other common supposition, that it was an “inside job”, in which case collecting information on the perpetrators would not have been relevant.)

The entire segment concerning 9/11 was left out of the television broadcast of the interview, although some part of it was shown later during a discussion. This kind of omission is of course the sort of thing that feeds conspiracy theorists.

All of the above notwithstanding, I must make it clear that I have great admiration for the young Mr. Snowden, for what he did and for how he expresses himself. He may not be a radical, but he is a hero. His moral courage, nerve, composure, and technical genius are magnificent. I’m sure the NBC interview won him great respect and a large number of new supporters. I, in Edward’s place, would be even more hated by Americans than he is, even if I furthered the radicalization of more of them than he has. However, I of course would never have been invited onto mainstream American television for a long interview in prime time. (Not counting my solitary 15 minutes of fame in 2006 courtesy of Osama bin Laden; a gigantic fluke happening.)

Apropos Snowden’s courage and integrity, it appears that something very important has not been emphasized in media reports: In the interview, he took the Russian government to task for a new law requiring bloggers to register – the same government which holds his very fate in their hands.

Who is more exceptional: The United States or Russia?

I was going to write a commentary about President Obama’s speech to the graduating class at the US Military Academy (West Point) on May 28. When he speaks to a military audience the president is usually at his most nationalistic, jingoist, militaristic, and American-exceptionalist – wall-to-wall platitudes. But this talk was simply TOO nationalistic, jingoist, militaristic, and American-exceptionalist. (“I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being.”) To go through it line by line in order to make my usual wise-ass remarks, would have been just too painful. However, if you’re in a masochistic mood and wish to read it, it can be found here.

Instead I offer you part of acommentary from Mr. Jan Oberg, Danish director of the Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research in Lund, Sweden:

What is conspicuously lackingin the President’s West Point speech?

  1. Any reasonably accurate appraisal of the world and the role of other nations.
  2. A sense of humility and respect for allies and other countries in this world.
  3. Every element of a grand strategy for America for its foreign and security policy and some kind of vision of what a better world would look like. This speech with all its tired, self-aggrandising rhetoric is a thin cover-up for the fact that there is no such vision or overall strategy.
  4. Some little hint of reforms of existing institutions or new thinking about globalisation and global democratic decision-making.
  5. Ideas and initiatives – stretched-out hands – to help the world move towards conflict-resolution in crisis areas such as Ukraine, Syria, Libya, China-Japan and Iran. Not a trace of creativity.

Ironically, on May 30 the Wall Street Journal published a long essay by Leon Aron, a Russia scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute in Washington. The essay took Russian president Vladimir Putin to task for claiming that Russia is exceptional. The piece was headed:

“Why Putin Says Russia Is Exceptional”

“Such claims have often heralded aggression abroad and harsh crackdowns at home.”

It states: “To Mr. Putin, in short, Russia was exceptional because it was emphatically not like the modern West – or not, in any event, like his caricature of a corrupt, morally benighted Europe and U.S. This was a bad omen, presaging the foreign policy gambits against Ukraine that now have the whole world guessing about Mr. Putin’s intentions.”

So the Wall Street Journal has no difficulty in ascertaining that a particular world leader sees his country as “exceptional”. And that such a perception can lead that leader or his country to engage in aggression abroad and crackdowns at home. The particular world leader so harshly judged in this manner by the Wall Street Journal is named Vladimir Putin, not Barack Obama. There’s a word for this kind of analysis – It’s calledhypocrisy.

“Hypocrisy is anything whatever may deceive the cleverest and most penetrating man, but the least wide-awake of children recognizes it, and is revolted by it, however ingeniously it may be disguised.” – Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoi, (1828-1910) Russian writer

Is hypocrisy a moral failing or a failing of the intellect?

The New Cold War is getting to look more and more like the old one, wherein neither side allows the other to get away with any propaganda point. Just compare any American television network to the Russian station broadcast in the United States – RT (formerly Russia Today). The contrast in coverage of the same news events is remarkable, and the stations attack and make fun of each other by name.

Another, even more important, feature to note is that in Cold War I the United States usually had to consider what the Soviet reaction would be to a planned American intervention in the Third World. This often served as a brake to one extent or another on Washington’s imperial adventures. Thus it was that only weeks after the Berlin Wall came down in 1989, the United States bombed and invaded Panama, inflicting thousands of casualties and widespread destruction, for the flimsiest – bordering on the non-existent – of reasons.  The hostile Russian reaction to Washington’s clear involvement in the overthrow of the Ukrainian government in February of this year, followed by Washington’s significant irritation and defensiveness toward the Russian reaction, indicates that this Cold War brake may have a chance of returning. And for this we should be grateful.

After the “communist threat” had disappeared and the foreign policy of the United States continued absolutely unchanged, it meant that the Cold War revisionists had been vindicated – the conflict had not been about containing an evil called “communism”; it had been about American expansion, imperialism and capitalism. If the collapse of the Soviet Union did not result in any reduction in the American military budget, but rather was followed by large increases, it meant that the Cold War – from Washington’s perspective – had not been motivated by a fear of the Russians, but purely by ideology.

Lest we forget: Our present leaders can derive inspiration from other great American leaders.

White House tape recordings, April 25, 1972:

President Nixon: How many did we kill in Laos?

National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger: In the Laotian thing, we killed about ten, fifteen [thousand] …

Nixon: See, the attack in the North [Vietnam] that we have in mind … power plants, whatever’s left – POL [petroleum], the docks … And, I still think we ought to take the dikes out now. Will that drown people?

Kissinger: About two hundred thousand people.

Nixon: No, no, no … I’d rather use the nuclear bomb. Have you got that, Henry?

Kissinger: That, I think, would just be too much.

Nixon: The nuclear bomb, does that bother you? … I just want you to think big, Henry, for Christsakes.

May 2, 1972:

Nixon: America is not defeated. We must not lose in Vietnam. … The surgical operation theory is all right, but I want that place bombed tosmithereens. If we draw the sword, we’re gonna bomb those bastards all over the place. Let it fly, let it fly.

“Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business.” – Michael Ledeen, former Defense Department consultant and holder of the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute

Help needed from a computer expert

This has been driving me crazy for a very long time. My printer doesn’t print the document I ask it to print, but instead prints something totally unrelated. But what it prints is always something I’ve had some contact with, like an email I received or a document I read online, which I may or may not have saved on my hard drive, mostly not. It’s genuinely weird.

Now, before I print anything, I close all other windows in my word processor (Word Perfect/Windows 7); I go offline; I specify printing only the current page, no multiple page commands. Yet, the printer usually still finds some document online and prints it.

At one point I cleared out all the printer caches, and that helped for a short while, but then the problem came back though the caches were empty.

I spoke to the printer manufacturer, HP, and they said it can’t be the fault of the printer because the printer only prints what the computer tells it to print.

It must be the CIA or NSA. Help!

3

Notes
  1. William Blum, Killing Hope, chapter 50
  2. Jonah Goldberg, “Baghdad Delenda Est, Part Two”,National Review, April 23, 2002

Any part of this report may be disseminated without permission, provided attribution to William Blum as author and a link to this website are given.

 

Roger-Stone-Man-who-killed-JFK

Nixon’s Dirty Trickster: LBJ Killed JFK

According to Roger Stone LBJ hit the floor of his car before the first shots were fired in Dealey Plaza.  He claims photos show this.  Will need to track those down…

This is a highly invested Republican operative, a slick character, and talking shit about Dems is in his bloodstream.  He helped rig the Florida recount and steal the 2000 election.

 

Black_Power_Mixtape_bronx_poster

Surprisingly enough, this is actually a Swedish documentary about the black power movement, 1967 – 75.  Back then, the Swedes were critical of US policy in Vietnam, earning the ire of a TV Guide cover story, attacking Sweden for “anti-Americanism.”  Telling the truth to Americans has always been interpreted as “anti-American” in the ruling circles.  After all “American” is more myth than reality and always has been.

Black Power Mixtape is part of that recent US history that doesn’t get taught in high schools.  This is crucial history, and it exposes how the country actually works.  It is impossible to understand US policy and the position of the government vis a vis its people, you, without understanding people’s movements and struggles.  Power, corruption, threats, terrorism, murder, imprisonment, invasion, mass murder, the reality and the brochure disagree.

black_power_mixtape2

The film goes in chronological order, beginning with Stokely Carmichael and his assessment of the strategies of Dr. King against the white power structure.  The war in Vietnam simmers in the background throughout.  Dr. King’s Beyond Vietnam speech and his final speech on the eve of his assassination are included.  Dr. King, of course, was killed by the state for turning against the war and speaking out on institutionalized poverty and the mechanisms of empire and exploitation.

With the string of political assassinations, orchestrated by CIA, FBI and other shady outfits, including JFK, Dr. King, RFK and prominent Black Panther leaders, the 1960s exploded.  Malcolm X is featured and Black Panther leaders organized armed resistance and community outreach under the banner of “socialism.”  This sends the group to the top of the US state hit list.

One speaker, in 2010, recounts how he was stopped at a US airport recently and interrogated for listening to a Stokely Carmichael speech from 1967.  The feds are still fighting this war on minorities, although hardly anyone today even recognizes Carmichael’s name!

The Swedes examine the perspectives of black Americans throughout the period.  Institutionalized poverty, conflicting ideologies, conflicting strategies, the turbulence of a nation at war with itself, as the 70’s roll around we have the Attica prison riot, presented as a revolutionary act.  The prisoners took 38 guards hostage and demanded basic human rights.  While negotiating in good faith, the National Guard stormed the prison and shot more than 40 people, killing guard hostages as well as the prisoners.  Claiming that prisoners cut the throats of guards in the early public propaganda, the autopsies proved otherwise: all were shot.

The trumped up politically-motivated case against Angela Davis is at the center of the film.  Clearly showing how the state manipulates the system and persecutes its opponents ruthlessly, this is a pivotal moment.  Davis was recognized across the nation as well as across the world as an icon standing up for black people and their rights.  It was Ronald Reagan who led the charge in California to send her to the death chamber for a crime she had nothing to do with.

black_power_mixtape

The government’s strategy of flooding the ghettos with drugs began with Nixon’s declaration of the “War on Drugs” in the early 70s.  Like much of the film, it is based on anecdotal stories from interviews.  This particular angle could have used more bolstering from research and sourcing.  The American people simply don’t know anything about this for the most part and won’t get the truth from corporate media.  It’s true, of course.  The CIA has been deeply involved in bringing drugs into the US for decades.  This is highly covert and bringing that info out is dangerous.  But sources are there if one digs.

With the destruction of the ghettos through drug addiction and poverty in the early 70s, comes the rise of Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam.

Heroin would give way to crack in the 80s which would usher in crystal meth later.  The effects are the same.  The poor are devastated and disorganized, fighting for scraps and under paramilitary siege.  These are the undercurrents of America, the reality that prime time has never heard of.

Black Power Mixtape is bleak and revolutionary.  It’s a cold, hard, sober look at how we got here.  Attempting to strike a positive note at film’s end, it’ hard to find the silver lining in such an overwhelmingly unjust system.

pakistanflag

 

“Make no mistake – this has implications beyond chemical warfare. If we won’t enforce accountability in the face of this heinous act, what does it say about our resolve to stand up to others who flout fundamental international rules? To governments who would choose to build nuclear arms? To terrorist who would spread biological weapons? To armies who carry out genocide?

We cannot raise our children in a world where we will not follow through on the things we say, the accords we sign, the values that define us.”

-Barack Hussein Obama 2013.

“If, when the chips are down, the world’s most powerful nation, the United States of America, acts like a pitiful, helpless giant, the forces of totalitarianism and anarchy will threaten free nations and free institutions throughout the world.”

– Richard Milhous Nixon 1970.

When the US claims that its reasons for using military mass violence are to maintain credibility it is really scraping the bottom of the rhetorical barrel. But is this desperation, or is it simply that they no longer even care enough to lie convincingly? Or is it that the price of being seen as a liar is less than the price of revealing the true motives and reasons for US government actions?

Our Soviet Moment

Even lies can only do half of the work of engineering the consent or assent (or mere apathy) required to launch a war. Lies provide a pretext which gives moral legitimacy and emotive force to the case for war. Lies are also used to adopt a mantle of formal legitimacy under international law. But there is a third component, necessary but so de-emphasised that it may pass entirely unnoticed. It is the component of reason or rational justification. You can establish your moral and legal right to act, but you still have to give some sort of case, however cursory and pathetic, to explain why the use of mass violence and mass killing actually makes some sort of sense. To give an example, lies were told to the about Kuwaiti newborns being dumped to die of exposure by Iraqis to give moral impetus to US intervention, but the rationalisation given for bombing and killing so many Iraqis was encapsulated in the Munich analogy highlighting the dangers of “appeasement”. This was more important and more emphasised than justifying the use of force as a means of liberating Kuwait.

(The essence of the Munich analogy is that if you do not use military force to oppose acts of international aggression you are simply emboldening the perpetrator and ensuring greater aggression – and hence war and suffering – in the future. The analogy doesn’t actually stand up because the Munich Agreement was actually collaboration not appeasement, but most people don’t know that. In 1990 the fundamental reason given that military action, as opposed to other forms of action, was a rational response to the aggression and atrocities of Iraqis was the threat of further aggression. We were told that Iraq was poised to attack Saudi Arabia. Naturally it was a lie, but it was a necessary lie.)

9-11 was crucial not just for the fact that it caused emotions to over-ride sapience, but because it provided that implicit rationale of using force to kill those who would do harm to you. It is true that this does not bear much thoughtful reflection, but those given to thoughtful reflection tend to oppose wars anyway. This and the Munich analogy are veneer rationalisations designed mainly for those who have faith in the judgements and goodwill of authorities – authorities who have successfully persuaded them to distrust their own perception and mental capacities. The danger for the US government is that these latter people – those whom they count on to support wars – start to think that their leaders are habitual liars. This is called a “credibility gap” a key component of the “Vietnam Syndrome” which prevented overt US aggression for over a few years. The “Vietnam Syndrome” meant that people would not accept further major acts of war.

But the way people seem to feel right now isn’t quite the way they felt when the “Vietnam Syndrome” held sway. It is both a cause for alarm and a great source of hope that the situation faced by the West now resembles the jaded scepticism of the peoples of the Soviet Bloc in 1980 more than it does the uncertain distrust of 1980 Western Bloc peoples. In 1980 radical and dissident voices were, as always, excluded from the public discourse of the mass media, but in the West at least the scepticism of the majority was acknowledged and represented. Now, like the mass media of the Soviet Union, our mass media have become totally detached from public opinion. There is a sense of piety which would view honesty as heresy – even those journalists who harbour the heresy themselves would not dare utter such dangerous notions, while the truly faithful act with such spittle-flecked fervour as would warm the heart of Torquemada. The heresy in question, the unspeakable notion of this moment, is that it makes no sense whatsoever for the Syrian government to have used chemical weapons at this time and therefore Obama and Kerry are probably just bald-faced liars.

It is no coincidence that our decaying Soviet moment is coming at a time when ordinary people can no longer sustain the illusion that there is a fundamental fairness in our system of governance. As with the Soviet Union, the links between political power and material wealth throw a spotlight on the fundamental corruption of a system of power referred to by the meaningless term of “capitalism”. People have long accepted the concept that those who acquire greater wealth wield greater political power, but now that we can no longer deny that it is in fact those who wield greater political power who acquire greater wealth. It was always so, but used to be arranged on a class basis in order that it would seem that some neutral economic mechanics of market functions made certain people wealthier than others. Now we can see quite plainly that the wealthy write laws to make themselves more wealthy at the expense of the poor. People are pissed off, but more to the point they are literally dis-illusioned. It is also no coincidence that this occurs at a time when the fist of the police state is ever more evident in both the use of physical force and in the unprecedented level of surveillance. Our society resembles the late era of the Soviet Union right down to the denial of the metastasised systemic malignancies of a régime that eats its own rotten flesh and sweeps the victims of its dysfunction under a rug bearing a bread-and-circus motif.

Another Reluctant Warmonger

Those who are familiar with the history of the US decision to launch all-out war in Vietnam may get déja vu. Those who already experienced déja vu over the Iraq occupation maybe feeling déja vu encore. (We may not have been impressed with what occurred in Iraq, but clearly someone gave it a standing ovation). Once again the US is proposing that a failure to act will make it appear weak and proposing instead to act in a way which its own analysis suggests will reveal it to be impotent. With regard to Viet Nam concern for “credibility” is still widely accepted as a motive for US aggression. After all, even if it seems a stupid rationale, US policy makers might really have believed it, surely? But, there is a difference between stupid and nonsensical. I don’t personally believe that the US policy makers were individually or collectively stupid, but even if they were that would not be sufficient to give weight to these claims. To claim that the US acted to maintain its “credibility” would be to suggest that they believed their credibility would be heightened by what Kissinger described as, “victory by a third class Communist peasant state.” That, after all, is what their most comprehensive analyses kept suggesting would be the outcome if they continued their escalating commitment, and so, logically, they chose this outcome (being “defeated” by a small nation of peasant farmers) over any other options such as neutralisation or simple unilateral withdrawal and the disowning of the GVN. To reitierate: the idea we are supposed to believe is that being militarily defeated by the poorly armed peasants a small underdeveloped state is supposed to be better for US credibility than doing nothing or bullying said state into massive concessions at the negotiating table.

(more…)

war_made_easy

The Big Lies of US Presidents

Norman Solomon, Sean Penn and others bring us the modern history of war propaganda and deception.  The American global empire since WW2 is examined, with war pretexts showing similar patterns and designed to rally, not to inform the public.  Official enemies are demonized regularly to drum up support for the next war, all the while professing that America never seeks violence. This parlor trick has been done so many times that it still amazes how the public can be so gullible, so ignorant, so stupid.

Archival footage shows the same lies, from Johnson to Bush Sr. to Clinton to Shrub.  The same war in the name of peace gibberish that plays so well in the ignorant heartland.  When a president starts talking about peace, watch out; Orwellian double-speak is more than a fiction.

“Actually, war becomes perpetual when it is used as a rationale for peace.”

War Made Easy is a compendium, much like What I’ve Learned About U.S. Foreign Policy.  But the editing is tighter and more focused.  This is the real history of our nation that isn’t permitted on corporate network news, not in this succinct, hard hitting, structured fashion.  Voices who call attention to US imperialism and deception do not get invited to corporate news studios.

Sad true fact is that every president in my lifetime should be tried as a war criminal for the same types of aggressive Nuremberg violations that led to the execution of Nazi war criminals after WW2.   And yet I did not see the Nuremberg statutes mentioned by Solomon.  He cushions his critique, perhaps to appeal to the deluded middle American audience, or perhaps he lacks the gumshen to shoot that straight?

Here Solomon tortures the language to make Obama seem less heinous than McCain in 2008.  Of course Solomon is a fixture in foundation-funded professional left-leaning propaganda outfits like Alternet.   Interestingly, not one mention is made of third parties in the election, or of a future that includes third parties.   With all the verbal contortions, acknowledging the charlatanism of the militarist, Obama, no alternative is even acknowledged as a possibility — ever, in perpetuity, amen.

Anyway, how does one know when the President is lying?

His lips are moving.

The US public has been systematically brainwashed into falsely believing that no criminal conspiracies can occur in the federal government.  In reality little else goes on.

In War Made Easy, the lies are exposed, deception called out — but it is never called a “crime.”  It is never suggested to demand impeachment.  It never compares war criminals from other nations to those here in the United States.   Is this a function of the foundation-funded media that critiques within a spectrum, that defines the boundaries of protest?

Media Liars

Thankfully, Solomon does destroy the propaganda of the corporate news media.  They are fair game.  The media, the willing executioners of imperial propaganda, are simply shown doing what they do now that the truth has come out and exposed their reports as deceptions, embedded war propaganda, hostile frothing partisan Brownshirt barking, etc.

“There’s a kind of an acculturated callousness as to what happens at the other end of US weapons.”

Network cheerleading for war and censoring out peace voices is shown explicitly, as the imperial media is laid bare as willing accomplices of death and destruction.  Media profits soar when they hype war and battle coverage.  This makes people more likely to tune in and see their commercials.  In partnership with the Pentagon and US officials, war lies are not questioned, not investigated, and actual journalists such as Phil Donahue in 2003, are simply fired.

Trailer

Website

Norman Solomon at the University of California, speech: War Made Easy.

“U.S. journalists don’t win Pulitzers for questioning the U.S. empire.”

This film should make you very angry if you have anything approaching a sense of morality or conscience regarding America’s Crimes Against Humanity and those depraved murderous psychopaths who run it, and who get away with mass murder on a fairly regular basis.

shinelight

(in the early 1970s)

Domestic right wing extremists were armed and organized by FBI agents to attack Vietnam War protesters.

Must read:

“The report also stated that the SAO planned to kidnap and murder protestors of the 1972 Republican National Convention, which was to be held in San Diego before being relocated to Miami Beach. An assassination attempt of Dr. Peter Bohmer, professor at San Diego State University, and Paula Tharp, reporter for the San Diego Street Journal, brought about the arrests of several SAO members who later acknowledge an FBI connection. During the investigation, the gun used in the assassination attempt was found in the home of FBI agent Steven Christiansen, who was subsequently identified as a SAO contact. In 1973, Godfrey, testifying as an FBI informant, claimed he received up to $20,000 in weapons and a $250 per month income from the FBI to recruit new SAO members and provide information to agents. He also testified to the criminal acts of several SAO operatives, including fellow leader Jerry Lynn Davis. Official statements from the FBI claimed no involvement with the SAO, and no agents were prosecuted.”

…[admitted FBI informant Howard Barry] Godfrey had regularly supplied the SAO with money and weapons on behalf of the FBI.”

A newspaper office was attacked. A car firebombed. Informants infiltrated, while meetings were monitored. There were plans to poison the punch at antiwar meetings. A theater was bombed. Bulletins were published on “how to make booby traps, how to use ammonium nitrate in high explosives,””

DHS says FBI “possibly funded” Terrorist Group

 

NIxonresigns copy

Objective Analysis: Obama Versus Nixon

Barack Obama

George Washington’s Blog:

Top Constitutional Experts: Obama Is Worse than Nixon”