The Liberty Beacon

The Liberty Beacon



Town Crier Launch 1

Visit Site here: The Liberty Beacon Town Crier

Town Crier Launch 3


(NaturalNews) Veteran Washington journalists and reporters, when they are being honest, will tell you that the current administration is the most political in modern history. Everything is about the proper messaging; optics are much more important, and policy is designed around perpetuating Democratic power.

What they will also tell you is that this White House is so concerned about messaging that it will go to any length to shape it, and that includes pressuring reporters, threatening them with loss of access and, yes, even spying on them (and their parents). It also includes savaging critics.

‘White House has demanded and received changes to pool reports

One of the most egregious tactics has been to demand that reporters change press-pool reports — again, to reflect a message that the administration wants to project, whether it’s accurate or not. As reported by The Washington Post:

White House press-pool reports are supposed to be the news media’s eyes and ears on the president, an independent chronicle of his public activities. They are written by reporters for other reporters, who incorporate them into news articles about President Obama almost every day.

Sometimes, however, the White House plays an unseen role in shaping the story.

The Post said that White House correspondents have complained that press aides for the president have demanded and received changes in press-pool reports before those reports were distributed among other journalists. And they have said this White House uses its leverage — which translates into access — “to steer coverage in a more favorable direction,” the Post said.

The paper went on to report that most of the disputed episodes involved trivial issues and minor factual matters. However, that this White House has even gotten involved in such matters makes for a bad trend; that some journalists have sold their souls and agreed to placate the very government they are charged with covering is even worse. The sell-out has prompted the White House Correspondents’ Association to consider revisions to pool reporting.

In case you’re not familiar with the White House press-pool reporting, it was a system created decades ago as a pragmatic compromise between the news media and the presidency: Rather than a mob of reporters covering the president at every conceivable function, private and otherwise, a small group of reporters are designated as proxies, essentially, and provide summaries as “poolers” for the entire press corps. As the Post explains:

Poolers are chosen on a rotating basis from among regular White House correspondents, and they typically get more favorable access to presidential events to provide coverage that is shared with other reporters.

As you might imagine, a pooler is a coveted position, but when the pool reports are skewed, colored or slanted by the administration, the end message is favorably “shaped” and the public is thereby denied an accurate account of what was said or done by the president at said events.

Political appointees now handling FOIA requests

But the Post is underplaying the effect of the administration’s tactics — again, likely to retain access. In reality, Washington correspondents are increasingly complaining about how the press is treated by Obama — which is ironic, given the media’s kid-glove treatment of this president from day one:

•New York Times reporter David Sanger has accused the Obama Administration of being the “most closed, most control freak administration” he has ever covered.

•The Associated Press’ Washington bureau chief, Sally Buzbee, said that the Obama White House engages in “day-to-day intimidation” of reporters. “AP’s transportation reporter’s sources say that if they are caught talking to her, they will be fired,” Erin Madigan White wrote about Buzbee’s statements in an AP blog. “Even if they just give her facts, about safety, for example. Government press officials say their orders are to squelch anything controversial or that makes the administration look bad.”

•In May, U.S. News and World Report noted that 42 percent of current White House correspondents said the administration is the “most secretive” ever, while 50 percent said this White House has lied to them.

Buzbee also said that political appointees are handling Freedom of Information Act requests, and that the administration uses such requests as a “tip sheet,” to discover what reporters are covering (so it can change the narrative beforehand).

White gives several more examples, which you can see here.


Read article here: http: //

TLB recommends you read more great/pertinent article here:


By: Derrick Broze

Over 2000 pages of emails released under a Freedom of Information Act request have uncovered an apparent conflict of interest between the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the American Dental Association (ADA) regarding water fluoridation. The emails also contain an admission by the CDC that those with kidney issues will likely be adversely affected by the substance.

From September 5th to the 8th the Fluoride Action Network held the 5th Citizens Conference on Fluoride in Washington D.C. At the conference, Dan Stockin, MPHreleased the emails and declared that “These documents make it abundantly clear….. the ADA and CDC Oral Health Division are the tweedledum and tweedledee of fluoridation promotion. They work hand in hand (often at taxpayers’ expense) to spin the message in favor of fluoridation.”

The 2500 pages contained emails from 2011 between employees at the Oral Health Division of the CDC (the only division at the CDC that deals with fluoridation) and the ADA, as well as communications from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

The Nidel Lawfirm helped in the efforts to get the emails released. A statement from Nidel states that, These documents raise questions about the objectivity of individuals within these agencies and indicate a need to get to the true motivations behind the lack of objectivity in these organizations.”

Attorney Paul Beeber, President of the New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc (NYSCOF), said the ADA, CDC, and the Pew Foundation are “ monitoring what NYSCOF and other groups who oppose fluoridation are doing and writing instead of allowing us to attend their meetings or participate directly in their email discussions.” The Pew foundation is a non-governmental organization that lobby’s to serve the public interest by “improving public policy, informing the public, and stimulating civic life.” 

Within the emails William Maas of the Pew Foundation says “There is a lot of uncertainty,” when it comes to fluoride’s effects on kidney patients. Maas, himself a former CDC Oral Health Division Director, is writing to ADA Director of Congressional Affairs, Judith Sherman. 

Also included in that email is William Bailey who was at the time the Director of CDC’s Oral Health Division. Bailey confirms what many critics of fluoride (aka hydrofluorosilicic acid) have said.  Fluoride affects the kidneys.

“End stage renal disease may be another issue. Since the body excretes fluoride through the kidneys, it is reasonable to assume that people with end stage [renal] disease may experience a buildup of fluoride.”

Also among the emails were communications between the ADA and the HHS. Writing about former Atlanta Mayor Andrew Young and his opposition to water fluoridation, officials of the HHS worry that the issue may be “gaining traction” and want to work with the ADA to formulate a response. In 2011, Young and Rev. Gerald Durley, and Bernice King, daughter of Martin Luther King Jr, began speaking out against water fluoridation and its disproportionate affect on the black populations. The leaders began calling the fight against water fluoridation a civil rights issue.

The government officials discuss the need to reach out to African-American clergy and research scientists to counter the growing opposition. The emails also contain discussion how to handle consumer advocate Ralph Nader and his vocal opposition to water fluoridation. Nader has long been an opponent of water fluoridation but on June 3, 2011 he issued a new statement saying, “It’s way overdue for this country to have an extended and open scientific and regulatory debate on fluoridation. There should be no mandatory fluoridation without the approval of people in a public referendum preceded by full and open public debate with disclosures. There is an old Roman law adage that says, ‘What touches all should be decided by all.’”

In an another FOIA document release, an internal memo from a  U.S. Public Health Service official highlights that the CDC has known since at least 1962 that fluoride affected the black population at a higher rate. On January 10, 1962  F.J. Maier wrote “negroes in Grand Rapids had twice as much fluorosis than others.” According to the CDCs own data blacks have a higher percentage of dental fluorosis than whites (58% vs 36%) based on 99-04 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).

What is Fluoride?

The substances added to municipal water supplies known by the name fluoride are actually a combination of unpurified by products of phosphate mining, namely hydrofluorosilicic acid, sodium fluorosilicate, and sodium fluoride. In the United States thousands of tons of fluorosilicic acid is recovered from phosphoric acid plants and then used for water fluoridation. During this process the fluoride ion is created.

This process of taking waste from the phosphate industry and putting it into drinking water has long been criticized for it’s effects on human health, and that of the environment. It is well known that water fluoridation has led to dental fluorosis for millions of children. This discoloring of the teeth was called “cosmetically objectionable” by the Centers for Disease Control. Beyond the cosmetic effect there have been a number of studies indicating health issues ranging from arthritisbrain problemsreduced thyroid or overactive  thyroidkidney problems and bone cancers.

While proponents of water fluoridation have long pointed to an apparent drop in tooth decay in fluoridated nations as proof of it’s validity, those claims have been proven wrong by the World Health Organization. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention has stated the fluoride in the water is directly related to better teeth quality however, the WHO released it’s own study showing that tooth decay rates have dropped in all western nations, whether fluoridated or not.

The reasons for opposing water fluoridation include: fear of a variety of health concerns; the belief that it is force medicating the population without their approval; financial waste; and environmental concerns related to phosphate mines where the chemical is found.

The Fight Against Water Fluoridation

According to the Fluoride Action Network,145 communities have rejected water fluoridation since 2010. The growing number of cities and towns questioning the safety and economic efficiency of  water fluoridation has been been sparked by community activism efforts around the world. These efforts have come as a response to a variety of studies looking at possible health dangers.

A recent study published in the Journal of Analytical Chemistry indicates that fluoride ions found in fluoridated water and toothpaste may lead to an increase in Urinary Stone Disease (USD). The study was conducted by chemists from Russia and Australia, led by Pavel Nesterenko at the University of Tasmania. The team studied 20 urinary stones from patients at a Russian hospital and discovered fluoride ions in 80% of the stones. This could be due to high levels of fluoride in patients urine, possibly from drinking water containing fluorides and ingesting fluoride toothpaste.

Another study published in the journal General Dentistry warns that infants are at risk of dental fluorosis due to overexposure from fluoride in commercially available infant foods. The researchers analyzed 360 different samples of 20 different foods ranging from fruits and vegetables, chicken, turkey, beef, and vegetarian dinners. All of the foods tested had detectable amounts of fluoride ranging from .007-4.13 micrograms of fluoride per gram of food. Chicken products had the highest concentrations of fluoride, followed by turkey. The New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation (NYSCOF) reports that the fluoride levels were due to pesticides, fertilizers, soil, groundwater, and/or fluoridated water. The high levels found in the chicken and turkey can be attributed to “fluoride-saturated bone dust” involved in the process of mechanically separating the meat.

Although these studies hint at various problems governmental and health organizations continue to recommend fluoride, also known ashydrofluorosilicic acid. Earlier this year American Dental Association issued new guidelines recommending “a smear” of fluoride toothpaste for children 3 and under and a “pea-sized dab” for those aged 3 to 6.

TLB recommends Fluoride Action Network visit their site:  link:  the 5th Citizens Conference on Fluoride

Read article here: http: //

TLB Highly recommends you visit Ben’s website for more great/pertinent articles, videos, shows and information. (click on logo below to visit site)




History teacher Dan Falcone and English teacher Saul Isaacson spoke with Noam Chomsky in his Cambridge office on September 16, 2014, about education and indoctrination, the 1960s, the Powell memorandum, democracy, the creation of ISIS, the media and the way “capitalism” actually works in the United States.

Dan Falcone: We’re in Cambridge, Massachusetts, with Professor Noam Chomsky. I am Dan Falcone with Saul Isaacson, and this is actually the third time I’ve visited you. So I wanted to thank you for that. And since I am a teacher, I wanted to start off by continuing on the themes of democracy and education.

I have noticed students making very insightful and uplifting observations in the midst of chaos. For example, they noticed that support for Israel fell out of favor in certain mainstream circles, and that the recent police treatment of unarmed black teenagers in intensifying areas of violence is a crucial matter of concern. This, to me, is an example of reasons to be hopeful. Can this type of thinking be traced to the work done in the 1960s or is that an oversimplification in your view?

Noam Chomsky: I think the activism of the 1960s had a very definite civilizing effect on the whole society in all kinds of ways. So lots of things that by now are almost taken for granted were heretical in the 1960s. We had anti-sodomy laws until not many years ago.

When people denounced [former Iranian president Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad for rejecting and criminalizing homosexuality, it should be remembered that was true of the United States until very recently. Women’s rights were unheard of. Civil rights proponents were horribly treated, not just in the South. It was awful there, but pretty bad here. Environmental issues did not exist. Opposition to aggression was virtually zero. In fact, so little, that to this day, even scholarship mentions the Vietnam War as beginning in 1965.

By 1965, South Vietnam had already been practically destroyed. At least a couple of hundred thousand US troops were ravaging and began the attack on the north. You literally could not have mentioned this in Boston, which is a liberal city. The first time we tried to have a public antiwar demonstration on the Boston Common, which is where everything takes place, it was broken up; [we] couldn’t have it. It was October 1965. I was supposed to be a speaker. Nobody could hear the speakers. The Boston Globe – the most liberal newspaper in the country – the next day, you can look it up on the internet, was full of denunciations of these people who were daring to question the validity of the bombing of North Vietnam. I mean, this is five years into the war. There’s nothing like that anymore.

The Iraq War, for example, is the first war in history, in which there were huge demonstrations before the war was launched, not beginning five years later and then being broken up. All of these are changes, and the people who are writing in journals today lived through these changes. They were all affected, and so I think you and your students’ perceptions are correct. It’s kind of interesting and sick that the intellectual culture called the 1960s, “time of troubles,” a dangerous period in which a lot of harm was done to the society. And the reason is because we were civilized and that’s dangerous. That increased the commitment to democracy, to rights and so on, and this left people much less obedient.

There’s actually a classic presentation of this which maybe we discussed, so stop me, but the study of The Crisis of Democracy, a very important book which was published. It’s the first publication of the Trilateral Commission, which was a group of liberal internationalists. For example, the Carter administration was entirely drawn from their ranks. It’s basically where they come from; so kind of the liberal end of the mainstream spectrum.

The Crisis of Democracy was published in 1975, and it was a discussion of the destructive effect of the 1960s. The destructive effect was that it called for too much democracy. You have to read it to believe it. The picture was that before, people were mostly passive and obedient and they did what they were told and democracy functioned fine.

But in the 1960s, various parts of the population became energized and began to enter the public arena to call for the rights of women, students, young people, old people, farmers and workers. What are called “special interests” – meaning the whole population – they began to press to enter the public arena. And they said that puts too much pressure on the state and therefore we have to have more moderation in democracy and they should go back and be quiet and obedient.

There’s interestingly one group that they never discussed as a special interest, corporate power, which makes sense. That’s the national interest, so we don’t talk about that. But, of course, they have overwhelming control over policy and they particularly singled out the universities. Schools, churches, universities – they describe them as institutions responsible for “the indoctrination of the young” – their phrase, indoctrination of the young. And they said they’re failing. You can see it because all these young kids are out in the street, opposing the war, calling for women’s rights and so on.

So the young are not being indoctrinated properly and they therefore called for more efforts to – the state, they said, should intervene to ensure that indoctrination takes place properly. They also criticized the media. Anyone who looked at the media could see that it’s overwhelmingly conformist. But there was some criticism. I mean, there were people in the media who were saying, “The war’s too costly. Maybe we shouldn’t continue with it” and so on. And they said even that’s too much. You can’t have the media being this oppositional and critical of power. So maybe the state should step in with some form of censorship and control over the media.

This is the liberal extreme of the spectrum. If you want to see the other extreme, one important thing to look at, which came out around the same time, is the Powell Memorandum. You can pick it up on the internet. This is Justice Powell. He was picked by Nixon to be on the Supreme Court. He was an advisor to the Nixon administration, very right-wing, and he essentially expresses the same views except in a less polite form. And you have to read it to believe it. It was very influential. It was a letter written to the Chamber of Commerce, a business group, but it surfaced pretty quickly. It was supposed to be secret.

But what he essentially says – and the rhetoric is revealing, almost quoting, he says, “Marxists have taken over practically everything. They run the universities. They run the media. There’re overwhelming attacks on business. Business is being persecuted. Nobody’s standing up for business. We’re the persecuted minority and the world is lost,” which is a very interesting illustration of the attitude of people who own everything. If you owned everything and a tiny little piece gets out of control, then your world’s gone. Like some unusual child who has a million toys and one of them is stolen, he’s going to perish.

That’s the standard attitude of people who fundamentally own the world. And then he goes on to talk about how we can deal with this. He says, look, take the universities. The universities are funded by business. The trustees are from the business world. Instead of just allowing the universities to be taken over by Marxists led by Herbert Marcuse and so on, which is such an illusion you can’t even talk about it. Instead of that, he says, “We could discipline them by using the power of the purse, which we have, and we can oppose it and we can defend this.” It’s all defensive. We can defend ourselves from this tremendous attack by using our economic power to sort of allow business a tiny little sector in which it can function.

You really have to read it to get the sense. Well, those are the two ends of the spectrum and out of that comes the whole liberal assault, the population on the colleges, on the schools and so on. So the students are right. There was a big impact and it’s partly illustrated by the reaction, but it’s there. You can see it in all kinds of ways. It’s just a much more civilized world than it was.

Falcone: Just recently in the Myth of the Spoiled Child, a book by Alfie Kohn, he systematically discredits this belief that children are spoiled. He seems to challenge the standard bipartisan effort that undermines democratic education and drives it toward a business model or corporate setting for education. In other words, the standard complaint by those parents or educators whether liberal or conservative, is that no matter what the tactic, old school or new, education is still compliance-based, while focusing little on development. What are your thoughts on his sentiments, which are probably the same as a Jonathan Kozol?

Chomsky: I think they’re basically right. Both Kozol and Kohn, and others too, are focusing on what traces back to the kinds of attitudes that are expressed in the books I mentioned across the spectrum. Maybe people didn’t follow those particular prescriptions, but these are reflected as very widely held views, which is why the ’60s are called “the times of troubles” by “real” intellectuals. And out of that comes the sense that, yes, you have to improve the institutions responsible for indoctrination of the young. You have to control children. You have to make sure that they’re not too free and creative and independent, and it shows up in all sorts of ways.

So, for example, take say the neighborhood where I live. We moved there 50 years ago. It’s a quiet neighborhood out in the suburbs. No traffic on the streets, practically none; woods in the back where the kids can play. When we moved, we moved there mainly because we had young children. It looked like a great place for children to grow up and kids were all over the streets. We had a couple of little girls playing out in the woods by themselves and so on. You go in that neighborhood now you’d never see a child.

If I take a walk, occasionally I’ll see an adult with a dog and sometimes they’ll have to drag a child along with them that didn’t want to be there. But in general, there are no kids playing. Back in the woods behind our house, for example, there’s a tree, which for children automatically is a climbing tree. It’s just perfect. As soon as a kid sees it, they want to climb.

Back in the ’60s and ’70s, that tree over the summer became a cooperative, a spontaneous activity for the kids in the neighborhood. Each kid would bring a piece of wood and they’d put it up and somebody would bring something else, and by fall you had this elaborate construction up in the tree of tree houses and kids playing and running around and so on.

You take a walk now, the tree’s bare. Children are not allowed out. They don’t play. They’re either inside looking at video games or something or they’re in organized activities. I’ve seen it in the most amazing ways. Look, I have a grandson who’s in his 20s, but when he was a kid, he loved sports. So he wanted to play soccer and basketball and everything.

But the only way to do it was to be in a league. It happened to be Salem, so he was in the Salem baseball league or something. I remember once my wife and I went out to watch him one Saturday afternoon. He wanted us to come out. He was 7 years old. There were two teams of 7-year-old kids playing soccer. Now, the referee was 11 years old. The parents were standing on the sideline screaming at the referee and ready to kill him because somebody had pushed their kid and he didn’t do something about it.

I remember once we went over to his house on another Saturday afternoon. He was to play a baseball game. He came back about half an hour later very unhappy. We asked him what happened. They said they had to call off the game. The kids were about 10. They had to call off the game because the other team only had eight players. So therefore the kids couldn’t play baseball. Everybody’s sitting around. But they couldn’t allow their teammate to be the ninth player for the other team so that the kids could have some fun because it has to be run by adults so that the league works the way it does.

And this just goes on and on. I mean, childhood is just being lost and in the schools you see the same thing. Well, you know better than I do that the indoctrination is incredible. The Bush-Obama programs are programs for training kids for the Marine Corps. And I think they’re purposely done that way. It undermines the independence of teachers. If kids are studying for a test, they’re not going to learn anything. We all know that from our own experience. You study for a test and pass it and you forget what the topic was, you know. And I presume that this is all pretty conscious. How conscious are they? I don’t know, but they’re reflections of the attitude that you have to have discipline, passivity, obedience, the kind of independence and creativity that we were shown in the ’60s and since then – it’s just dangerous.

Falcone: Faith Agostinone-Wilson has conducted some educational research that’s similar to Henry Giroux’s in that she examines school-based implementations, as you mentioned the “neoliberal worldview via correct worker attitude.” This would be for a teacher – I’m assuming a student also – in order to “promote classroom management as a way to build teamwork or steering students towards self-regulation. These efforts worked together to ultimately shape attitudes and dispositions towards a capitalist ethos.” Almost as if the schools are becoming embodiments of modern corporations. Is that overstated?

Chomsky: Well, you may know better than I do. I see the schools only from a distance, but my feeling is, it’s basically correct. I don’t think Duncan and those guys are saying, “Let’s instill capitalist values.” I think what they want to do is instill discipline, obedience and passivity. We’re going to say this is what you have to know to repeat at age 7, at age 10, at age 12. And if you can repeat those things, you go on ahead. If a kid decides “I don’t want to do that. I want to study something else,” you have to stop them.

Actually, I’ve talked to teachers’ groups occasionally and the reactions are interesting. I remember not long ago I talked to a group of teachers. At the end, a sixth-grade teacher came up just to talk to me and she told me of her own experience in class. It was a little girl that came up after class and said she was interested in something that came up. Could she have some ideas as to how to pursue it? And the teacher had to tell her, “You can’t do it because you have to study for the MCAS. You have to pass that exam that’s coming.” The teacher even said, “My salary depends on it.” So you’re not going to get ahead if you do that. If you pursue your own interest, you’re not going to pass. And I happened to go to a school when I was a kid and that’s all we did, pursue our own interests. It was kind of structured so you ended up knowing everything you were supposed to know, arithmetic, Latin, whatever it was. But almost always it was under your own initiative.

Falcone: A lot of this is accompanied by a very strong emphasis on technology, and not necessarily for liberating or creative impulses. It’s technology that’s driving software managers or selling products and driving obedience training. It makes education difficult.

Chomsky: Technologies can be liberating, but it can also be a tool of coercion and control.

Falcone: Can I ask you about “The Responsibility of Intellectuals”? Your famous essay is nearing its 50th anniversary. In your opinion, have the challenges associated with that essay shifted or remained relatively the same?

Chomsky: I think they’re virtually identical. It’s almost comical. I could give so many examples. To pick one out, it doesn’t make any sense. But this morning I happened to read a Washington Post editorial which was about the conference on building this great coalition to fight ISIS. Everybody thought it was wonderful. They said there was one spoiler. The spoiler was Iran and then it quoted a tweet by the Ayatollah Khomeini condemning the conference. It also pointed out that Iran hadn’t been invited to the conference, but that couldn’t be the reason why Iran was criticizing it. It was because Iran was the spoiler.

That’s typical of the way intellectuals look at the world. You take the party line and you internalize it and then you interpret everything in those terms with few exceptions. In fact, there are probably more exceptions now than there were in the ’50s and ’60s, but they’re still pretty restrictive. A lot of people who try to break out of the mold are just kicked out.

Saul Isaacson: I have a media question. When I heard about the fall of Mosul, to be honest, that was the first I’ve heard of ISIS and I follow the mainstream media fairly closely.

Chomsky: Same here. It was a real surprise.

Isaacson: Why is that? Were there people who knew and were keeping it from us?

Chomsky: First of all, when Iraq stopped being a US story, the press corps left. If we’re not involved, what’s the difference? So, for example, the worst crimes in the world right now in the last couple of years are going on in Eastern Congo. There’s almost nothing about them.

Isaacson: I’ve read nothing of it.

Chomsky: Nothing, but maybe 5 million people have been killed in the last couple of years. One reason we don’t hear anything about it is because there’s very limited official US involvement of the press corps. The other reason is that the story is not going to be palatable. Part of the reason for the atrocities is so that you can have a device like a cell phone. The multinationals are all over the place. They’re ripping off essential minerals. And the militias that are slaughtering everyone are basically providing the mineral resources for multinationals that are profiting off this kind of cheap access to resources and selling it to you. That’s not the kind of story you want to tell people.

So there are several reasons why it’s not covered. In the case of Mosul, there was an official story. General [David] Petraeus, who is a military genius, went to Mosul and pacified everything – was wonderful and he left and became a big hero. Five minutes after he left, it all fell apart because there was nothing going on. And as soon as he left, the place fell apart with warring militias and so on. But that’s not a good story. It didn’t fit with the party line at the moment. And since then, that’s been continuing. It’s kind of ironic a US and Iranian-backed government happens to be very brutal. It’s been attacking the Sunni minority quite viciously and nobody’s paying attention. Then all of a sudden, it turns out that you got this group ISIS, which had literally a couple of thousand lightly-armed jihadis facing an Iraqi army of 350,000 people heavily armed, trained by the United States for 10 years. The army, as soon as it looked at them, ran away and left their weapons behind. What does that tell you about the attitude of Iraqis toward the United States? It’s not the kind of thing you report back. There are people doing it, like Patrick Cockburn of the London Independent, but he’s almost alone.

Isaacson: Did it remind you of the army of South Vietnam? (ARVN)

Chomsky: Yeah, it’s kind of like that. You go back to the Vietnam War; it’s kind of interesting. The American military intelligence couldn’t understand what was happening. They said that our Vietnamese don’t want to fight, but their Vietnamese are 10 feet tall. They seemed to be supermen. They’re the same people. How can that be? But the obvious answer, of course, doesn’t occur. In fact, you can generalize this. Let’s take Southeast Asia. The last 20, 30 years has been what’s called the “Asian Miracle” – fast economic growth, industrial society. It’s happening all over, with one exception, which one? The Philippines is the one that can’t grow, which the US has been running for 100 years. Is there a correlation? Have you read about it? It comes to mind, at least.

Falcone: I remember you making the point about the iPads and the materials used from the Congo and you made a comment that said something like, maybe American taxpayers, if they had their choice between the brutal behavior with transnational support or services, they might pick governmental goods and services but they didn’t have a choice.

Chomsky: Go back to the ’50s when I got here. I was in a research lab. In fact, right down below this, there’s a research lab for electronics. It was 100 percent funded by the Pentagon. What it was doing was creating the modern IT technology culture in a high-tech economy on public funds: the internet, computers, microelectronics. It was all coming out of public funds. Thirty years later, it began to be profitable. Then it was handed over to private enterprise.

The first marketable small computer was Apple in 1977. That’s after about 30 years of research and development mainly in the state sector, places like this, of public expense. In a capitalist system, there’s a principle that if you invest, especially in a long-term risky investment, if something comes out of it, you’re supposed to get the profit. It doesn’t happen in our system. The taxpayer paid for it and gets nothing – assumes all of the risk, gets zero. The money goes into the pockets of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, who are ripping off decades of work in the public sector.

Now, go back to your question and comment. Had the people in the 1950s had been asked, “Do you want your taxes to go to development of the kind of technology that will allow your grandchildren to have iPads or do you want your taxes to go into a livable society? Health care, education, places where people can have decent lives? And so on. What would people have decided? Well, whatever the answer was, they didn’t have an answer because they never had a choice. They were told, “You have to pay taxes for the Pentagon because the Russians are coming and the Chinese are coming.”

And it turns out that they were paying their taxes so that their grandchildren could have an iPod and Steve Jobs could get rich. Well, that’s the way the whole society works, but you don’t read about that. Go back to “The Responsibility of Intellectuals.” How often do you read this? It’s a glaring, obvious fact. You can find it. There are a couple of people around the fringes who read about it. But it’s not the kind of thing that’s presented to the public. The economics department here – a good department – they don’t even write about it. They produce abstract models of free markets, which have very limited relation to the reality right under their nose.

Falcone: Thank you very much for your time.

Isaacson: Thank you. It was fascinating as always.

Read article here:

TLB recommends you read more great/pertinent articles here:


…by Gordon Duff,  Senior Editor

Yesterday, I spoke with two individuals who see themselves as “cutting edge” in activism, alternative medicine, you know what I am getting at.  What was shocking to me is how little they paid attention, how little they knew, how little effort they and so many others make at all.  Despite the Fox News and Alex Jones controlled “fear porn” industry, the truth is out there.  VT puts it there daily, has been for years, and has a large worldwide audience.

Today I want to cite two security threats above all, Google and Wikipedia.  It would be over-simplistic to call them CIA or Mossad fronts, they are quite worse than that.  Whoever owns or manages these organizations, they were created, at the outset, by groups within US Army intelligence at the Presidio, groups long tied to the systematic control of all world media.

In fact, between bribes and blackmail, every major media figure in the world is an intelligence asset.  The only time “red line” subjects are mentioned, it is as a “buy in” to control dialog and derail what is deemed by the secret world government, and there very much is such a thing, any move that might threaten common mythology.

Saying that everything everyone knows is a lie is a pretty good generalization.  I spent much of the last 5 months having physicists explain how universities turn out “flat earth” scientists, teach theories long debunked, how papers from the early 20th century are still classified and how many commonly accepted “physical laws” are fairy tales.   This month’s Nexus Magazine has an article by a VT editor and particle physicist on “Anti-gravity and Magnetic Buoyancy.”  Every science text book since 1945 has been an embarrassing fiction.

This is why VT, over the past few months, has put out an educational series intended only for scientists, making available previously classified finds that, we hope, will help some of them become useful and productive members of society as opposed to rumor mongering witch doctors.

What has pushed me to jot these few things down today is a minor delve into Wikipedia.  I had done some “jousting” with Chris Bollyn over the early part of the summer over issues of the validity of source materials.  As someone who works in intelligence, I operate under different rules than a journalist.  The back and forth ended up including Dr. Stephen Jones, Richard Gage and others.  In the end, it was not a useful interchange and nothing of value was learned, not by me anyway, quite the opposite, but that’s not important now.

Bollyn used to work for the American Free Press.  By VT standards, the AFP is a “mild mannered” publication with moderate views and an aspect of editorial freedom.  I also recognize, among its contributors, a number of what I believe to be “paid controlled opposition.”  When I say “a number,” this is as opposed to “all” for other publications.

When I looked on Wikipedia to see if they had any legitimate background on the AFP, as Wikipedia at times can be “brilliant,” I found smears, cheap propaganda and garbage.  I have been a registered Wikipedia editor since the beginning.  I had seen, in “sensitive areas,” Wikipedia’s convoluted and highly secretive “back room” turn into a pure propaganda machine.

I have been in several “Wiki-wars” over the years.  One involved former Congressman and UN Ambassador Mark Siljander.  Mark had been arrested in order to silence him on his opposition to the Bush war in Iraq.  The government had invented insane charges against him, pulled them out of thin air.  Then the US Attorney office in St. Louis submitted a wildly inaccurate Wiki entry, total lies meant to vilify Siljander.  I edited it out.  They redid it.  This went on for weeks, with me winning out.

Well, across Wikipedia, there is one overriding theme.  Wikipedia is about all things “Israeli” and all things “Zionist.”  This isn’t just an Israeli propaganda effort to justify their genocide or involvement in world organized crime.  The US Army is working with them as well, the gang at Fort Huachuca, Arizona and those that used to be at the Presidio, the Signals Commands, the Psychological Warfare groups, and dozens of illegally funded retiree and contractor groups that, when they aren’t releasing influenza or low level Sarin gas on New York’s subway system (which they have been caught doing), they help produce episodes of Bones and Homeland or NCIS Los Angeles and dozens of other television dramas or arrange for automobile accidents like the one that killed Michael Hastings.

Are you aware that when Julian Assange turned hundreds of thousands of documents over to the New York Times, that organization called the Mossad to send teams to edit what could be published?  When Zbigniew Brzezinski said Wikileaks was run by an intelligence agency (December 3, 2010 on NPR with Judy Woodruff), this is only part of what he meant.

Similarly, Edward Snowden’s real intelligence has little to do with the “chickenfeed” we have seen so far.  I have seen his real material, sent to me by Russian intelligence sources.  It names some of the most powerful people in Washington as having organized terror attacks inside the US.  There is nothing about spying on Germany.  We see names like Cameron and Netanyahu tied to nuclear proliferation issues that, in any “normal world” would lead to prosecution.  None of the real material was ever printed though released.  It was withheld from the public “for their own good” as it would have destroyed the public’s faith in “elected officials” to find that Al Qaeda is an intelligence operation, not a terrorist group.

Wikipedia exists, run by US Army psychological warfare groups working closely with Israel, as a way of controlling thought and suppressing information.  It is an embarrassment, childish, monstrous, and fully complicit in war crimes.  Wikipedia was used to prestage the genocide in Gaza, justifies political murders and blames state terrorism on imaginary organizations.

Here is the rub, the attacks on Twitter and Facebook are nothing but deflections from Google and Wikipedia, far more dangerous organizations.  Google actually has its own mercenary organization operating across the Middle East.  Google runs “counter-terrorism” groups, armed teams inside Syria, Iran, Turkey, Israel, Jordan, Iraq and Georgia.

They are believed to be involved in the recent gas attacks against the Kurds, germ warfare, car bombings and political assassinations in Iran.

Moreover, Google itself is a massive organization, long infiltrated and controlled.  The Google search engine, which literally controls all access to information online, steers researchers to “sockpuppet” websites that carry carefully crafted smears and propaganda.  Articles of lasting value, major leaks, are wiped clean.  Entire events are scrubbed from Google every day.

Google has made sure that the internet is, if anything, more obnoxious than television.

Google also assures that the internet is all about Israel.

Yesterday, nearly the entire British parliament rebuked Israel.  This wasn’t about Gaza and the genocide there, the bombings of UN schools and the murder of children.  The relationship between Israel and ISIS is inescapable.  They are one and the same, a “world class” psy op using media, US Army psychological warfare personnel and that very nasty secret world government.

Google News will keep fingers pointed the wrong way, almost as badly as the shameful Pentagon “Early Bird” has done for years, keeping the military “barefoot and pregnant” so to speak.

A war is upon us now.  Our enemies are Wikipedia and Google.  Let’s name them as what they are, they may be the only real enemy we stand a chance of destroying.  Facebook infiltration is a joke.  Who needs the NSA when Google reads every email, every search, and builds a psychological profile of every human being?

As for Wikipedia, it simply needs to go away.  The shame, of course, is the hard work thousands of decent people have put into that propaganda rathole.  Wikipedia is filth of the most despicable kind.

You see, this is what killed America, our attraction to filth, to malicious gossip and those that recognize how weak and ignorant people are attracted to “dirty laundry.”

Read article here:

TLB recommends you read more great/pertinent articles here:

cspoa 5


Today more and more of our liberties have been ripped right out from under us. Unfortunately, it took an attack on our Second Amendment rights to bring this to our attention in a glaring fashion. Many citizens are left wondering what is next. Fortunately there is a group of people just like you and me who are fighting back. I want to bring them to the forefront.

The Organization I am referring to is the Constitutional Sheriff and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA). This is a group of law enforcement officers who see gun control laws and other blatant infringements as violations of the U.S. Constitution. Sheriffs and Police Officers from around the Country urge We The People to continue speaking out for their liberty and freedoms as defined by the Bill of Rights. Many CSPOA members say it would violate their oaths to support gun control and other freedom and rights robbing measures being throw down on us by a corrupt and complicit Congress and Executive branch.

The Constitutional Sheriff and Peace Officers Association, Founded by Sheriff Richard Mack and Associates in 2010, has a mission. Simply put that mission is to serve the people and protect their rights. Here is their mission statement.

“To educate and equip sheriffs, peace officers and public officials with the necessary information and public support to carry out their duties in accordance with their Oath of Office.”

Their goal is to create an organization in every county where the local residents can restore the Constitution and the principles of liberty and individual responsibility at the county level. Police Chief Larry Cook in Missouri said “Whether it is gun rights or your property rights or your personal rights, no one right is greater than any of the rest of them”.

Most people don’t realize that the Office of County Sheriff is our last line of defense. They were here long before any other governmental form of law enforcement was ever established, so why the county sheriff? The county sheriff is the line in the sand. The county sheriff is the one who can say to the feds, “Beyond these bounds you shall not pass. This is not only within the scope of the sheriff’s authority; it’s the sheriff’s sworn duty. This is why CSPOA encourages other law enforcement personnel, the next time they hear “Serve and Protect” to repeat in their own minds the true meaning, embodied in their slogan: To Serve the People and Protect Their Rights.

The County Sheriff is an elected position and he is responsible to us, We The People. He is not appointed and he answers only to the people who elected him. This makes this individual and all Sheriffs unique in this country.

So lets discuss this a little more … With one of the original founders of CSPOA, Sheriff Richard Mack himself. Please listen to this discussion and hear a true patriot describe the resounding importance of the Constitutional sheriff and local peace officer in these times of chaos and uncertainty.

Answer the call to become an active member of CSPOA and help hold the line, and push back, against tyranny and the continued usurpation of our Constitutional rights and freedoms!

Join CSPOA today HERE

The following is an excerpt from the CSPOA website. Please read on …


Almost every state and county have some form of this slogan on their badges, patches, uniforms or the side of their patrol cars. It is intended to inspire motivation and courage within each officer or official to do his or her best. But how often do we really stop and think about what it means?


TO SERVE: Who? THE PEOPLE. Other possible answers that may have been implied our stated outright may include “To serve the government”, “To serve the law” or “To serve your commanding officer”.

While there may be a grain of truth in there somewhere, let’s remember who we’re all REALLY there to serve: The People. The guy next door; the family down the street; the good, hard-working people of this great land who see their liberty as a precious gift and exercise it with great care, being ever conscious not to tread on the liberty of others. Those who still honor our Constitution as the establishment of the greatest form of government ever to exist on Earth.

AND PROTECT: What? THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE. Wait a minute, isn’t our job to write tickets and catch bad guys? We may do a lot of that on a day-to-day basis, but never lose sight of what we are really all about. We are about keeping our communities (and thereby, the nation as a whole) a free, happy, safe place to live.

Why do we catch and punish lawbreakers? Because if our laws are constitutionally correct, they prohibit us from doing only those things that infringe on the rights or freedoms of others.

For example, when a thief takes something that someone else has worked for, he is denying that citizen the right to their own property. When someone commits a violent crime, he is damaging the most valuable real property a person can own, which is their own body. Traffic laws are in place for the same reason: To protect life and property.

But all too often, our lawmakers enact more laws in a supposed effort to protect everyone from everything, even from ourselves. Lawmakers cross the line when they attempt this by violating one of our most precious constitutional rights of all: The right to determine our own destiny.

We often do not realize how blessed we are to live in a land where each of us can choose:

  • What job we will take, and under what conditions, and when we will change jobs
  • What education we will gain
  • Where we will live
  • How big of a family we will have (or whether to have one at all)
  • What kind of house to live in
  • What kind of vehicle to drive
  • How to restrain ourselves and our passengers while operating a vehicle
  • What religion we will follow
  • How, where and when we will invest our earnings
  • Where, when and what type of medical care we will seek
  • What medicines we will use
  • What kind of foods we eat
  • What kind of milk we drink
  • What we will spend our money on
  • How we will use our own property
  • How we defend ourselves, our families and our property
  • How we care for the poor and needy in our communities
  • How to educate our own children
  • What values/morals to teach our children

We have already lost our rights to do at least half of the things on that list as well as many others, to some extent! What is going on here? Simply this: Power-hungry government officials – backed by people with hidden agendas – have convinced us to sacrifice our freedoms bit by bit, always in the name of some supposedly noble cause (usually something to do with protecting us from some imaginary or greatly exaggerated danger). And with every change they gain a little more power; a little more control.

But what does this have to do with the CSPOA?

The county sheriff is the line in the sand. The county sheriff is the one who can say to the feds, “Beyond these bounds you shall not pass.” This is not only within the scope of the sheriff’s authority; it’s the sheriff’s sworn duty. And what about the little guys; the individual police officers? It’s all about judgement calls. When you pull over a frazzled apologetic mother with a minivan full of crazed kids who has just ‘rolled’ a stop sign, do you treat her the same as you would a pack of bad-mouthed teenagers in a hot rod that smells like dope for the same offense? The people of this land would certainly hope that you would have more charity than that, and we at the CSPOA believe that you do.

Remember to ask yourself, “What is the purpose of this law I am enforcing? Am I helping to serve the people and protect their rights by doing this, or am I doing something else entirely?”

This is why we encourage you, the next time you hear “Serve and Protect” to repeat in your own mind the true meaning, embodied in our slogan: To Serve The People And Protect Their Rights.


TLB Highly recommends you visit the CSPOA website for more great/pertinent articles and information.


TLB Special with Zen

By: Roger Landry (TLB)

Most who would read this article, or listen to this recorded discussion, are already painfully aware of the super pesticides and herbicides we  suffer today in the form of allowable residuals in the food we eat, and more importantly … what we feed our precious children.

Now for some total insanity! A relatively new product branded ENLIST DUO is about to increase in proliferation in a huge fashion. This Frankentoxin contains a combination of Glyphosate and 2,4-D, (active ingredient in the deadly Agent Orange), two of the most damaging chemicals to the human physiology and the biosphere know to science. And to utilize this new bio-toxin, new Genetically Engineered foods needed to be created … again with no long term testing accomplished or required.  This government seems oblivious to scientific facts, historical data or the ever increasing rage of the population. Where or When does this all Stop?

Related articles:

Enlist Duo Frankentoxin & Human Lab Rats

Monsanto & Our Government … Or is it Their Government?

Well today we are very proud to present a guest who is doing something to combat this lunacy, along with the most potent army she could muster to support this vital mission, MOMS ACROSS AMERICA … Ever seen a mother (of any species) angry or frightened, protect her children … stand back, Way Back!

Zen Honeycutt, has three boys with allergies and autism symptoms which greatly improved when they went GMO Free and organic. Inspired by her children, she created Moms Across America, a National Coalition of Unstoppable Moms, with the motto “Empowered Moms, Healthy Kids.”

With 310 leaders who have created over 400 events in the past 18 months in 44 states, Moms Across America empowers and amplifys the voice of the mom locally and nationally. Zen has been seen on CNN, the Dr.Oz show,CSPAN, in the news in Rueter’s,, Fox News and hundreds more media outlets.

Zen has also been a speaker at the International GMO conference in Beijing, China, the Heirloom Expo, Health and Freedom Expo, Commonwealth Club and others and you can find much more information on her website


Please listen as Zen describes the reason for this vital organization, from GMOs to Biotoxins  including the corruption and complicity we all face from our “so called” health and regulatory agencies. Also a main point of topic is the White House petition that is so very vital (Please see the link at bottom of attached article).

It is time to get angry … It is time to get organized … it is time to get results!

Read Zen’s latest article on the discussed topics and the vital petition below and share this information as much as possible!


Moms Call EPA to Protect Kids

By TLB Contributor: Zen Honeycutt

Six Months Ago we released the information to the EPA that Glyphosate has been found in our breast milk at shockingly high levels.

What have they done about this? What will they do?

This chemcal is a chelator (vitamin and mineral deficiency), an antibiotic (destroys gut bacteria and can weaken immune system) and is an endocrine disruptor (birth defects and miscarriage). It is also recorded by the EPA to cause liver and kidney damage. It has been link to non Hodgkins Lymphoma and to an increase of cancer by reputable doctors and scientists.

See article that describes higher levels of cancer, birth defects and miscarriage around fields sprayed with glyphosate in Cordoba, Argentina.

Monsanto’s Roundup Linked to Cancer – Again

And the EPA has still not acted to protect our children and citizens.

When I met with the EPA on May 27th, Rachel Carson’s birthday (author of historic boook “Silent Spring”),

Neil Andersen shared, “My job is to approve chemicals and to asses the potential risk to human and environmental harm.”

No Neil, your job is not first to approve chemicals. It is to PROTECT the environment and the people FIRST. Not provide a service to the chemical companies so that they can make a profit. You work for US.

The problem is, the EPA only hears from chemical companies all day, influencing the EPA to work for them. We need you to take two actions today.

1. Call them today and say,

“It has been SIX MONTHS since you found out there is glyphosate in breast milk,WHAT are YOU doing about this? How are you protecting us?”

We want them to make statement that pregnant or breast feeding mothers should avoid glyphosate and eat organic. AND we want them to revoke the liscense of glyphosate and Recall Roundup Immediately.

Neil Anderson
Phone: 703-308-8187
Chief, Risk Management and Implementation Branch I
Pesticide Re-evaluation Division
US EPA (Mail Code 7508P)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460

 We have an URGENT need to take action and stop this chemical. The EPA is on the verge of approving glyphosate for another 15 years and a toxic combination of glyphosate and 2,4-D (Half of Agent Orange) as the “next wave” of stronger chemicals.

For the first time ever, Dr.OZ created a Petition to the President to do exactly what we want, STOP THE TOXINS! STOP Enlist Duo from being approved! With 100K signatures by Oct 22 the rule is that the President has to respond.

Please see the first three minutes here with Moms Across America Mom, Zen Honeycutt sharing how her kids get better when they eat organic:

Dr OZ: New GMO Pesticide

And watch further past the commercial  for the petition to the President clip.

Please  promote this petition along with the clip to the Dr.OZ show, it is very compelling that Moms and Doctors and MAINSTREAM AMERICA are standing for the health of our kids, to stop the next wave of toxic chemicals on our food and the spraying of fields near schools.

2. SIGN and share !!!

Demand the President step in & oppose EPA’s approval of the New 2,4-D resistant Genetically Engineered Crops!

UPDATE as of today (Oct. 9th) Zen Honeycutt

We need 8,000 people to sign the Dr.OZ Petition to the President to stop Enlist DUO TODAY ( a catastrophically toxic herbicide that will be sprayed on our food and fields 200 feet from over 5500 schools) !!! The word is that the EPA is set to approve it tomorrow morning. It is NOT approved yet. PLEASE call 202 564 4700 NOW. Keep calling. Leave MANY massages !!! AND SIGN THE PETITION !!! Sign until you get an email confirmation, some had to sign 5 times!!!

Demand the President step in & oppose EPA’s approval of the New 2,4-D resistant Genetically Engineered Crops!



TLB recommends you visit MOMS ACROSS AMERICA for more great/pertinent articles and information.

See attached article and read comments here:

Tate Modern

Revealed: how the spy agency used unwitting artists such as Pollock and de Kooning in a cultural Cold War

For decades in art circles it was either a rumour or a joke, but now it is confirmed as a fact. The Central Intelligence Agency used American modern art – including the works of such artists as Jackson Pollock, Robert Motherwell, Willem de Kooning and Mark Rothko – as a weapon in the Cold War. In the manner of a Renaissance prince – except that it acted secretly – the CIA fostered and promoted American Abstract Expressionist painting around the world for more than 20 years.

The connection is improbable. This was a period, in the 1950s and 1960s, when the great majority of Americans disliked or even despised modern art – President Truman summed up the popular view when he said: “If that’s art, then I’m a Hottentot.” As for the artists themselves, many were ex- communists barely acceptable in the America of the McCarthyite era, and certainly not the sort of people normally likely to receive US government backing.

Why did the CIA support them? Because in the propaganda war with the Soviet Union, this new artistic movement could be held up as proof of the creativity, the intellectual freedom, and the cultural power of the US. Russian art, strapped into the communist ideological straitjacket, could not compete.

The existence of this policy, rumoured and disputed for many years, has now been confirmed for the first time by former CIA officials. Unknown to the artists, the new American art was secretly promoted under a policy known as the “long leash” – arrangements similar in some ways to the indirect CIA backing of the journal Encounter, edited by Stephen Spender.

The decision to include culture and art in the US Cold War arsenal was taken as soon as the CIA was founded in 1947. Dismayed at the appeal communism still had for many intellectuals and artists in the West, the new agency set up a division, the Propaganda Assets Inventory, which at its peak could influence more than 800 newspapers, magazines and public information organisations. They joked that it was like a Wurlitzer jukebox: when the CIA pushed a button it could hear whatever tune it wanted playing across the world.

The next key step came in 1950, when the International Organisations Division (IOD) was set up under Tom Braden. It was this office which subsidised the animated version of George Orwell’s Animal Farm, which sponsored American jazz artists, opera recitals, the Boston Symphony Orchestra’s international touring programme. Its agents were placed in the film industry, in publishing houses, even as travel writers for the celebrated Fodor guides. And, we now know, it promoted America’s anarchic avant-garde movement, Abstract Expressionism.

Initially, more open attempts were made to support the new American art. In 1947 the State Department organised and paid for a touring international exhibition entitled “Advancing American Art”, with the aim of rebutting Soviet suggestions that America was a cultural desert. But the show caused outrage at home, prompting Truman to make his Hottentot remark and one bitter congressman to declare: “I am just a dumb American who pays taxes for this kind of trash.” The tour had to be cancelled.

The US government now faced a dilemma. This philistinism, combined with Joseph McCarthy’s hysterical denunciations of all that was avant-garde or unorthodox, was deeply embarrassing. It discredited the idea that America was a sophisticated, culturally rich democracy. It also prevented the US government from consolidating the shift in cultural supremacy from Paris to New York since the 1930s. To resolve this dilemma, the CIA was brought in.

The connection is not quite as odd as it might appear. At this time the new agency, staffed mainly by Yale and Harvard graduates, many of whom collected art and wrote novels in their spare time, was a haven of liberalism when compared with a political world dominated by McCarthy or with J Edgar Hoover’s FBI. If any official institution was in a position to celebrate the collection of Leninists, Trotskyites and heavy drinkers that made up the New York School, it was the CIA.

Until now there has been no first-hand evidence to prove that this connection was made, but for the first time a former case officer, Donald Jameson, has broken the silence. Yes, he says, the agency saw Abstract Expressionism as an opportunity, and yes, it ran with it.

“Regarding Abstract Expressionism, I’d love to be able to say that the CIA invented it just to see what happens in New York and downtown SoHo tomorrow!” he joked. “But I think that what we did really was to recognise the difference. It was recognised that Abstract Expression- ism was the kind of art that made Socialist Realism look even more stylised and more rigid and confined than it was. And that relationship was exploited in some of the exhibitions.

“In a way our understanding was helped because Moscow in those days was very vicious in its denunciation of any kind of non-conformity to its own very rigid patterns. And so one could quite adequately and accurately reason that anything they criticised that much and that heavy- handedly was worth support one way or another.”

To pursue its underground interest in America’s lefty avant-garde, the CIA had to be sure its patronage could not be discovered. “Matters of this sort could only have been done at two or three removes,” Mr Jameson explained, “so that there wouldn’t be any question of having to clear Jackson Pollock, for example, or do anything that would involve these people in the organisation. And it couldn’t have been any closer, because most of them were people who had very little respect for the government, in particular, and certainly none for the CIA. If you had to use people who considered themselves one way or another to be closer to Moscow than to Washington, well, so much the better perhaps.”

This was the “long leash”. The centrepiece of the CIA campaign became the Congress for Cultural Freedom, a vast jamboree of intellectuals, writers, historians, poets, and artists which was set up with CIA funds in 1950 and run by a CIA agent. It was the beach-head from which culture could be defended against the attacks of Moscow and its “fellow travellers” in the West. At its height, it had offices in 35 countries and published more than two dozen magazines, including Encounter.

The Congress for Cultural Freedom also gave the CIA the ideal front to promote its covert interest in Abstract Expressionism. It would be the official sponsor of touring exhibitions; its magazines would provide useful platforms for critics favourable to the new American painting; and no one, the artists included, would be any the wiser.

This organisation put together several exhibitions of Abstract Expressionism during the 1950s. One of the most significant, “The New American Painting”, visited every big European city in 1958-59. Other influential shows included “Modern Art in the United States” (1955) and “Masterpieces of the Twentieth Century” (1952).

Because Abstract Expressionism was expensive to move around and exhibit, millionaires and museums were called into play. Pre-eminent among these was Nelson Rockefeller, whose mother had co-founded the Museum of Modern Art in New York. As president of what he called “Mummy’s museum”, Rockefeller was one of the biggest backers of Abstract Expressionism (which he called “free enterprise painting”). His museum was contracted to the Congress for Cultural Freedom to organise and curate most of its important art shows.

The museum was also linked to the CIA by several other bridges. William Paley, the president of CBS broadcasting and a founding father of the CIA, sat on the members’ board of the museum’s International Programme. John Hay Whitney, who had served in the agency’s wartime predecessor, the OSS, was its chairman. And Tom Braden, first chief of the CIA’s International Organisations Division, was executive secretary of the museum in 1949.

Now in his eighties, Mr Braden lives in Woodbridge, Virginia, in a house packed with Abstract Expressionist works and guarded by enormous Alsatians. He explained the purpose of the IOD.

“We wanted to unite all the people who were writers, who were musicians, who were artists, to demonstrate that the West and the United States was devoted to freedom of expression and to intellectual achievement, without any rigid barriers as to what you must write, and what you must say, and what you must do, and what you must paint, which was what was going on in the Soviet Union. I think it was the most important division that the agency had, and I think that it played an enormous role in the Cold War.”

He confirmed that his division had acted secretly because of the public hostility to the avant-garde: “It was very difficult to get Congress to go along with some of the things we wanted to do – send art abroad, send symphonies abroad, publish magazines abroad. That’s one of the reasons it had to be done covertly. It had to be a secret. In order to encourage openness we had to be secret.”

If this meant playing pope to this century’s Michelangelos, well, all the better: “It takes a pope or somebody with a lot of money to recognise art and to support it,” Mr Braden said. “And after many centuries people say, ‘Oh look! the Sistine Chapel, the most beautiful creation on Earth!’ It’s a problem that civilisation has faced ever since the first artist and the first millionaire or pope who supported him. And yet if it hadn’t been for the multi-millionaires or the popes, we wouldn’t have had the art.”

Would Abstract Expressionism have been the dominant art movement of the post-war years without this patronage? The answer is probably yes. Equally, it would be wrong to suggest that when you look at an Abstract Expressionist painting you are being duped by the CIA.

But look where this art ended up: in the marble halls of banks, in airports, in city halls, boardrooms and great galleries. For the Cold Warriors who promoted them, these paintings were a logo, a signature for their culture and system which they wanted to display everywhere that counted. They succeeded.

* The full story of the CIA and modern art is told in ‘Hidden Hands’ on Channel 4 next Sunday at 8pm. The first programme in the series is screened tonight. Frances Stonor Saunders is writing a book on the cultural Cold War.

Covert Operation

In 1958 the touring exhibition “The New American Painting”, including works by Pollock, de Kooning, Motherwell and others, was on show in Paris. The Tate Gallery was keen to have it next, but could not afford to bring it over. Late in the day, an American millionaire and art lover, Julius Fleischmann, stepped in with the cash and the show was brought to London.

The money that Fleischmann provided, however, was not his but the CIA’s. It came through a body called the Farfield Foundation, of which Fleischmann was president, but far from being a millionaire’s charitable arm, the foundation was a secret conduit for CIA funds.

So, unknown to the Tate, the public or the artists, the exhibition was transferred to London at American taxpayers’ expense to serve subtle Cold War propaganda purposes. A former CIA man, Tom Braden, described how such conduits as the Farfield Foundation were set up. “We would go to somebody in New York who was a well-known rich person and we would say, ‘We want to set up a foundation.’ We would tell him what we were trying to do and pledge him to secrecy, and he would say, ‘Of course I’ll do it,’ and then you would publish a letterhead and his name would be on it and there would be a foundation. It was really a pretty simple device.”

Julius Fleischmann was well placed for such a role. He sat on the board of the International Programme of the Museum of Modern Art in New York – as did several powerful figures close to the CIA.


TLB suggests you read more great/pertinent articles here:

Read article here:


While appearing on The Common Sense Show, Mike Adams, made a number of startling statements regarding the Ebola outbreak in the United States. One of the most frightening aspects of Ebola is that one liter of Ebola-infected blood could kill up to 10 million people.

By TLB Contributor: Dave Hodges

While appearing on The Common Sense Show, Mike Adams, made a number of startling statements regarding the Ebola outbreak in the United States.  One of the most frightening aspects of Ebola is that one liter of Ebola-infected blood could kill up to 10 million people.

It’s Difficult to Believe That Ebola Is Not Purposefully Being Allowed to Spread Into and Across America

Given the fact that our airports are still open to West African travelers coming into the United States and the fact that our southern border is still not being closed down, Mike and I have a hard time justifying the fact that this administration is not complicit in the spread of Ebola.

Further,  and given the fact that the CDC owns the patent on Ebola and the NIH owns the patent on the Crucell Ebola vaccine, tested 8 years ago, it is very difficult to believe that these private corporations, operating under a government charter, are not positioning themselves to make a lot of money off of the spread and treatment of Ebola.

Jihadist Ebola “Suicide Bombers”

Bioterrorism was one of the top issues that Mike Adams wanted to discuss in the interview. He spoke about bioterrorism, coming through our southern border as an inevitable possibility as he expects suicide “Ebola bombers” to purposefully allow themselves to become infected and then be transported into the United States where they would expose as many people as possible before succumbing to the virus. Given how hated the United States has become in some circles, it is difficult to believe that Ebola will not be turned into a weapon of mass destruction.

No Containment for Ebola

In an article, posted on Natural News, in which the point was made by Dr. Jesse L. Goodman, now a professor of medicine at Georgetown and he served as a former chief scientist at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), states that “It’s no longer a matter of if but of when Ebola will begin to spiral out of control in the U.S.” Goodman, a top infectious disease specialist, recently made these dire claims when asked how bad will the Ebola crisis will get.

During my interview with Mike Adams, he brought up the salient point that people in America go out in public because they believe it is safe to do so. Americans go to football games, movie theaters, concerts, shopping malls, attend school and sit in doctors offices. Once the American people come to believe that it is no longer safe to go in public, our economy will go the way of Liberia’s. Truck drivers will not be delivering food and necessary supplies. Chronically ill people will not be able to get needed medicines. The net effect is that “Just in time delivery” practices, the backbone of our consumer economy, will come to a screeching halt. Famine will become commonplace. Looting will commence and it will become so widespread that the authorities will be powerless in the face of the coming civil unrest. And if quarantines are enacted, the healthy Americans, who are armed to the teeth, will not allow themselves to be trapped with the dying. These “healthy” Americans will attempt to fight their way out of quarantine zones. This could mark the beginning of a potential civil war.

Mike and I also discussed the fact that Ebola lives outside the body for 104 minutes at 72 degrees and Ebola Reston lives for 142 minutes outside the body at the same temperature. As America moves towards another winter, people will be gathering inside where the temperature will be 72 degrees. To some degree, the timing of the virus outbreak is very suspect.

The Biggest Threat to America’s Longevity

Late in the Spring of 2014, we had a chance to close down the border and shut down air travel from West Africa. This administration chose not to. Meanwhile, Americans are completely vulnerable to this coming pandemic because Obama, the CDC, the NIH and the FDA sit by and do nothing as these groups prepare to make a lot of money on the spread of Ebola.

I have been told by several infectious disease experts that the United States had less than four weeks to take the proper precautions, or Ebola was going to spread far and wide across the United States. Mike Adams believes that it is already too late. I must say that I concur. Eighty Penn State students are being watched for signs of Ebola, two Portland healthcare workers have informed me that there are two active cases of Ebola in the city and the CDC is covering it up prior to moving the patients. In mid-September a man traveled from New York City to Chile, where two days later he began to exhibit symptoms of Ebola. Next door, in New Jersey, several are being watched for Ebola contamination. Within the last week a Payson, AZ. man traveled from Liberia to Brussels to Phoenix and was not health screened one time.

This is, and will continue to be the top story in America. When Ebola hits in full force, there will be no school, no NFL, no movie theater going, no concerts, no Christmas shopping and food will be hard to obtain. I would strongly suggest preparing now.

My Interview With Mike Adams

Below is the one hour and forty-five minute interview I conducted with Mike Adams. The interview begins 18 minutes into the tape and six minutes into the second hour. The interview also contains helpful tips in preparing what now appears to be a certain pandemic.

Listen to Hour 1

Listen to Hour 2

About the Author

Dave Hodges is the host of the popular radio talk show, which airs from 9 PM to Midnight (Central). The show can be heard by clicking the following icon in the upper right hand corner of The Common Sense Show.

© 2014. The Common Sense Show. The Logo and Articles are protected by U.S. Copyright Laws, and are not to be downloaded or reproduced in any way without the written permission of Dave Hodges. Copyright 2014. Dave Hodges. All Rights Reserved

TLB recommends you visit Dave here:


See featured article and read comments HERE

Rob-Schneider 1

The following is a rebuttal for the article:

Dear Rob Schneider: Please Shut Up About Vaccines

Published on the TIME website

Contributed to TLB by: The Mom

Dear Jeffery Kluger: Please Shut Up About Rob Schneider & Vaccines!

As a mother, I make informed choices based on widely and readily available, credible information. I find it very offensive; you presume my choices are based on Rob Schneider, Jenny McCarthy or Dr. Google. It’s time to stop blaming these people and realize parents are not stupid. We have choices, and most importantly, choices when it comes to the health and well being of ourselves and children.

Unfortunately, I cannot take you seriously as a journalist. I expect the facts, not some blatant bashing because someone does not agree with your views. Will you bash me when I say; it’s against my religion to vaccinate? Will you bash me when I say; I have scientific proof to back up my decision? Will you bash me because it’s my right and my choice not vaccinate?

There is no need to attack Rob. I think you are an arrogant, cavalier, coward and bully. Why are your words more powerful than Robs? You’re an attorney turned writer. He’s a comedian and a damn good one, it’s his job. For some reason, you can’t distinguish the actor from a person. He leaves work and goes home and he is simply, Rob. I appreciate he has a strong belief against vaccines. I appreciate he wants to be heard and will fight for us. I absolutely love him in 50 First Dates and The Hot Chick. Did you know he co-wrote The Hot Chick? He also writes, directs and produces? Amazing what an idiot in your eyes can accomplish. His narrative about vaccine court is phenomenal. (The Canary Project).

Rob, I meant to add in my support of your acting and activism but was on a time constraint. Thank you, for being our voice and helping to make a change. Thank you, for not confirming to mainstream and not bending to fit their mold and to take a chance even if it meant losing a job.

I’m going to disseminate your thought provoking rant.

“For the record Rob, no, there is no government conspiracy to force vaccines on kids.”(1)

If the government was not forcing vaccines on kids there would be no need to opt out or provide an exemption. They are now making it much harder in some states to opt out. We should not be forced to ingest, inject or inhale any substance. It should be a simple do you want vaccines during this visit. Instead, there is a “recommended” schedule of vaccines and our schedule has more than any developed nation. Doctors are compelled to express if you don’t vaccinate your child will die and they can’t go to school. Both are treacherous lies.

“No, doctors are not bought off by big pharma.”

I have to disagree. I’ve seen representatives at my doctor’s office, touting food and gifts. The peddling of pharmaceuticals happens before they are certified doctors. It happens in med-schools and teaching hospitals. These den mothers come in; they hear the problems, give them gifts and slip in the sales pitch.(2)

Let’s just gloss over the fact British giant; GlaxoSmithKline was fined almost $500 million dollars for bribery.

“No, vaccines are not filled with toxins. And no, this is not a free speech issue—it’s a public health,”(1)

Vaccines are in fact contain toxic ingredients. There is a great body of evidence supporting aluminum and Alzheimer’s disease. Many vaccines use formalin and formaldehyde. The EPA states formaldehyde is a carcinogen. However, the FDA blurs the lines saying its only carcinogenic if inhaled but not injected. Please explain why no vaccine has ever been evaluated for carcinogenic, mutagenesis or impairment of fertility.

Carcinogenesis, Mutagenesis, Impairment of Fertility
M-M-R II has not been evaluated for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential, or potential to impair fertility. (4)

Please enlighten us why Merck has not removed the gelatin component from 3 of their vaccines: MMR II, Varicella and Shingles? Japan invented the Varicella vaccine and noticed the gelatin stabilizer caused a problem. (5) They removed the gelatin and provided a safer vaccine.

Why has Merck not followed suit?

Why have they not reformatted the vaccines we use in the United States?

Why are you not reporting this type of imperative information?

DTaP-HepB-IPV (Pediarix)
formaldehyde, gluteraldehyde, aluminum hydroxide, aluminum phosphate, lactalbumin hydrolysate, polysorbate 80, neomycin sulfate, polymyxin B, yeast protein, calf serum, Fenton medium (containing bovine extract), modified Latham medium (derived from bovine casein), modified Stainer-Scholte liquid medium, Vero (monkey kidney) cells (6) August, 2012

The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program does not sit well with me. It’s a red flag and an injustice to all the patients who suffered adverse reactions from these vaccines. Our society was thriving before this program was implemented. Most people don’t know it’s a no-fault alternative to the traditional tort system.

The pharmaceutical companies are immune to being sued. They have no fiduciary responsibility for their vaccine products. Patients are paying patients adverse reactions through an excise tax of $0.75 per antigen. After the NVIC was implemented they conveniently added 8 vaccines to the schedule and offered new combination vaccines. (8)

Funny, you or I didn’t have these NEW life saving vaccines when we were children. Neither did Rob or Jenny and all of us survived childhood. I had the OPV, DTP, MMR and declined the Dtap when my child was born. I made a wise choice because the FDA states, “research suggest that although individuals immunized with an acellular pertussis vaccine may be protected from the disease, they may still become infected with the bacteria without always becoming sick and are able to spread infection to others, including young infants who are susceptible to pertussis disease. (9)

Statefarm, I will never do business with you. Thank you for making your position clear by dumping Rob.

The Mom