News, commentary and calls on this 31st day of January 2011 from Our Narrator and Radio Gun, Jack Blood.
Sunday, 30 Jan 2011
By Jim Meyers and Kathleen Walter
Donald Trump is mad as hell — and he’s letting everybody know it.
In a wide-ranging exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV on Friday, the billionaire real estate mogul and reality TV star lashes out at China, OPEC, Obama’s Middle East dealings, the president’s State of the Union address and more.
Trump takes aim at America’s “horrible” trade agreements, declares that the Middle East is going to explode, warns about “catastrophic” oil prices, and charges that Obama’s Afghanistan policy is “dangerous and stupid.”
He also complains that the United States is a “laughing stock” throughout the world — and confirms that he is seriously considering running for president in 2012.
Asked directly about a possible run, Trump tells Newsmax: “I’m thinking about it. I’m looking at what’s happening with this country and frankly, it’s very sad. I see what’s happening left and right, how we’re being abused by other nations, and I don’t like it. I don’t like what’s happening with jobs. I am seriously thinking about it.”
Trump says if he does run it will be as a Republican and not as a third party candidate, and explains why he would run.
“I love the country. I’ve done well in the country. My businesses have never been better because I’ve made some good decisions. It shouldn’t be good. It should be terrible because a lot of other businesses are terrible. But I’ve made some very good decisions.
“I love the country and I hate what’s happening to the country. In 12 years China will take over as the world’s leading economic power, if not sooner, and the way we’re going this country will not be a great country as it was anymore. That’s so very very sad to me.”
Trump has a lot more to say about China.
“I’m a big buyer of products, and I’m also unfortunately a big buyer of Chinese products,” he says. “It’s very hard not to buy Chinese products, including sheetrock, which has destroyed many a development and many a life.
“I’ll say this: We make better products than China. The problem is they manipulate their currency so badly that it’s almost impossible for a person like me to buy outside China.
“I want to buy an American product. The Chinese products come in, they’re cheaper. They’re not as good but they’re cheaper. And it’s not because of their workers, it’s because of their manipulation of their currency.
“Another thing: If you try to do business in China, it’s almost impossible. They want all your technology. They want you to build your plants in China.
“We have a very weak policy. Whether it’s China, or the horrible agreement just signed with South Korea, or any of the other horrible deals that we make, we don’t have the ability to make good deals with other countries.
We’re like a whipping post for other countries. We are standing there and being beaten by South Korea, by Mexico, by China, by India. If you have a problem with a credit card and you call somebody up, that person is based in India.
“And then they wonder why we’re not going to have jobs for another five or six years.
“Ben Bernanke said recently it’s going to be at least five years before our jobs really come back. And I say, why? All our jobs are going to China. We’re rebuilding China and other places.”
Trump insists the United States needs to change its trade policies with the People’s Republic.
“If we ever taxed Chinese products coming into this country, we would pay off the debt so fast. More importantly, we would start creating jobs in our country.
“They cheated at the Olympics with their gymnasts, they’re cheating us with their manipulation of the currency. They’re not our friends. I know them very well. I do business with them. I’m not angry at them. I just can’t believe that they can get away with it.
“My friends from China said to me just recently — they didn’t know that I might be thinking about running for president — we cannot believe how stupid your politicians are to allow us to get away with what we’re getting away with.
“They thought they were talking to me as a business guy and they were all laughing and smiling. We are a laughing stock throughout the world.”
Referring to President Obama’s State of the Union speech, Trump says: “He didn’t talk about the deficit, he didn’t talk about how to pay off all the debt that we have. Instead he’s telling everybody what a great country China is, that China has the fastest computer in the world. That should be for the president of China to talk about, not President Obama.
“Unless we get tough, and smart, and unless we stop having dinners for people that are destroying us, like when the president of China came two weeks ago to this country and we gave him a great state dinner, we’re going to have big problems.”
Trump has a surprising response to speculation that the turmoil in Egypt and other countries in the Middle East could push oil prices to as high as $200 a barrel.
“It also could go the other way. Frankly, the Middle East is a tinderbox. It’s going to explode. OPEC will probably be destroyed if it explodes, and oil prices could go the other way.
“I understand economics. You break up what would normally be an illegal monopoly, OPEC, and break it up very strongly. The Middle East is exploding, and I’m saying that could have a positive impact on oil prices.
“If you look at oil right now, it’s soon going to be $100 a barrel. Far too high. It’s set by OPEC. I think OPEC would explode with the Middle East and that wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world.”
Trump has especially harsh words for OPEC and its grip on oil prices.
“I think it’s unfair. I think it’s illegal,” he declares. “If you have a store and I have a store and we collude and set prices, we go to jail.
“Here you have 12 men, in this case all men, they sit around a table and they set the price of oil.
“We have so much oil. There’s so much oil out at sea. I see $3.50 for a gallon of gas. Cars are lined up trying to get it, and at $3.50. It’s a shame. It’s a ridiculous shame.
“Plus we don’t use our natural gas. We have more natural gas than anybody. Why we not using it is an amazing thing.
“Abu Dhabi, which has plenty of oil, just went to all natural gas for transportation because they want to sell us the oil at exorbitant prices. When you tell me about Obama and what he’s doing in the Middle East, I don’t think he’s doing anything in the Middle East.”
Trump warns of the dangers to the United States posed by OPEC and high oil prices.
“We have to do something about OPEC because that’s the life blood of the country. Right now, until we get on natural gas and other things, they really have us, and they’re sitting around inflating the price.
“When we had our problem not so long ago, a few years ago, oil was almost $150 a barrel. They’re blaming the banks, and the banks were terrible, and lots of other things were terrible, but I give a lot of the credit for the almost collapse of this country to the price of oil. It’s going to be up there again very soon and you’re going to have another catastrophic problem.
“By the way, any time a country comes up with oil they invite them in. Join OPEC. The United States is stupid, the people who represent the United States are really stupid, so join us and we’ll take advantage of the United States, sell them oil at inflated prices. They’re draining our life blood. We cannot allow that to continue. What kind of power do we have over OPEC? They wouldn’t even exist if it weren’t for us.”
Asked where he thinks the price of oil is headed, Trump responds: “I think it could go, with proper leadership, down to $40 a barrel. I think if we continue the way it is, it’s going to go up to $150 a barrel.”
Turning to Afghanistan and the timeline President Obama has proposed for withdrawal of American troops, Trump tells Newsmax: “We should be out of there as soon as possible. At the same time, when Obama announced that he’s going to be out at a certain date, these militants are just sitting back saying, ‘He gave us a specific date. This is fantastic. We’ll just sit back and then we’ll take it over the minute they leave.’
“So for him to give a date was a very dangerous, stupid, and foolish thing to do.”
* Venezuelan leader accuses U.S. of meddling
* Briefed by Libya’s Gaddafi and Syria’s al-Assad
CARACAS, Jan 30 (Reuters) – Venezuela’s firebrand leader Hugo Chavez accused the United States on Sunday of a “shameful” role in the Egyptian crisis and of hypocrisy for supporting, then abandoning strongmen round the world.
Chavez, Washington’s leading critic in the Americas, said he had spoken to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad for a briefing on the protests in Egypt and elsewhere in the Arab world.
“In Egypt, the situation is complicated, Chavez said.
“Now you are seeing comments from Washington and some European nations. As President Gaddafi said to me, it’s shameful, it makes you kind of sick to see the meddling of the U.S., wanting to take control.”
The United States has urged an orderly transition to democracy in Egypt to avoid a power vacuum but has stopped short of calling on President Hosni Mubarak, an ally of three decades, to step down. [ID:nN30161335]
The socialist Chavez has generally cast himself as pro-Arab and opposed to the policies of Israel and the United States.
But in brief comments carried on state TV, he avoided any further specific comment on Egypt, saying only that “national sovereignty” should be respected.
Chavez scoffed at what he said was the United States’ chameleon-like foreign policy.
“See how the United States, after using such-and-such a president for years, as soon as he hits a crisis, they abandon him. That’s how the devil pays,” he said.
“They didn’t even give a visa or anything to the president of Tunisia,” he said, referring to President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali, who lost power this month after failing to quell the worst unrest of his two-decade rule.
Chavez spoke after inspecting an army ammunitions depot where predawn explosions killed one person and injured another three, lighting up the sky and terrifying locals.
Though the incident appeared to be an accident, the government said it was not discounting any cause given the depth of feeling against Chavez by political opponents.
Venezuelans have been following events in the Arab world closely, with some Chavez foes privately expressing hopes for a similar uprising against him after nearly 12 years in power.
ILLUSION: Zbigniew Brzezinski is in Fear of Egypytian Uprising? Reality (in his own words) Not so much
As President Jimmy Carter’s national-security adviser during the 1979 fall of the shah in Iran, Zbigniew Brzezinski has dealt intimately with history-bending revolutions. After mass protests deposed a regime in Tunisia and later spread to the streets of Egypt and Yemen last week, NEWSWEEK’s John Barry talked to the Johns Hopkins professor about the way young people across the Arab world—many of them disaffected and disenchanted—are now connecting on the circuits of a new revolutionary age.
A few years back you said a “demographic revolution” awaited the Middle East like a “political time bomb.” Has that moment come?
Today we have somewhere between 80 million and 130 million young people around the world who come from the socially insecure lower middle class and constitute a community of mutual infection with angers, passions, frustrations, and hatreds. These students are revolutionaries-in-waiting. When they erupt at volatile moments, they become very contagious. And whereas Marx’s industrial proletariat more than a century ago was fragmented in local groups, today these young people are interacting via the Internet.
On sites like Facebook and Twitter, are they communicating more than broad ideas?
They’re actually transmitting techniques, as major social movements long have. Think back to the upheavals in Central Europe a generation ago. Solidarity used slogans and colors. The more recent uprisings in Central Europe followed suit: the Velvet Revolution, the Orange Revolution. Everybody is imitating everybody. And today we see that young people in Cairo have clearly been watching what is happening in Tunis and have been energized to action.
Are the events in Tunisia a youth revolution?
Yes. But all revolutions are young. What is new is the scale of the numbers of disaffected youth and the level of their political consciousness. In addition to their shared slogans, there is a lot of ideology mixed up with emotion and hatred and nationalism. (youth ARE Idealistic and can be controlled by men like Z-Big)
What sets the Arab world apart?
A very special feature of this new political consciousness, of course, is religious fanaticism. Look at the average age of the suicide killers. They are very young. Enthusiasm for change can quickly degenerate into fanaticism, and with it comes brutal lethality and self-destruction.
So youth revolutions may not always have democracy as their goal?
What young people want is political dignity. “Democracy” may enhance that. But political dignity also encompasses ethnic or national self-determination, religious self-definition, and human and social rights. All of this now takes place in a wired world where the youth are acutely aware of economic, racial, and social inequities.
And the protests in Egypt?
Egypt is seething. And if it erupts it is not only going to destabilize the country, but it will also change the relationship with Israel and it will affect Saudi Arabia, because the masses there are also seething underneath the surface. (Z Big has always had it in for Israel, and can control The Saudi’s with cash… The bigger game is the “Grand Chessboard” and bringing in the “technotronic era” which in his words will channel all power into the hands of a few elites (unrestrained by traditional values – AKA: nationalism)
So, from the West, what is to be done?
To the extent it is possible, it is best to channel these aspirations. That does mean coping with certain problems that we know are contributing to the intensification of radicalism and extremism. One of those factors is indeed the nature of the regimes in the region. Simply sweeping these problems under the rug is not a solution. So I think Obama started out right in outlining in his Cairo speech a notion of how to deal with, specifically, the Islamic problem. But since then, he has simply lapsed into passivity.
I don’t have to tell you that things are bad. You know that things are bad. Unemployment is rampant. The cost of food and energy is skyrocketing. A police state is encroaching across the land. People across the globe are rioting. Wars are never ending. Hunger and starvation are realities for far too many people. Too many houses are in foreclosure. Too many families are living in tents or worse. Currencies worldwide are collapsing. Everything seems to be falling apart and there doesn’t seem much anyone can do about it. It seems the best we can do is to keep on keeping on. Read more
– by Paul & Phillip D. Collins ©, Aug. 12th, 2007
Like it or not, “radical Islam” is on the rise. And the group spearheading this rise is Muslim Brotherhood. Wherever political Islam is gaining ground, one is almost guaranteed to find the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood. Take the Gaza Strip, for instance. Most people know that in June of 2007 Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip. What many people do not know is that Hamas is an offshoot of Egypt’s branch of the Muslim Brotherhood (El Ahl, no pagination). Gaza is the most publicized of the Brotherhood’s successes. However, the group has experienced other victories the media has said little about. In 2005, the Brotherhood made significant political gains in Egypt, increasing its number of independent parliamentarians from 15 to 88 (no pagination). In Jordan, the Brotherhood’s political wing, known as the Islamic Action Front, has become part of Jordan’s political establishment, possessing 17 out of 110 parliamentarians (no pagination). Without a doubt, the Brotherhood’s influence is starting to be felt.
To say the least, the Muslim Brotherhood’s political ascent is impressive. However, without the aid of some powerful forces, the Brotherhood may have never been more than a group of marginalized religious fanatics. The hidden hands of these powerful forces can be seen at work before World War Two with the British travel writer Freya Stark. Stark was not just a writer. She was also an agent of British intelligence. Stark was used by British intelligence to foster an alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood (Dorril 622). Brotherhood collaboration with Western intelligence continued with an alliance between the Brotherhood and the CIA that began around 1955. According to former CIA agent Miles Copeland, it was around this time that America began looking for the Muslim equivalent of Billy Graham, hoping to use such a charismatic individual to influence the Arab world. When this failed, the Agency began forging ties with the CIA (Aburish 60-61). What was the motive for this marriage between Western intelligence and the Muslim Brotherhood? This alliance would help the Western power elite neutralize the challenge to their hegemony coming from the secular Arab nationalist movement. Said Aburish elaborates:
In the 1950s and later, the West opposed the secular Arab nationalist movement for two reasons: it challenged its regional hegemony and threatened the survival of its clients’ leaders and countries. Specifically, there was nothing to stop a secular movement from cooperating with the USSR; in fact, most of them were mildly socialist. Furthermore, most secular movements advocated various schemes of Arab unity, a union or a unified policy, which threatened and undermined the pro-West traditional regimes of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other client states. The West saw it as a challenge that had to be met. (60)
Was the alliance between the CIA and the Brotherhood merely a continuation of the alliance between British intelligence and the Brotherhood? According to the authors of Dope, Inc., the OSS, which was the forerunner of the CIA, was merely a subsidiary of British intelligence (540). When the Office of Strategic Services was being organized, William Stephenson, Britain’s Special Operations Executive representative in the United States, was brought in for “technical assistance” (418). Stephenson’s involvement would lead to the creation of “a British SOE fifth column embedded deeply into the American official intelligence community” (454). When it came to religious engineering to promote fanaticism within the Arab world, it could be that the British power elite passed the mantle to the American power elite.
The power elite officially endorsed the Muslim Brotherhood in May of 1979 at the Bilderberg meeting held in Austria (Engdahl 171). At this meeting, British Islamic expert Dr. Bernard Lewis suggested that endorsing the Muslim Brotherhood would allow the Western elite “to promote balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines” (171). This balkanization process would result in the rise of various autonomous groups and the spreading of chaos in the Near East (171). In what Lewis termed an “Arc of crisis,” the chaos would eventually spill over into the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union (171). This would help the Western elites counter Soviet moves to become the world’s sole hegemon, thus preserving the Cold War dialectical rivalry that had been so advantageous to the Western oligarchs.
The power elite’s support of the Muslim Brotherhood had begun one year earlier, when Carter appointed Bilderberg attendee George Ball to head a White House Iran task force that fell under the authority of National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski (171). Ball recommended pulling support for Iran’s leader at the time, the Shah of Iran (171). He also suggested supporting the Shah’s opposition, the infamous Ayatollah Khomeini (171). The Muslim Brotherhood was the movement behind Khomeini (171). Again, Western intelligence groups lent the Brotherhood an assist. CIA case officer Robert Bowie ran covert operations against the Shah that allowed the coup to be successful (171). The CIA-led coup used economic pressures placed on Iran by London to create the pretext for religious discontent against the Shah (172). London refused Iranian Oil production, “taking only 3 million or so barrels a day on an agreed minimum of 5 million barrels per day” (172). This move imposed revenue pressures on Iran, and agitators trained by U.S. intelligence went about blaming the Shah’s regime (172).
According to William Engdahl, the destabilization of the Shah’s regime was also aided by American’s working within Iran’s security establishment:
As Iran’s economic troubles grew, American “security” advisers to the Shah’s Savak secret police implemented a policy of even more brutal repression, in a manner calculated to maximize popular antipathy to the Shah. At the same time, the Carter Administration cynically began protesting abuses of “human rights” under the Shah. (172)
The action taken against the Shah was successful and the deposed Iranian leader fled the country in January of 1979 (172). Writing about his downfall, the Shah later stated:
I did not know it then – perhaps I did not want to know – but it is clear to me now that the Americans wanted me out. Clearly this is what the human rights advocates in the State Department wanted… What was I to make of the Administration’s sudden decision to call former Under Secretary of State George Ball to the White House as an adviser on Iran?… Ball was among those Americans who wanted to abandon me and ultimately my country. (172)
Khomeini’s rise to power in Iran was a major victory for the Muslim Brotherhood that stood behind him, and Western intelligence had made no small contribution to that victory. Make no mistake, Western intelligence helped make the Muslim Brotherhood what it is today. When looking for someone to blame for the rise of radical Islam, the accusatory finger must be pointed at those in whom Americans have placed their trust.
- Aburish, Said. A Brutal Friendship: The West and the Arab Elite. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2001.
- Dorril, Stephen. MI6: Inside the Covert World of Her Majesty’s Secret Intelligence Service. New York: Free Press, 2000.
- Editors of Executive Intelligence Review. Dope Inc. Washington, D.C.: Executive Intelligence Review, 1992.
- El Ahl, Amira, et. al. “ Dancing With the Devil: Charting the Rise of the Muslim Brotherhood.” Spiegel Online 03 July 2007
- Engdahl, F. William. A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order. London: Pluto Press, 2004.
About the Authors
Phillip D. Collins acted as the editor for The Hidden Face of Terrorism. He co-authored the book The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship, which is available at www.amazon.com. It is also available as an E-book at www.4acloserlook.com. Phillip has also written articles for Paranoia Magazine, MKzine, News With Views, B.I.P.E.D.: The Official Website of Darwinian Dissent and Conspiracy Archive. He has also been interviewed on several radio programs, including A Closer Look, Peering Into Darkness, From the Grassy Knoll, Frankly Speaking, the ByteShow, and Sphinx Radio.
In 1999, Phillip earned an Associate degree of Arts and Science. In 2006, he earned a bachelor’s degree with a major in communication studies and liberal studies along with a minor in philosophy. During the course of his seven-year college career, Phillip has studied philosophy, religion, political science, semiotics, journalism, theatre, and classic literature. He recently completed a collection of short stories, poetry, and prose entitled Expansive Thoughts. Readers can learn more about it at www.expansivethoughts.com.
Paul D. Collins has studied suppressed history and the shadowy undercurrents of world political dynamics for roughly eleven years. In 1999, he earned his Associate of Arts and Science degree. In 2006, he completed his bachelor’s degree with a major in liberal studies and a minor political science. Paul has authored another book entitled The Hidden Face of Terrorism: The Dark Side of Social Engineering, From Antiquity to September 11. Published in November 2002, the book is available online from www.1stbooks.com, barnesandnoble.com, and also amazon.com. It can be purchased as an e-book (ISBN 1-4033-6798-1) or in paperback format (ISBN 1-4033-6799-X). Paul also co-authored The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship.
Talking on BBC Newsnight, Puppet Messenger Henry Kissinger says that while the US will not intervene in the current crisis, if the coup fails and a popularly based government is not installed (IE: the one he wants), then we may conclude that we must work for regime change in Iran from the outside. This is an indicted war criminal making threats against a sovereign nation.
A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order by F. William Engdahl
“In November 1978, President Carter named the Bilderberg group’s George Ball, another member of the Trilateral Commission, to head a special White House Iran task force under the National Security Council’s Brzezinski. Ball recommended that Washington drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the fundamentalistic Islamic opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini. Robert Bowie from the CIA was one of the lead ‘case officers’ in the new CIA-led coup against the man their covert actions had placed into power 25 years earlier.
Their scheme was based on a detailed study of the phenomenon of Islamic fundamentalism, as presented by British Islamic expert, Dr. Bernard Lewis, then on assignment at Princeton University in the United States. Lewis’s scheme, which was unveiled at the May 1979 Bilderberg meeting in Austria, endorsed the radical Muslim Brotherhood movement behind Khomeini, in order to promote balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. Lewis argued that the West should encourage autonomous groups such as the Kurds, Armenians, Lebanese Maronites, Ethiopian Copts, Azerbaijani Turks, and so forth. The chaos would spread in what he termed an ‘Arc of Crisis,’ which would spill over into Muslim regions of the Soviet Union.
The coup against the Shah, like that against Mossadegh in 1953, was run by British and American intelligence, with the bombastic American, Brzezinski, taking public ‘credit’ for getting rid of the ‘corrupt’ Shah, while the British characteristically remained safely in the background.
During 1978, negotiations were under way between the Shah’s government and British Petroleum for renewal of the 25-year old extraction agreement. By October 1978, the talks had collapsed over a British ‘offer’ which demanded exclusive rights to Iran’s future oil output, while refusing to guarantee purchase of the oil. With their dependence on British-controlled export apparently at an end, Iran appeared on the verge of independence in its oil sales policy for the first time since 1953, with eager prospective buyers in Germany, France, Japan and elsewhere. In its lead editorial that September, Iran’s Kayhan International stated:
In retrospect, the 25-year partnership with the [British Petroleum] consortium and the 50-year relationship with British Petroleum which preceded it, have not been satisfactory ones for Iran Looking to the future, NIOC [National Iranian Oil Company] should plan to handle all operations by itself.
London was blackmailing and putting enormous economic pressure on the Shah’s regime by refusing to buy Iranian oil production, taking only 3 million or so barrels daily of an agreed minimum of 5 million barrels per day. This imposed dramatic revenue pressures on Iran, which provided the context in which religious discontent against the Shah could be fanned by trained agitators deployed by British and U.S. intelligence. In addition, strikes among oil workers at this critical juncture crippled Iranian oil production.
As Iran’s domestic economic troubles grew, American ‘security’ advisers to the Shah’s Savak secret police implemented a policy of ever more brutal repression, in a manner calculated to maximize popular antipathy to the Shah. At the same time, the Carter administration cynically began protesting abuses of ‘human rights’ under the Shah.
British Petroleum reportedly began to organize capital flight out of Iran, through its strong influence in Iran’s financial and banking community. The British Broadcasting Corporation’s Persian-language broadcasts, with dozens of Persian-speaking BBC ‘correspondents’ sent into even the smallest village, drummed up hysteria against the Shah. The BBC gave Ayatollah Khomeini a full propaganda platform inside Iran during this time. The British government-owned broadcasting organization refused to give the Shah’s government an equal chance to reply. Repeated personal appeals from the Shah to the BBC yielded no result. Anglo-American intelligence was committed to toppling the Shah. The Shah fled in January, and by February 1979, Khomeini had been flown into Tehran to proclaim the establishment of his repressive theocratic state to replace the Shah’s government.
I did not know it then perhaps I did not want to know but it is clear to me now that the Americans wanted me out. Clearly this is what the human rights advocates in the State Department wanted What was I to make of the Administration’s sudden decision to call former Under Secretary of State George Ball to the White House as an adviser on Iran? Ball was among those Americans who wanted to abandon me and ultimately my country.
1/26/11 Blood & Guts with Meria Heller & Jack Blood
Issues fly fast on furious on this Monthly show! On this latest edition we discuss:
SOTU or STFU? Using the shooting in Tucson to the bi-partisan theatrical presentation; Obama-will he make us pine for a Jeb for President? Reagan, his son, the Hinckleys, the shooting and alzheimers; Rahm Emmanuel – why not just buy Chicago? who benefited from the shootings in Tucson? Who was Judge Roll? divide and conquer; mind control and manchurian candidates; don’t criticize the federal govt; profiling Americans; John Wheeler’s murder (top security clearance for chemical and biological warfare); where was the security? Another stand down; 9/11 markers; hidden messages in numbers; bubonic plaque 2012? Steve Spielberg & George Lucas; Andrew Wakefield and vaccines; eugenics; tattoos – fun and a way to be permanently identified better than a chip; spy blimps; Japan’s Jurassic park; canaries in a coal mine; are the riots set up by the CIA? Israel & Tunisia; China? Moscow bombing – a shot over the bow? decentralizing banking and much more.