Freedom to DISAGREE (FREEDOM)

[NYBob]

GREAT JESUS PRAYERS THANKS - SITUATION UPDATE GCR REPORT 2/20: JFK JR DECODE! HARRIS STARTS WW3?! EPSTEIN/CHASE BANK REVEAL! WOW!
WATCH



https://www.bitchute.com/video/IdhwLuCqaUg6/

https://www.bitchute.com/video/JrOIjbfGtLKs/

TRUMP LIFTS SPIRITS IN EAST PALESTINE, OHIO, WHILE BIDEN RESTS FROM
BANGING THE WAR DRUMS IN UKRAINE
WATCH



https://www.bitchute.com/video/YST1BSDWdsRw/


WATCH = NWO KHAZARIANS MAFIA MURDER OUR BROTHERS & SISTERS AND THE HUMANITY -
SECRET ISRAELI AND PFIZER CONTRACT EXPOSED BY STEVE KIRSCH AND STEW
PETERS
WATCH



https://www.bitchute.com/video/0eh6vANp9pOj/

Pp Watch - STEW PETERS: MARXISTS HIJACKED AMERICA, WHO IS RUNNING THE UNITED STATES - 2/20/23
WATCH



https://www.bitchute.com/video/wTE2J0hekgIK/

Evil eugenics MAID in Canada: Socialist left's massive genocide disguised as medical care
Mirror. Source
Evil Eugenics MAID In Canada: Socialist Left's MASSIVE Genocide Disguised As Medical Care https://odysee.com/@TimTruth:b/canada-maid-genocide:1



https://www.bitchute.com/video/K4zArax8Es6v/

Quote: "Evil Eugenics MAID In Canada: Socialist Left's MASSIVE Genocide Disguised As Medical Care Want more videos? Join https://GroupDiscover.com to find the best videos from across the free speech internet platforms like Odysee, Rumble, Bitchute & Brighteon all in one huge video repository. Add me on these great platforms: https://rokfin.com/timtruth https://odysee.com/@TimTruth:b/ https://rumble.com/timtruth https://bitchute.com/timtruth/ https://GroupDiscover.com Support links (thank you to all the supporters!): Easy to do one time tips via https://rokfin.com/timtruth or https://odysee.com/@TimTruth:b https://timtruth.substack.com/subscribe https://subscribestar.com/timtruth "
-
5G is a weapon system - Don't be fooled by the fake narrative https://tinyurl.com/tf38xs3d ~ The agenda - They are destroying human kind https://tinyurl.com/2p82r3j9 ~ 60GHz in schools - Lena Pu and Mark Steele https://tinyurl.com/2c67ep66 ~ 5G target acquiring weapon system - This is not for control but an extermination technology https://tinyurl.com/4hetn32u ~ UK Government hacked https://tinyurl.com/337zjb4s ~ Report #133: David Noakes on GcMAF cancer treatments, FDA/MHRA/Pharma corruption, & wrongful charges https://tinyurl.com/ev8kms8n ~ BitChute { noakes falconscafe https://tinyurl.com/2h7z47ve } ~ The disciples of Ra: The deception of "medicine", viruses & vaccines https://tinyurl.com/2p8uc7as ~ Viruses don't exist https://is.gd/E4li0z ~ If you don't know what causes what they call a virus you will never know unless you read the science https://tinyurl.com/yj8j9pd2 ~ Assembling the kill grid ~ Excerpt: Mark Steele https://tinyurl.com/4cethr4b ~ Prof. Francis Boyle "The British must not take these frankenshots"! Interview https://tinyurl.com/3cbrwts2 ~ The MAC phenomenon in people "vaccinated" from COVID-19 https://tinyurl.com/2p8xhjz3 ~ Video summary of La Quinta Columna that shows evidence of genocide based on injectable analysis https://tinyurl.com/43bdk4na

Illegal organ trafficking of homeless people in Texas? Same thing happened during Hurricane Katrina https://tinyurl.com/ym7uyt3e ~ Homeless vet killing society https://tinyurl.com/y2ycpn6m ~ NATO satanism, testimony, Kay Griggs: Colonel's wife tell-all, oppression, deception, secret society https://tinyurl.com/2p8ybsjv ~ Horus matrix at Normandy Omaha Beach Overlord D-Day 666 Cemetery satanic ritual sacrifice https://tinyurl.com/yckjeu8r ~ The cover up continues - Share this with all vaccinated, who have been lied to by their doctors https://tinyurl.com/3w65f9ny ~ Whistleblower: Hospitals killing for organs, "This is absolutely evil and a crime against humanity!" https://tinyurl.com/4mp7h8vy ~ The world must know #PureEvil #HellOnEarth https://tinyurl.com/2p93msb3 ~ Bombshell: Pfizer vaccine study's massive list of "Adverse events of interest" https://tinyurl.com/yc7tyu2r

Did he just say snake venom? - Dr Bryan Ardis talks to Right Now https://tinyurl.com/4chrmwy8 ~ World premiere: Watch the Water https://tinyurl.com/3ybuwhxv ~ Part 1/3 - Dr. Bryan Ardis reveals bombshell origins of COVID, mRNA vaccines and treatments https://tinyurl.com/38earx4a ~ Biological weapons; Is there a link between the water supply system and the pandemic? https://tinyurl.com/2p8pvuze ~ Professor Darrel Hamamoto on persecution and inquisition at UC Davis https://tinyurl.com/4wkcjcu3 ~ The China-NHS lateral flow test, massive fraud, for those that lost work.. or murdered on COVID ward https://tinyurl.com/2mbamwmf ~ COVID-19 test fraud, also carcinogenic https://tinyurl.com/2p99uwws ~ Your future The SPARS pandemic 2025 - 2028 https://is.gd/kCajO1

Snuff Hill https://tinyurl.com/573ufnvj ~ Blood Hill https://tinyurl.com/ymckkptu ~ Fitzwilliam military cult https://tinyurl.com/bdhz7529 ~ Troy River https://tinyurl.com/2p86hv66 ~ Tent City https://tinyurl.com/56hfw4kf ~ 18 Brickyard Troy Depot, Troy School, Cemetery, Discount Tire, satanic stalking, ritual sacrifice https://tinyurl.com/2jvdutm2 ~ Bohemian Grove Jr, Bridgewater Associates - CIA corporate front, CIA role in snuff and pornography https://tinyurl.com/2p8v8yr5 ~ Hebron Coven ~ Part 1 to 4 of 9 https://tinyurl.com/yw952bnn ~ Body Organs Of Over 18,000 Syrian Children Sold in Six Years https://tinyurl.com/djarv3w8 ~ I saw kids in cages outside a masonic lodge being loaded into trucks https://tinyurl.com/46uxrvs5 ~ Amazon USB key - Part 1 to 2 - CYM Adrenochrome https://tinyurl.com/yckfvnn2

The men on the moon https://tinyurl.com/42dh2ejv ~ Moon truth https://tinyurl.com/mrxx5sks ~ 7 rockets hit dome ! https://tinyurl.com/46rd63v5 ~ Who shot the moon landing, classroom bloopers https://tinyurl.com/mw7xwh39

Oil is abundant and cheap https://tinyurl.com/3e2nkbbm

MAGA Prayers To Father GOD Needed - THE WORLD VS. THE KHAZARIAN MAFIA -- JIM WILLIE
WATCH



https://www.bitchute.com/video/PSIN2glcoaju/


Watch MAGA Thanks - Pray To Get Father GOD'S Remedies Back To US - ROCKEFELLER INFLUENCED THE WORLD TO REMOVE ALL THE NATURAL
REMEDIES FROM PRACTICE FOR HIS BENEFIT
WATCH



https://www.bitchute.com/video/uD36QiNCxC8O/

China Says Ready To "Join Forces With Russia" To "Defend National Interests" As Putin Confirms Xi Visit
Tyler Durden's Photo
BY TYLER DURDEN
WEDNESDAY, FEB 22, 2023 - 10:00 AM
Despite all latest among Washington's repeat warnings to Beijing against strategic or military cooperation with Moscow, China is now pledging to "join forces" with "like-minded" partner Russia to defend national interests. The statement came by the close of the first day of the director of the Office of the Foreign Affairs Commission of the Communist Party of China’s Central Committee Wang Yi's trip to Moscow.



https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/china-says-ready-join-forces-russia-defend-national-interests-putin-confirms-xi-visit

CH - TOXIC FUMES FROM OHIO MAY SERIOUSLY AFFECT EVERYONE EAST OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER 250 MILLION PEOPLE
WATCH



https://www.bitchute.com/video/hCb5IvRRkL7G/

$500 TRILLION LAWSUIT AGAINST THE FEDERAL GOVT AND OVER 140 MONOPOLISTS (REMOVED BY YOUTUBE IN 5HRS)
WATCH



https://www.bitchute.com/video/QFcfDjifRl6u/

Even the doctors fell for it

https://rumble.com/v2aenx2-more-than-130-canadian-doctors-have-died-suddenly-since-c19-killshots-began.html

5G – Microwave as a weapon Part 2 - Dr. Reiner Fuellmich and Barrie Trower https://rumble.com/v2a3th8-5g-microwave-as-a-weapon-part-2- dr.-reiner-fuellmich-and-barrie-trower.html | Towards The Light channel https://www.bitchute.com/cha…



https://www.bitchute.com/video/RaEZsuhWr2G0/

NWO Biden like a 3 year old -

[NYBob]

Great Tucker: This could lead to the destruction of the West
Fox News
10.3M subscribers

https://youtu.be/I-q-3z--8iw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-q-3z--8iw

NWO BIDEN ABANDONS EAST PALESTINE, VISITS UKRAINE WITH $500 MILLION GIFT, LEAVES AMERICANS TO SUFFER
WATCH



https://www.bitchute.com/video/lQ8UP09NwJU/

NWO NUKED OHIO CHERNOBYL PART II
WATCH



https://www.bitchute.com/video/A1EjUMbAw25O/

WHO & NWO = EVIL - - President Trump and Kari Lake Support Sodomites; Will Norris’
Questions to Mike Lindell ~ Catholic Lecture



https://rumble.com/v2a4efy-trump-and-kari-lake-support-sodomites-will-norris-questions-to-mike-lindell.html

Abp. Viganò: The globalist New World Order has the marks of the ‘antichurch of Satan’

Those who do not accept the anti-Gospel of Davos are ipso facto heretics and must therefore be punished, excommunicated, separated from the social body, and considered public enemies.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/abp-vigano-the-globalist-new-world-order-has-the-marks-of-the-antichurch-of-satan/


MAGA Trump and the Jab -





https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=171251464


Trump banned 5G from China -
SHOCKING: SUDDEN ADULT DEATH SYNDROME CAUSED BY AI+5G+VAX= "Noth



https://rumble.com/v2a1u6s-shocking-sudden-adult-death-syndrome-caused-by-ai-5g-vax-nothing-to-see-her.html

Pp - BREAKING NEWS: USA, Canada & Switzerland - 3 US Law Enforcement Agencies Activated



https://rumble.com/v29up58-breaking-news-usa-canada-and-switzerland-3-us-law-enforcement-agencies-acti.html


SCOTUS RECONSIDERS 2020 ELECTION FRAUD CASE, 4011
WATCH



https://www.bitchute.com/video/DV8TptuohVsO/

HUGE: FOX News Filing Shows DOMINION Voting Systems Executives Including Eric Coomer Knew Its Voting Systems Had Major Security Issues, Was Hacked, and Was “Riddled with Bugs”
By Joe Hoft February 17, 2023 2:25 pm

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/02/breaking-sht-just-riddled-bugs-fox-news-filing-shows-dominion-knew-voting-systems-major-security-issues/

WAYNE ROOT: Here’s Your Proof of a Rigged and Stolen 2020 Presidential Election.
By Assistant Editor
Published February 17, 2023 at 12:15pm
281 Comments




https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/02/wayne-root-proof-rigged-stolen-2020-presidential-election/

Watch - SABOTAGED BY YOUR OWN GOVERNMENT!
WATCH



https://www.bitchute.com/video/4jQbPVCQB3Xq/

HORRIFIC NEWS FROM AUTOPSIES OF DEAD VACCINATED PEOPLE
WATCH



https://www.bitchute.com/video/fIVHxxlAzJ7L/

PALESTINE TRAIN CONTAINED US ARMY CHEMICAL WEAPONS
The Plume Covered Amish Farms - NWO Evil To Kill & Murder All -
GOD'S Children, farm animals, pets,, birds, fish etc.
Feb 16, 2023
Watch



https://www.bitchute.com/video/I1lI7w0rdsQl/

TOXIC NIGHTMARE UNLEASHED UPON OHIO - THIS IS MURDER - THIS WAS DONE ON PURPOSE
WATCH



https://www.bitchute.com/video/GWjii6o5cJHI/

OHIO CHERNOBYL- LARGEST DIOXIN PLUME IN HISTORY
WATCH



https://www.bitchute.com/video/nWPk1dpH19tx/



https://www.bitchute.com/video/X1yCQgtszH4q/

Ohio was not the first -


GOD Bless America

[NYBob]

FREEDOM WATCH LIVE: PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP HOLDS SAVE AMERICA RALLY IN ROBSTOWN, TX 10/22/22
by RSBN

https://www.rsbnetwork.com/video/watch-live-president-donald-j-trump-holds-save-america-rally-in-robstown-tx-10-22-22/

Saturday, October 22, 2022: Join the RSBN broadcast team LIVE from Robstown, TX for all day coverage of President Donald J. Trump’s Save America rally.

President Donald J. Trump, 45th President of the United States of America, will hold a rally in Robstown, Texas on Saturday, October 22, 2022, at 7:00PM CDT.

Saturday, October 22, 2022, at 7:00PM CDT

President Donald J. Trump, 45th President of the United States of America, delivers remarks in support of his unprecedented effort to advance the MAGA agenda by energizing voters and highlighting the slate of 33-0 Trump Endorsed America First candidates in the Great State of Texas.

Additional Special Guest Speakers will be Announced.

Venue:

Richard M. Borchard Regional Fairgrounds

1213 Terry Shamsie Blvd.

Robstown, TX 78380

Timeline of Events:

8:00AM – Parking Lots, Vendor Row, and Registration Open

2:00PM – Doors Open

4:00PM – Special Guest Speakers Deliver Remarks

7:00PM – 45th President of the United States Donald J. Trump Delivers Remarks

Entertainment and Concessions will be available throughout the day!

JULIE GREEN PROPHETIC WORD [REVERSALS ARE COMING] CHANGE IS COMING - TRUMP NEWS
Trump News Channel Published October 15, 2022

The Lords Day



https://rumble.com/v1p43dv-the-lords-day.html



https://rumble.com/v1o4gov-julie-green-prophetc-word-reversals-are-coming-change-is-coming-trump-news.html




OVERDUE FROM THE HAGUE. INTERNATIONAL TRIALS DAY ONE - NWO CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY
WATCH




https://www.bitchute.com/video/GjEgSnACO93V/



Gold Standard Bargain; Aris Mining Corp.

https://www.aris-mining.com/operations/operating-mines/segovia/overview/default.aspx

https://www.aris-mining.com/investors/events-and-presentations/default.aspx

https://www.aris-mining.com/

Ted Butler: Stand up against market manipulation and make a difference

By Ted Butler
SilverSeek.com
Friday, October 14, 2022

If you are tired of witnessing silver (and gold) continuing to be manipulated in price, here's a no-cost, no-risk, high-potential return action you can take that will only involve a few minutes of your time. Quite literally, there's absolutely nothing to lose and quite a lot of potential good to be had.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission is the taxpayer-funded federal commodities regulator whose main mission is to prevent and root out manipulation and protect the public. Four of the five commissioners have been in office for little more than six months and it's not clear that they are even aware that silver has been manipulated in price on the Comex.

Here is your opportunity to ensure that this is an issue they should be concerned about. Please take the time to copy and paste the letter below and email it to addresses listed. If you would prefer using your own name and not mine, you have my permission to do so. ...

... For the remainder of the commentary:

https://silverseek.com/article/stand-and-make-difference

https://www.aris-mining.com/operations/operating-mines/segovia/overview/default.aspx

https://www.aris-mining.com/investors/events-and-presentations/default.aspx

https://www.aris-mining.com/


GOD'S Money Bargain "Gold Standard Restoration Act" Would Peg Dollar To Gold At Fixed Price
28,398 views Oct 11, 2022
The Mother Of All Debt Bubbles Is About To

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXis1cIm2fw

Wary of US dollar hegemony, Chinese state researchers float idea of a pan-Asian
digital currency
The digital token would be pegged to a basket of 13 currencies, including the yuan,
Japanese yen, South Korean won and those of the 10 Asean countries
The government researchers said a common Asian digital currency would lower
the region’s reliance on the US dollar and help safeguard financial stability
Frank Tang in Beijing
Published: 11:00pm, 13 Oct, 2022

https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3195855/wary-us-dollar-hegemony-chinese-state-researchers-float-idea


Europe Has Been Preparing a Global Gold Standard Since the 1970s. Part 2



https://www.gainesvillecoins.com/blog/europe-preparing-gold-standard-part-2


Legend Pierre Lassonde Just Called A Major Bottom In The Gold Market!
October 04, 2022

https://kingworldnews.com/legend-pierre-lassonde-just-called-a-bottom-in-the-gold-market/

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP HOLDS SAVE AMERICA RALLY IN MINDEN, NV - LIVE - 10/8/22
Right Side Broadcasting Network

https://rumble.com/v1m68eg--live-president-donald-trump-holds-save-america-rally-in-minden-nv-10822.html


LIVE: PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP HOLDS SAVE AMERICA RALLY IN MESA, AZ 10/9/22
Right Side Broadcasting Network

https://rumble.com/v1m68pk--live-president-donald-trump-holds-save-america-rally-in-mesa-az-10922.html

HUGE! Election Company Konnech CEO Eugene Yu Arrested in Los Angeles for Theft of Personal Data of Election Workers – Data Sent to China!
By Brian Lupo
Published October 4, 2022 at 5:00pm
265 Comments

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/10/huge-truethevote-right-election-company-konnech-ceo-eugene-yu-arrested-los-angeles-theft-personal-data/


Nothing is to late when its about murder, genocide, war destruction etc.
The Ultimate Gold Buy Signal As US Savings Continue To Collapse
October 03, 2022

https://kingworldnews.com/the-ultimate-gold-buy-signal-as-us-savings-continue-to-collapse/

Germany bankrupt again - May Become Poland Land - Poland formally demands $1.2 trillion from Germany
Warsaw wants Berlin to negotiate a “final settlement” on the consequences of Adolf Hitler’s aggression



https://www.rt.com/news/563972-poland-wwii-compensation-germany/



Aris Mining is a Canadian mining company listed on the TSX under the symbol “ARIS”. Aris Mining (formerly known as Aris Gold) is led by an executive team with a demonstrated track record of creating value through building globally relevant gold mining companies.
Aris Mining operates the Segovia and Marmato mines in Colombia, which together produced over 230,000 ounces of gold in 2021.
The company is also the operator and 20% owner of the world class Soto Norte project in Colombia, with an option to increase to 50%. Aris Mining also owns the advanced stage Toroparu project in Guyana and the Juby project in Ontario, Canada.
https://www.aris-mining.com/overview/default.aspx
Aris Mining promotes the formalization of small-scale mining as this process enables all miners to operate in a legal, safe and responsible manner that protects them and the environment.
https://www.aris-mining.com/about-us/about-aris-mining/default.aspx

https://www.aris-mining.com/investors/events-and-presentations/default.aspx

https://www.arisgold.com/overview/default.aspx



We Don't Need GATES FUNDED FACTORY BREEDS 30 MILLION MOSQUITOS PER WEEK FOR RELEASE IN 11 COUNTRIES
WATCH



https://www.bitchute.com/video/6ZpNTPtWFX6F/

LIVE WITH DR. BRYAN ARDIS
WATCH



https://www.bitchute.com/video/asot5zYnrwph/

Gold & Silver Will Outperform Everything Else
by Mike Maloney:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ok1-f896iPo

Bullion Banks Massive Short Covering In Gold & Silver Markets Continues

https://kingworldnews.com/bullion-banks-massive-short-covering-in-gold-silver-markets-continues/

Bullish Chart for Aris
Aris closed over the 100 day moving average and broke a resistance line
that has capped the price for 3 months.

The data on Yahoo Finance before GCM was delisted, the shares short was
843,000 shares as of Sept 15. Today, nearly all of those shares sold short are
underwater. We may see a short covering rally
. The low trading volume of under 150k a day indicates they haven't covered
significant amounts of short sales

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=170088429.

WND; Naomi Wolf: Elites covering up deadly vax 'complicit in a massive crime'
'Nice' people turn out to be 'monsters and barbarians'
Art Moore By Art Moore
Published October 1, 2022

https://www.wnd.com/2022/10/naomi-wolf-elites-covering-deadly-vax-complicit-massive-crime/



MAGA; WND; Naomi Wolf: Elites covering up deadly vax 'complicit in a massive crime'
'Nice' people turn out to be 'monsters and barbarians'
Art Moore By Art Moore
Published October 1, 2022

https://www.wnd.com/2022/10/naomi-wolf-elites-covering-deadly-vax-complicit-massive-crime/


WOW; What if we returned to the gold standard?
Crypto Ninja Published September 30, 2022



https://rumble.com/v1m6gwz-what-if-we-returned-to-the-gold-standard.html

SHOCKING: 2 BILLION VAX INJURED !! - 20 MILLION DEAD !! NEW STUDIES CONFIRM OUR WORST FEARS !!
WATCH



https://www.bitchute.com/video/ZFegtSBGCiCR/

MASS STARVATION PREP?! 100 TONS OF DEAD FISH IN POLAND & GERMAN, POISONED LIKE CANADA GOVT?!
WATCH



https://www.bitchute.com/video/Hpe2Q3A2oTN3/


THOSE WHO WERE VACCINATED WILL DIE ACCORDING TO LEAKED VIDEO
FROM CCP CHINA VIDEO_2021-10-26_14-32-0
WATCH

https://www.bitchute.com/video/mNEIDqeZWmmj/

GLENN BECK:
WATCH



https://www.bitchute.com/video/B5pRXaXLBH5r/

THE REMDESIVIR GENOCIDE
WATCH



https://www.bitchute.com/video/79U8lEGn95bm/

President Trump Rally *Live* ~ Warren, Mi. Sat. 10-1-2022, 7pm EDT.

https://www.rsbnetwork.com/video/watch-president-donald-trump-save-america-rally-live-in-warren-mi-10-1-22/

HURRICANE IAN WAS MAN MADE AND CONTROLLED. HERE IS HOW THEY DID IT. WEATHER WAREFARE
WATCH



https://www.bitchute.com/video/wu0a9k7qy0CK/

Military NWO Weather Weapons HARRP IN ACTION? - Making NWO Depopulation Weather -
WATCH



https://www.bitchute.com/video/1xROVifcrNd6/

Military Weather Weapons – Dane Wigington
By Greg Hunter On August 16, 2022 In Political Analysis 11 Comments
By Greg Hunter’s USAWatchdog.com.

https://usawatchdog.com/radical-drought-caused-by-military-weather-weapons-dane-wigington/

https://youtu.be/yGLCUf830sk

NEPALEARTHQUAKE CAUSED CLIMATIC WEAPON #HAARP #NATO BEAST
#CERN- ATTACK ON HUMANITY & EARTH #WW3

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/nepalearthquake-caused-climatic-weapon-haarp-nato-beast-priya

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rf78rEAJvhY

https://www.bitchute.com/search/?query=dimming&kind=video

RE: The Trump Card is very, very close to being played!

Under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution,

"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."



Election Fraud would be a serious felony under normal circumstances, but under an active state of war it would be considered an act of treason. Think back Re: Kavanaugh conf. hearings. What are the requirements for a civilian to be tried for treason? We have been in a state of war since 2001.



Pelosi and all other members of Congress are NO LONGER members of Congress, they've forfeited their rights and offices by committing an act of TREASON.



They are no longer lawful members of Congress, (and this doesn't even include the Supreme Court justices who are complicit in carrying out this treason against our Nation!!), thanks to Section 3 of 14th Amendment. They are now considered enemies of the Republic who have aided a foreign power in stealing an election. When you have committed an act of treason, you forfeit your rights as an American. You have no rights. Military law vs civilian law?



Any evidence is admissible in a military tribunal court, so Pelosi's stolen laptop, along with the other 11 stolen laptops, can be used in her military tribunal along with everything else Pelosi has done, to lock her and the others away for good.

History will show that Donald Trump tried every legal avenue to solve this crisis against our Constitution. It will show that all others failed to address this Act of Treason. He tried to resolve this peacefully. His only recourse left was to use the military, but it will be a LAWFUL use of the military as these people have broken their oaths and committed TREASON and INSURRECTION.

President Donald J. Trump is LEGALLY REQUIRED to act on this because of his own oath to the Constitution, to protect our Republic from enemies Foreign AND DOMESTIC.

The crimes on their indictments will read; TREASON, SEDITION, and CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY. When the whole world finds out they launched a virus to steal an election, the Great Awakening will begin. They've sealed their fates!



And again, remember the brilliant preemptive/ offensive maneuver our President made when he signed the Executive Order and National Emergency Act on September 12, 2018...Any foreign or domestic interference in our National Elections carry severe consequences!

Of course high treason being chief among them as well as asset seizure/forfeiture, including those who deliberately aid in the execution and dissemination of misleading propaganda enforcing such treasonous activities!

Trump Card!
by veloyt

Hurricane Ian live updates: Makes landfall with catastrophic wind & storm surge | LiveNOW from FOX
78,037 watching now Started streaming 11 hours ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZHI3fe7LZs

President Trump Warns of World War III – Says Possible Nuclear War Keeps Him Up at Night
By Joe Hoft
Published September 28, 2022 at 12:00pm
503 Comments





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZHI3fe7LZs

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’s (R) team on social media assured the Sunshine
State that its officials are ready and willing to help all Floridians who will be
impacted by Hurricane Ian, regardless of vaccination status, after President Biden
deemed getting vaccinated a “vital part” of hurricane prep.



https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/09/27/desantis-team-hits-back-after-biden-deems-vaccination-vital-part-hurricane-prep/

Unpayable Debt & Vax Causing Hell on Earth – Ed Dowd
By Greg Hunter On September 27, 2022 In Market Analysis



https://usawatchdog.com/unpayable-debt-vax-causing-hell-on-earth-ed-dowd/

mick; THE AVERAGE AGE OF THE 32 DEAD "VACCINATED" DOCTORS IN CANADA WAS 48.4 YEARS. NO LONGER NEEDED?
WATCH



https://www.bitchute.com/video/ibeDob4u0h25/

REAL MONEY; Gold Is the Future - BRICS May Force a Return to The Gold Standard
Red Pill News Published September 24, 2022



https://rumble.com/v1ldgsl-gold-is-the-future-brics-may-force-a-return-to-the-gold-standard.html

Put Yourself On A Gold & Silver Standard! They Are Are Still Real Money!
1,117 views Sep 26, 2022

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1cgt2MInE0

BREAKING NEWS. GAS LINE EXPLOSION. SABOTAGE. RUSSIAN SPECIAL OPS. HURRICANE IAN WIPEOUT.
6,559 views Sep 27, 2022

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OwqCW3XOSo

NWO; House passes bill to make it tougher to decertify elections amid fears Trump
may contest 2020 results
The legislative effort could lend credence to speculation that Trump is angling to
challenge to the 2020 election through his 2022 midterm endorsements.



https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/house-passes-bill-to-make-it-tougher-to-decertify-elections-amid-fears-trump-may-contest-2020-results/

GOD Bless; Vigil held for Canadian woman who died at a pharmacy minutes after getting COVID booster

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/vigil-held-for-canadian-woman-who-died-at-a-pharmacy-minutes-after-getting-covid-booster/?utm_source=top_news&utm_campaign=usa

Pro-Vaccine Cardiologist Now Calls for Immediate End to COVID Vaccines
In a peer-reviewed article published in the Journal of Insulin Resistance, Dr.
Aseem Malhotra called for the immediate end of the COVID-19 vaccine rollout and
the “pandemic of misinformation on COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.”

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/aseem-malhotra-cardiologist-end-covid-vaccines-malone/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=4a37f90e-78b0-423f-a2ab-230b85c71cdahttps://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/aseem-malhotra-cardiologist-end-covid-vaccines-malone/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=4a37f90e-78b0-423f-a2ab-230b85c71cda

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtE0I5FqHPs&t=4s

UPDATED BOOSTERS NOT TESTED ON HUMANS TO BE GIVEN TO CHILDREN!
WATCH




https://www.bitchute.com/video/L8GT58nFTtbS/


Trump Already Won & We Are Living Through The Change! He Set Us Up For
Success! Truth Is Freeing Us! - On The Fringe
Saturday, September 24, 2022 19:18

https://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2022/09/trump-already-won-we-are-living-through-the-change-he-set-us-up-for-success-truth-is-freeing-us-on-the-fringe-3641912.html


THE PANIC JUST STARTED. NO GAS IS LEFT. MILLIONS WILL BE WIPED OUT.
96,491 views Sep 25, 2022

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJPflbeGnqU

Lastest Polls Analysis – It’s Over for Dems!!, 3928
The Still Report Published September 25, 2022



https://rumble.com/v1ljayb-lastest-polls-analysis-its-over-for-dems-3928.html

Dont listen to this recording, if you don't have an Open mind, & if you aren't on the Winning side with we the Patriots

https://rumble.com/v1liofh-world-countries-surrender-to-president-donald-trump-and-the-white-hat-allia.html


NICE JULIE GREEN PROPHETIC WORD [ WARNING ] MESSAGES FROM GOD IS THE BEST THING - TRUMP NEWS
Trump News Channel Published September 25, 2022




https://rumble.com/v1lhgnj-julie-green-prophetic-word-warning-messages-from-god-is-the-best-thing-trum.html

JABBED MAN SAYS "THEY WANT TO KILL US ALL"...HE WAS RIGHT. HE IS ALSO DEAD. VAERS REPORT
WATCH




https://www.bitchute.com/video/WAOHasd1UurQ/

NATIONS ANNIHILATED! Is The Great Reset Worth World War III?
Yep exactly all Planned
Everyone in the USA should see this! It is short but goes to the direct facts.
Basic math explains why mass immigration destroys wages and smashes family formation


https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1574014397017726978?s=20

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJGM2b28Ppk

PRAY WE NEED; EMERGENCY BROADCAST!!! Russia Mobilizes for Nuclear War!
Patriots Base Published September 25, 2022



https://rumble.com/v1lfrhp-emergency-broadcast-russia-mobilizes-for-nuclear-war.html

No Good Options For The Fed; So Audit It & Get Rid of It!
The Ron Paul Liberty Report Published September 23, 2022 13,614 Views



https://rumble.com/v1l8ugl-no-good-options-for-the-fed-so-audit-it-and-get-rid-of-it.html

Donald Trump RIPS Biden For Trying To Lead America Into A Third World War
Dinesh D'Souza Published September 24, 2022




https://rumble.com/v1ler4p-donald-trump-rips-biden-for-trying-to-lead-america-into-a-third-world-war.html


LATIN AMERICA PRISONS WILL BE EMPTY -




The Plandemic is Over
CatholicConservative Published September 24, 2022



https://rumble.com/v1l8uxr-the-plandemic-is-over.html

The plan is to bring in 100 million to pour into the US and remake Mexico, US
and Canada a regional government.
The WEF plan to REMAKE Mexico, US, and Canada's borders EXPOSED! |
Redacted with Clayton Morris 11:07




https://rumble.com/v1labk5-the-wef-plan-to-remake-mexico-us-and-canadas-borders-exposed-redacted-with-.html

This COULD change everything if it happens | Redacted with Natali and Clayton Morris
Redacted News Published September 20, 2022



https://rumble.com/v1kw8mu-this-could-change-everything-if-it-happens-redacted-with-natali-and-clayton.html

Finland gets 8,000 migrants in two weeks and is ready to shut down, and everyone is sitting on their hands.

https://patriotunitednews.com/putin-has-lost-control-russia-is-rioting/



GREAT "President Trump & Q+" The Plan To Save The World! ~ Situation Update
Situation Update Published September 23, 2022




https://rumble.com/v1l95yb-president-trump-and-q-the-plan-to-save-the-world-situation-update.html

MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN - PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP RALLY LIVE IN WILMINGTON, NC 9/23/22
Right Side Broadcasting Network



https://rumble.com/v1k3jy5-president-donald-trump-rally-live-in-wilmington-nc-92322.html

Friday, September 23, 2022: Join the RSBN broadcast team LIVE from Wilmington, NC for all day coverage of President Donald J. Trump's SAVE AMERICA rally. Tune in at 12:00 PM ET!

President Donald J. Trump, 45th President of the United States of America, will hold a rally in Wilmington, North Carolina on Friday, September 23, 2022, at 7:00PM EDT.

URGENT WARNING. I AM GETTING CANCELED FOR THIS. NUKE ALERT.
13,813 views Sep 23, 2022 #BREAKING #ECONOMY #NEWS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2rgIsTG0g8


"TAKE CHINA OUT" AMERICAN TROOPS BEING PREPARED TO DIE FOR
TAIWAN. WHITE HOUSE STANDS BY BIDEN NWO DESTRUCTION OF USA
& RUSSIA - NO PEACE - ONLY DEPOPULATION GENOCIDE OF PEOPLE
81,598 views Sep 19, 2022

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-S9PEO1Uxm8

All Need Peace; GOD Pray Needed; Trump warns of World War III
The Ukraine conflict could end in a world war, but would not be happening if he
were in power, the former US president claims



https://www.rt.com/news/563340-trump-world-war-ukraine/

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=170022364











Banks worried about “monster” $700 trillion derivatives market as credit tightens.

The $700 Trillion Monster
August 25 (King World News) – Alasdair Macleod: In this article we look at the
consequences of contracting bank credit on the economy, financial markets, and
commodities. It is a developing global condition.

https://kingworldnews.com/banks-worried-about-monster-700-trillion-derivatives-market-as-credit-tightens/


GCM Mining Corp. (formerly Gran Colombia Gold)
(TSX: GCM / OTCQX: TPRFF)
Accretive Acquisition to Drive Valuation Higher
BUY

https://www.researchfrc.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/GCM-Aug-2022-Update-1.pdf?vgo_ee=TMO54WfXmKl1gA%2FTEb1O1%2FlMy%2BOWWuyaZunZiCXh6gI%3D

Current Price: C$3.35
Fair Value: C$10.09
Risk: 3

GCM Mining Corp. PowerPoint Presentation

https://s28.q4cdn.com/389315916/files/doc_downloads/2022/07/Aris-Gold-GCM-presentation-25-July-2022.pdf

$In GOD We Trust - Real Money - AU Safety 6000yrs )


https://www.kitconet.com/images/quotes_7a.gif?1493417496003









https://www.kitco.com/images/live/silver.gif?0.8344882022363285

Gold & Silver is the only REAL Legal Tender -

by The Founding Fathers for your -

Rights, Liberty and Freedom -

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/monie.htm

GOLD STANDARD; THE REAL LEGAL MONEY:

https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/wikispeedia/wpcd/wp/g/Gold_standard.htm#:~:text=Advocates%20of%20a%20variety%20of,basis%20for%20a%20monetary%20system.

https://www.usdebtclock.org/

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

https://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index.htm

God Bless.America

[NYBob]

TO ALL JOIN Praying for America | Repeated Democrat Weaponization of the Government
Against Republicans 8/9/22
Right Side Broadcasting Network Published August 10, 2022



https://rumble.com/v1fhrh5-praying-for-america-repeated-democrat-weaponization-of-the-government-again.html


BREAKING: NWO DEEP STATE PLANNING TRUMP ASSASSINATION AHEAD
OF AMERICA'S DESTRUCTION DEPOPULATION OF CHRISTIANS
WATCH

https://www.bitchute.com/video/QvKG96JXzsk0/

THE POWER OF ONE PERSON ALIVE )
WATCH

https://www.bitchute.com/video/t9ifIjfWKCug/

EPIC NEWS UPDATE TODAY - TRUMP KEEP NEXT PRESIDENT & REMOVE
DRAIN THE SWAMP
Trump News Channel Published August 10, 2022




https://rumble.com/v1fhzbh-epic-news-update-today-trump-keep-next-president-and-remove-drain-the-swamp.html?mref=7ju1&mrefc=8

JUDY BYINGTON INTEL: RESTORED REPUBLIC VIA A GCR HUGE UPDATE
AS OF AUG 10, 2022 - TRUMP NEWS
Trump News Channel Published August 10, 2022



https://rumble.com/v1fhulh-judy-byington-intel-restored-republic-via-a-gcr-huge-update-as-of-aug-10-20.html

REDWAVE INCOMING!! TRUMP FBI RAID'S BACKLASH: PROSECUTIONS ON
THREE-LETTERS WILL BE MADE
Trump News Channel Published August 10, 2022



https://rumble.com/v1fhrmt-redwave-incoming-trump-fbi-raids-backlash-prosecutions-on-three-letters-wil.html

RON DESANTIS TO CAMPAIGN FOR TRUMP’S CANDIDATES
SHARIRAYE UPDATE TODAY (AUGUST 10, 2022) -
Trump News Channel Published August 10, 202



https://rumble.com/v1fhnuf-shariraye-update-today-august-10-2022-ron-desantis-to-campaign-for-trumps-c.html

TRUMP: COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF "BEHIND THE SCENES" SHADOW
PRESIDENT! FULL CONTROL OF U.S. MILITARY!
Trump News Channel Published August 10, 2022



https://rumble.com/v1fhng9-trump-commander-in-chief-behind-the-scenes-shadow-president-full-control-of.html

REAL MONEY; Gold, War And A Doomsday Clock Approaching

https://kingworldnews.com/gold-war-and-a-doomsday-clock-approaching-midnight/

Now that we know where we stand on NWO dems inflation depopulation



Trump Raid Deathblow to Democracy – Martin Armstrong - Greg Hunter Show - VIDEO

https://usawatchdog.com/trump-raid-deathblow-to-democracy-martin-armstrong/


THE RESPONSE FROM THE REPUBLICAN PARTY ON FED FBI RAID OF TRUMP
SHOWS THERE MIGHT BE FIGHT IN THEM NWO FED FBI Cabal depopulation
mafia AFTER
WATCH


FULL SHOW: Epstein Linked Obama Appointed Judge Likely Behind Raid Of
Trump's Mar-A-Lago Home

https://www.bitchute.com/video/L261aolWCfnV/

FED/FBI Raid Against Trump Signals NWO Deep State Coup Has Begun
BannedNews Published August 9, 2022



https://rumble.com/v1fd9mr-emergency-broadcast-fbi-raid-against-trump-signals-deep-state-coup-has-begu.html


Feds' Shocking Use of a Search Warrant at Trump's House, with Alan Dershowitz
and Harmeet Dhillon

Megyn Kelly is joined by Alan Dershowitz, author of "The Price of Principle," and
Harmeet Dhillon, chairwoman of The Republican National Lawyers Association, to
discuss the shocking use of a search warrant for this type of crime, whether this is
all a pretext for January 6 and political, the challenge of accountability, and more.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7FqNfOEgO0&t=39s


Trump raid makes US 'banana republic' – governor
Florida’s Ron DeSantis lashed out at the federal government for raiding the former president’s residence



https://www.rt.com/news/560503-desantis-biden-banana-republic/

DEEP STATE; They Just Raided Donald Trump's Mar Lago Home --
RechargeFreedom Published August 8, 2022





https://rumble.com/v1fa1qx-fbi-doj-raid-donal-trumps-mar-lago-home-civil-war.html?mref=7ju1&mrefc=2


bbotcs; Gold & Silver: Is the Bottom In? Here Is What to Expect Next - Gary Wagner
Wall Street Silver
August 8, 2022

https://www.gold-eagle.com/article/gold-silver-bottom-here-what-expect-next-gary-wagner

Gold SWOT: Geopolitical tensions between the U.S. and China are boosting haven demand for gold
Frank E. Holmes Frank E. Holmes
Monday August 08, 2022 14:56
Kitco Commentaries | Opinions, Ideas and Markets Talk


https://www.kitco.com/commentaries/2022-08-08/Gold-SWOT-Geopolitical-tensions-between-the-U-S-and-China-are-boosting-haven-demand-for-gold.html

State Attorneys have a duty to enforce the law, not ignore laws they don’t like.
redpillrevolution Published August 8, 2022



https://rumble.com/v1f6h47-state-attorneys-have-a-duty-to-enforce-the-law-not-ignore-laws-they-dont-li.html

REPLAY: Life, Liberty & Levin, Sundays 8PM EDT
Patriot News Outlet Live Published August 7, 2022



https://rumble.com/v1f5i20-replay-life-liberty-and-levin-sundays-8pm-edt.html

LATEST BREAKING NEWS: EMERGENCY BROADCAST SYSTEM HAS BEEN
STARTED - TRUMP NEWS
Trump News Channel Published August 8, 2022



https://rumble.com/v1f63o3-latest-breaking-news-emergency-broadcast-system-has-been-started-trump-news.html

During Obama's Reign the FEMA Camps Were Prepared for Patriots and Christians!
Patriot Movement Published August 7, 2022



https://rumble.com/v1f3qal-during-obamas-reign-the-fema-camps-were-prepared-for-patriots-and-christian.html

A Great Friend I WAS BLIND - LIVE #590 //
QBits With GoodDog Published August 7, 2022


Bro JESUS Alive....

https://rumble.com/v1f4ymb-590-i-was-blind-live.html

Excel thanks; BOOM !! NOW THE AUDIT ARE ALL OVER THE NEWS - TRUMP NEWS
Trump News Channel Published August 7, 2022



https://rumble.com/v1f447z-boom-now-the-audit-are-all-over-the-news-trump-news.html



https://rumble.com/v1f47s7-top-news-charlie-ward-and-simon-parkes-drop-shocking-intels-from-gitmo-visi.html

LAWSUIT SAYS BIDEN & BIG TECH COLLUDED IN CENSORING, 3895
WATCH

https://www.bitchute.com/video/XuRGQ0Epvggt/
A growing list of plaintiffs has just won a preliminary discovery challenge in federal
court going after the Biden Administration’s collusion with Big Tech in censoring
the truth about COVID-19, Election 2020 integrity and the Hunter Biden laptop
story.

GENE DRIVE & THE GREAT DNA WAR: DR MERRITT ON VACCINES, GENE
EDITING, DEPOPULATION & ROCKEFELLERS
WATCH

https://www.bitchute.com/video/ZdVTXoD31tl7/


MAGA PATRIOTS ARE *CRUSHING IT* NATION WIDE!
WATCH

https://www.bitchute.com/video/Qegp7mCIAxdR/

CPAC LIVE: Day One - Thursday, August 4, 2022
Right Side Broadcasting Network

https://rumble.com/v1e39az-cpac-day-one-dallas-tx-august-4-2022.html

*LIVE* ~ President Donald J. Trump, 45th President >

of the United States of America, will hold a rally in Waukesha, Wisconsin on Friday, August 5, 2022, at 7:00PM CDT.

https://www.rsbnetwork.com/video/watch-president-donald-trump-rally-live-in-waukesha-wi-8-5-22/

Gold Price Forecast: Valid Support Leads to $2,471 Target
Christopher Aaron
Chief Analyst & Founder @ iGold Advisor
August 4, 2022

https://www.gold-eagle.com/article/gold-price-forecast-valid-support-leads-2471-target

DID THE WORLD JUST RETURN TO THE GOLD STANDARD? ZIMBABWE LED THE WAY; RELEASED GOLD!
WATCH

https://www.bitchute.com/video/qWQWIm0wXfHa/


EATONVILE OVERTURN 2020 TOWN COUNTY ELECTION DUE TO ELECTION FRAUD!
WATCH


https://www.bitchute.com/video/qgx8xGADBN27/



ALERT: Major Bottom Now In Place For Gold & Silver
July 28, 2022

https://kingworldnews.com/alert-major-bottom-now-in-place-for-gold-silver/

Frank Giustra & Ian Telfer - The Bull Case for Gold
672 views Jul 20, 2022 Subscribe to The Meb Faber Show


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMkZADIhxwY

Creates a company with larger scale and significant free cash flow to unlock
shareholder value
Substantial combined gold reserve of 3.8 Moz and resource base of 18.3 Moz Measured & Indicated and 7.7 Moz Inferred 1
Strengthened mine-building, operating and financial capacity
Streamlined corporate structure with direct realizable synergies
No premium, all-share business combination
TORONTO and VANCOUVER, Canada, July 25, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- GCM Mining Corp. (GCM) (TSX: GCM; OTCQX: TPRFF) and Aris Gold Corporation (Aris Gold) (TSX: ARIS; OTCQX: ALLXF) announce they have entered into a definitive agreement (the Arrangement Agreement) under which GCM will acquire all the outstanding Aris Gold shares not already held by GCM (the Transaction). The resulting entity will be named Aris Gold Corporation and will be led by Ian Telfer as Chair and Neil Woodyer as CEO and Director.

Ian Telfer, Aris Gold Chair, stated: "The combined group creates a top-in-class company with multiple tier one assets. After Aris Gold became operator of the Soto Norte joint venture, joining forces with GCM became a logical next step. Our increased scale will also broaden our future opportunities to continue building a +1 million ounce producer over the next few years."

A replay of the call will also be available by dialling the following numbers and using passcode 9244:

Toll-free US and Canada: 1-800-319-6413
International: [phone]

Pro forma consolidated mineral reserves and resources

Table 1: Proven and probable mineral reserve estimates

https://www.gcm-mining.com/news-and-investors/press-releases/press-releases-details/2022/GCM-Mining-and-Aris-Gold-Combine-to-Create-a-Leading-Americas-Gold-Producer/default.aspx

$In GOD We Trust - Real Money - AU Safety 6000yrs )



https://www.kitconet.com/images/quotes_7a.gif?1493417496003









https://www.kitco.com/images/live/silver.gif?0.8344882022363285

Gold & Silver is the only REAL Legal Tender -

by The Founding Fathers for your -

Rights, Liberty and Freedom -

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/monie.htm

GOLD STANDARD; THE REAL LEGAL MONEY:

https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/wikispeedia/wpcd/wp/g/Gold_standard.htm#:~:text=Advocates%20of%20a%20variety%20of,basis%20for%20a%20monetary%20system.

https://www.usdebtclock.org/

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

https://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index.htm

God Bless.
Ps.
CDD; SHOCKING: UK Government admits COVID Vaccinated Children are 4423%
more likely to die of any cause & 13,633% more likely to die of COVID-19 than
Unvaccinated Children
BY THE EXPOSÉ ON JULY 27, 2022 • ( 6 COMMENTS )

https://expose-news.com/2022/07/27/uk-gov-vaccinated-children-increased-morta

[NYBob]

Great JUDY BYINGTON INTEL: RESTORED REPUBLIC VIA A GCR HUGE UPDATE
AS OF AUG 10, 2022 - TRUMP NEWS
Trump News Channel Published August 10, 2022



https://rumble.com/v1fhulh-judy-byington-intel-restored-republic-via-a-gcr-huge-update-as-of-aug-10-20.html

REDWAVE INCOMING!! TRUMP FBI RAID'S BACKLASH: PROSECUTIONS ON
THREE-LETTERS WILL BE MADE
Trump News Channel Published August 10, 2022



https://rumble.com/v1fhrmt-redwave-incoming-trump-fbi-raids-backlash-prosecutions-on-three-letters-wil.html

RON DESANTIS TO CAMPAIGN FOR TRUMP’S CANDIDATES
SHARIRAYE UPDATE TODAY (AUGUST 10, 2022) -
Trump News Channel Published August 10, 202



https://rumble.com/v1fhnuf-shariraye-update-today-august-10-2022-ron-desantis-to-campaign-for-trumps-c.html

TRUMP: COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF "BEHIND THE SCENES" SHADOW
PRESIDENT! FULL CONTROL OF U.S. MILITARY!
Trump News Channel Published August 10, 2022



https://rumble.com/v1fhng9-trump-commander-in-chief-behind-the-scenes-shadow-president-full-control-of.html

REAL MONEY; Gold, War And A Doomsday Clock Approaching

https://kingworldnews.com/gold-war-and-a-doomsday-clock-approaching-midnight/

Now that we know where we stand on NWO dems inflation depopulation



Trump Raid Deathblow to Democracy – Martin Armstrong - Greg Hunter Show - VIDEO

https://usawatchdog.com/trump-raid-deathblow-to-democracy-martin-armstrong/


THE RESPONSE FROM THE REPUBLICAN PARTY ON FED FBI RAID OF TRUMP
SHOWS THERE MIGHT BE FIGHT IN THEM NWO FED FBI Cabal depopulation
mafia AFTER
WATCH


FULL SHOW: Epstein Linked Obama Appointed Judge Likely Behind Raid Of
Trump's Mar-A-Lago Home

https://www.bitchute.com/video/L261aolWCfnV/

FED/FBI Raid Against Trump Signals NWO Deep State Coup Has Begun
BannedNews Published August 9, 2022



https://rumble.com/v1fd9mr-emergency-broadcast-fbi-raid-against-trump-signals-deep-state-coup-has-begu.html


Feds' Shocking Use of a Search Warrant at Trump's House, with Alan Dershowitz
and Harmeet Dhillon

Megyn Kelly is joined by Alan Dershowitz, author of "The Price of Principle," and
Harmeet Dhillon, chairwoman of The Republican National Lawyers Association, to
discuss the shocking use of a search warrant for this type of crime, whether this is
all a pretext for January 6 and political, the challenge of accountability, and more.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7FqNfOEgO0&t=39s


Trump raid makes US 'banana republic' – governor
Florida’s Ron DeSantis lashed out at the federal government for raiding the former president’s residence



https://www.rt.com/news/560503-desantis-biden-banana-republic/

DEEP STATE; They Just Raided Donald Trump's Mar Lago Home --
RechargeFreedom Published August 8, 2022





https://rumble.com/v1fa1qx-fbi-doj-raid-donal-trumps-mar-lago-home-civil-war.html?mref=7ju1&mrefc=2


bbotcs; Gold & Silver: Is the Bottom In? Here Is What to Expect Next - Gary Wagner
Wall Street Silver
August 8, 2022

https://www.gold-eagle.com/article/gold-silver-bottom-here-what-expect-next-gary-wagner

Gold SWOT: Geopolitical tensions between the U.S. and China are boosting haven demand for gold
Frank E. Holmes Frank E. Holmes
Monday August 08, 2022 14:56
Kitco Commentaries | Opinions, Ideas and Markets Talk


https://www.kitco.com/commentaries/2022-08-08/Gold-SWOT-Geopolitical-tensions-between-the-U-S-and-China-are-boosting-haven-demand-for-gold.html

State Attorneys have a duty to enforce the law, not ignore laws they don’t like.
redpillrevolution Published August 8, 2022



https://rumble.com/v1f6h47-state-attorneys-have-a-duty-to-enforce-the-law-not-ignore-laws-they-dont-li.html

REPLAY: Life, Liberty & Levin, Sundays 8PM EDT
Patriot News Outlet Live Published August 7, 2022



https://rumble.com/v1f5i20-replay-life-liberty-and-levin-sundays-8pm-edt.html

LATEST BREAKING NEWS: EMERGENCY BROADCAST SYSTEM HAS BEEN
STARTED - TRUMP NEWS
Trump News Channel Published August 8, 2022



https://rumble.com/v1f63o3-latest-breaking-news-emergency-broadcast-system-has-been-started-trump-news.html

During Obama's Reign the FEMA Camps Were Prepared for Patriots and Christians!
Patriot Movement Published August 7, 2022



https://rumble.com/v1f3qal-during-obamas-reign-the-fema-camps-were-prepared-for-patriots-and-christian.html

A Great Friend I WAS BLIND - LIVE #590 //
QBits With GoodDog Published August 7, 2022


Bro JESUS Alive....

https://rumble.com/v1f4ymb-590-i-was-blind-live.html

Excel thanks; BOOM !! NOW THE AUDIT ARE ALL OVER THE NEWS - TRUMP NEWS
Trump News Channel Published August 7, 2022



https://rumble.com/v1f447z-boom-now-the-audit-are-all-over-the-news-trump-news.html



https://rumble.com/v1f47s7-top-news-charlie-ward-and-simon-parkes-drop-shocking-intels-from-gitmo-visi.html

LAWSUIT SAYS BIDEN & BIG TECH COLLUDED IN CENSORING, 3895
WATCH

https://www.bitchute.com/video/XuRGQ0Epvggt/
A growing list of plaintiffs has just won a preliminary discovery challenge in federal
court going after the Biden Administration’s collusion with Big Tech in censoring
the truth about COVID-19, Election 2020 integrity and the Hunter Biden laptop
story.

GENE DRIVE & THE GREAT DNA WAR: DR MERRITT ON VACCINES, GENE
EDITING, DEPOPULATION & ROCKEFELLERS
WATCH

https://www.bitchute.com/video/ZdVTXoD31tl7/


MAGA PATRIOTS ARE *CRUSHING IT* NATION WIDE!
WATCH

https://www.bitchute.com/video/Qegp7mCIAxdR/

CPAC LIVE: Day One - Thursday, August 4, 2022
Right Side Broadcasting Network

https://rumble.com/v1e39az-cpac-day-one-dallas-tx-august-4-2022.html

*LIVE* ~ President Donald J. Trump, 45th President >

of the United States of America, will hold a rally in Waukesha, Wisconsin on Friday, August 5, 2022, at 7:00PM CDT.

https://www.rsbnetwork.com/video/watch-president-donald-trump-rally-live-in-waukesha-wi-8-5-22/

Gold Price Forecast: Valid Support Leads to $2,471 Target
Christopher Aaron
Chief Analyst & Founder @ iGold Advisor
August 4, 2022

https://www.gold-eagle.com/article/gold-price-forecast-valid-support-leads-2471-target

DID THE WORLD JUST RETURN TO THE GOLD STANDARD? ZIMBABWE LED THE WAY; RELEASED GOLD!
WATCH

https://www.bitchute.com/video/qWQWIm0wXfHa/


EATONVILE OVERTURN 2020 TOWN COUNTY ELECTION DUE TO ELECTION FRAUD!
WATCH


https://www.bitchute.com/video/qgx8xGADBN27/



ALERT: Major Bottom Now In Place For Gold & Silver
July 28, 2022

https://kingworldnews.com/alert-major-bottom-now-in-place-for-gold-silver/

Frank Giustra & Ian Telfer - The Bull Case for Gold
672 views Jul 20, 2022 Subscribe to The Meb Faber Show


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMkZADIhxwY

Creates a company with larger scale and significant free cash flow to unlock
shareholder value
Substantial combined gold reserve of 3.8 Moz and resource base of 18.3 Moz Measured & Indicated and 7.7 Moz Inferred 1
Strengthened mine-building, operating and financial capacity
Streamlined corporate structure with direct realizable synergies
No premium, all-share business combination
TORONTO and VANCOUVER, Canada, July 25, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- GCM Mining Corp. (GCM) (TSX: GCM; OTCQX: TPRFF) and Aris Gold Corporation (Aris Gold) (TSX: ARIS; OTCQX: ALLXF) announce they have entered into a definitive agreement (the Arrangement Agreement) under which GCM will acquire all the outstanding Aris Gold shares not already held by GCM (the Transaction). The resulting entity will be named Aris Gold Corporation and will be led by Ian Telfer as Chair and Neil Woodyer as CEO and Director.

Ian Telfer, Aris Gold Chair, stated: "The combined group creates a top-in-class company with multiple tier one assets. After Aris Gold became operator of the Soto Norte joint venture, joining forces with GCM became a logical next step. Our increased scale will also broaden our future opportunities to continue building a +1 million ounce producer over the next few years."

A replay of the call will also be available by dialling the following numbers and using passcode 9244:

Toll-free US and Canada: 1-800-319-6413
International: [phone]

Pro forma consolidated mineral reserves and resources

Table 1: Proven and probable mineral reserve estimates

https://www.gcm-mining.com/news-and-investors/press-releases/press-releases-details/2022/GCM-Mining-and-Aris-Gold-Combine-to-Create-a-Leading-Americas-Gold-Producer/default.aspx

$In GOD We Trust - Real Money - AU Safety 6000yrs )



https://www.kitconet.com/images/quotes_7a.gif?1493417496003









https://www.kitco.com/images/live/silver.gif?0.8344882022363285

Gold & Silver is the only REAL Legal Tender -

by The Founding Fathers for your -

Rights, Liberty and Freedom -

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/monie.htm

GOLD STANDARD; THE REAL LEGAL MONEY:

https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/wikispeedia/wpcd/wp/g/Gold_standard.htm#:~:text=Advocates%20of%20a%20variety%20of,basis%20for%20a%20monetary%20system.

https://www.usdebtclock.org/

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

https://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index.htm

God Bless.
Ps.
CDD; SHOCKING: UK Government admits COVID Vaccinated Children are 4423%
more likely to die of any cause & 13,633% more likely to die of COVID-19 than
Unvaccinated Children
BY THE EXPOSÉ ON JULY 27, 2022 • ( 6 COMMENTS )

https://expose-news.com/2022/07/27/uk-gov-vaccinated-children-increased-morta

[NYBob]

doc bad; Truckloads of Canadian Doctors are using Fake Vax Passes for themselves and their
families...A Doctor injured by The Wax has blown the Whistle...It's exactly as we
suspected

https://twitter.com/risemelbourne/status/1550417522977284096?s=21&t=EnqabE1X5W4Px2NWzTtmTg

https://twitter.com/murdletheturtl2/status/1550228583251320832?s=21&t=TdQ2-ZPqMW6x2tY4MCeNJQ


America's Future is Looking Bright | Praying for America | July 19th, 2022
Right Side Broadcasting Network Published July 20, 2022




https://rumble.com/v1cz9nz-americas-future-is-looking-bright-praying-for-america-july-19th-2022.html


The Climate Change Transition To Mass Starvation And Death
redpillrevolution Published July 21, 2022





https://rumble.com/v1d4tn7-the-climate-change-transition-to-mass-starvation-and-death.html
https://rumble.com/user/redpillrevolution

Biden tests positive for Covid-19
The US president is vaccinated and double-boosted
Biden tests positive for Covid-19
US President Joe Biden. © Getty Images / Kent Nishimura
US

https://www.rt.com/news/559400-biden-tests-positive-covid-19/


$500 TRILLION LAWSUIT AGAINST THE FEDERAL GOVT AND OVER 140
MONOPOLISTS (REMOVED BY YOUTUBE IN 5HRS)
WATCH



https://rumble.com/v10gh0u--500.-trillion-dollar-lawsuit-on-the-way-to-those-responsible-for-their-dea.html

https://www.bitchute.com/video/QFcfDjifRl6u/

https://rumble.com/c/TrumpNewsChannel

THIS is the result of socialism



https://rumble.com/v1d43yp-this-is-the-result-of-socialism.html

https://rumble.com/user/redpillrevolution

California suffers the worst drought in 1,200 years and they ask to reduce water consumption

https://youtu.be/M3WsF6PEolk

Drought forces unprecedented water cuts in Southern California

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AufnxCg4O1M

$40 Milj. Without Water; Most Leaving? California's Farmland Rapidly Turns To Dust Amid Water Crisis
Tyler Durden's Photo
BY TYLER DURDEN
MONDAY, JUL 18, 2022 - 03:55 PM
As much of the Western US suffers from a historic drought, all eyes have shifted to
Californian farmers as hundreds of thousands of acres become fallow in a state
responsible for a tremendous amount of US food production.

Unprecedented cuts to water supplies are jeopardizing the future of growing for
many farmers. Drought conditions are worsening, making it harder for farmers to irrigate crops.

https://www.zerohedge.com/commodities/californias-farmland-rapidly-turns-dust-amid-water-crisis


WEATHER WAR BIG PICTURE: GEO-ENGINEERING & BIO-ENGINEERING
WATCH

https://www.bitchute.com/video/2he7vF7sBawE/

RUN FROM ANYONE THAT WANTS TO USE DEADLY CHEMO THERAPY ON YOU - THE RICK SIMPSON STORY
WATCH

https://www.bitchute.com/video/qq0hW4SVRYvh/

Ron Paul Speaks Truth to Power

https://rumble.com/vz1mij-ron-paul-speaks-truth-to-power.html

$Gold Forecast: How to Become Strong After a Massive Decline?
Ask Gold Miners!
The biggest buyers of gold in recent years have not been G7 countries (United
States, France, Canada, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom and Italy), many of
whom naively sold much if not all their gold in the recent past and have refused or
simply don't have the funds to restock;
instead purchases have all been by developing nation central banks (like India
and Turkey, and of course China which however has a habit of only revealing its
true gold inventory every decade or so) who have been quietly preparing to do
what Russia is doing by dedollarizing and instead allocating capital into a
counterparty-free asset.



https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/biden-g-7-will-ban-russian-gold-imports

BTW. Do Your Own Due Diligence;
$TPRFF, $MMY, $MMTMF, $AGI, $AEM, $GGGOF, $GPL; , Gold Mines Producer, oversold, undervalued Au-Bargain
IMO!

BRICS MEMBERS CHINA, RUSSIA, INDIA, SOUTH AFRICA & BRAZIL WANT:

GOLD STANDARD; THE REAL LEGAL MONEY:

https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/wikispeedia/wpcd/wp/g/Gold_standard.htm#:~:text=Advocates%20of%20a%20variety%20of,basis%20for%20a%20monetary%20system.


PUTIN & CHINA LEADING BRICS NATIONS INTO A GOLD STANDARD.
WATCH

https://www.bitchute.com/video/KhkUCnTwPyNi/


GCM Mining Reports Second Quarter and First Half 2022 Production; Declares August 15, 2022 Monthly Dividend
July 18, 2022


https://www.gcm-mining.com/news-and-investors/press-releases/press-releases-details/2022/GCMMining-Reports-Second-Quarter-and-First-Half-2022-Production-Declares-August-15-2022-Monthly-Dividend/default.aspx

https://www.gcm-mining.com

trunkman thanks; They are full speed ahead, with turbo button pressed.
announced today that it produced a total of 16,370 ounces of gold in June 2022 at its Segovia Operations bringing the total for the second quarter of 2022 to 53,198 ounces compared with 52,198 ounces from Segovia in the second quarter of 2021. In the second quarter of 2022, the Company also produced 85,741 ounces of silver, up from 54,573 ounces of silver in the second quarter last year, together with approximately 294,000 pounds of zinc and 345,000 pounds of lead.

For the first half of 2022, the Company produced 103,149 ounces of gold at its Segovia Operations, up from 101,256 ounces of gold in the first half last year. The Company reported consolidated gold production in the first half last year of 103,684 ounces which included 2,428 ounces from Marmato up to February 4, 2021, the date of the loss of control of Aris Gold Corporation.

GCM Mining’s trailing 12-months’ total gold production at the end of June 2022 was 208,282 ounces, up about 1% over last year. The Company remains on track to meet its 2022 annual production guidance of 210,000 to 225,000 ounces of gold, aided by the completion of the Maria Dama plant expansion to 2,000 tonnes per day (“tpd”) in the third quarter of 2022.

GCM Mining processed a total of 44,047 tonnes in June 2022 at its Maria Dama plant, representing a daily average processing rate of 1,468 tpd, at an average head grade of 12.8 g/t. Plant operations in June 2022 reflected a scheduled 120-hour stoppage to change the linings of the mill in addition to routine repairs and improvements. For the second quarter of 2022, a total of 147,580 tonnes, equivalent to 1,622 tpd, were processed at Segovia at an average head grade of 12.4 g/t compared with a total of 143,910 tonnes, equivalent to 1,581 tpd, at an average head grade of 12.6 g/t in the second quarter last year. This brings the daily average processing rate for the first half of 2022 to 1,604 tpd at an average head grade of 12.3 g/t compared with 1,526 tpd and 12.7 g/t in the first half last year.

$In GOD We Trust - Real Money - AU Safety 6000yrs )



https://www.kitconet.com/images/quotes_7a.gif?1493417496003









https://www.kitco.com/images/live/silver.gif?0.8344882022363285

Gold & Silver is the only REAL Legal Tender -

by The Founding Fathers for your -

Rights, Liberty and Freedom -

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/monie.htm

GOLD STANDARD; THE REAL LEGAL MONEY:

https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/wikispeedia/wpcd/wp/g/Gold_standard.htm#:~:text=Advocates%20of%20a%20variety%20of,basis%20for%20a%20monetary%20system.

https://www.usdebtclock.org/

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

https://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index.htm

God Bless.

trunkmonk thanks; from time to time i have pushed this info out to people.
although Yellen has a new role, looks like she was meant to be there when it
happens, as with Biden the drug lord of his son.
Buckle up butter cups, its coming full circle soon.

Bernanke began the conversation in a cheerful mood…
Ben: Saw you on TV yesterday.
A woman’s voice, said to be that of Janet Yellen, replies.
Janet: Well, you know what it is like.I’m now competing with the presidential
election news cycle. And Trump is getting all the page views now.
Ben: But wow! I like the way you turned it around…
Janet: What do you mean…?
Ben: I mean… that “cautious” thing. You managed to get almost every news agency in the world to say you were “cautious.” Heh heh. Makes you sound prudent.And this is after you and I together put about $4 trillion of new cash into the system… we must have induced other central banks to pony up another $8 trillion or so… and now there are about $650 trillion in open derivative contracts.
Yeah… cautious! I love it. Just don’t strike a match…. Heh heh.
Janet: Oh, stop… I wasn’t the one who started this thing… You… [inaudible]. Besides, I’m learning from Trump. When he entered the race, we all thought he was a joke. But that’s the problem with politics – jokes get elected.Anyway, Trump’s trick is to always say something bold and outrageous. And vague. People don’t know what the f*** you are talking about. They can fill in what they want to hear. It makes me sound like a strong leader who is keeping her options open.
At the end of my speech to the Economic Club, I was even tempted to say “Investors love me!”
We Homeys Did It
At this point, static interrupts the conversation. Then the two voices become clear
again…
Janet: You know, Ben, they should love us. And you and I should get more than
just our pictures on TIME and a few million in speaking fees. After all, our
yiddisher kops added more wealth to the world than Carnegie, Ford, Buffett,
Gates… all of them put together.
Ben: But, Janet… Now that I’ve been out of the hot seat for a while, I’ve had a chance to think about it.
Janet: Think about what?
Ben: Well, the system and how it works.
Janet: Hey… That’s not allowed…
Ben: I know… but now that I’m a private citizen just shaking down the big banks for speaking fees… It’s payback time!
Janet: Yeah… I see you’re getting $400,000 a pop. Not bad…
Ben: Janet, just wait… you’ll get your turn…But seriously, I’m just wondering how it all fits together.
I mean… it seems like something very important has changed in a way that we
didn’t recognize.
Janet: What’s that?”
Ben: When Nixon made that change in 1971 [eliminating the restraint on credit
creation imposed by gold] nobody really knew what it meant. The gold bugs ranted and raved, but even they had no idea what would happen. Nobody really saw how it would change the system completely.Nobody… except maybe the damned French… ever asked to exchange their dollars for gold anyway. It didn’t seem to matter that we shut the window [ending the convertibility of dollars to gold at a fixed rate by closing the “gold window” at the Treasury].
But this is just coming into focus for me. It changes everything. We went from a savings-based money system to a credit-based system. And that’s a big change.
You following me? There is only so much money available from savings. So that naturally limits the amount of credit. But when you can create credit with just a few keystrokes on your computer… it’s a different thing entirely. You can have as much as you want.
But the guy who runs a liquor store… He stocks his shelves for total sales. He doesn’t care whether you spend cash or credit. As people spend more – on credit – he orders more bottles and hires a young man to put it on the shelves. He thinks there is more demand for his product. He expects it to last. So does everyone else.
So, the economy booms. That was the idea. That’s why we got our faces on TIME. We homeys did it. We manipulated the economy. We tricked people into thinking there was more demand than there really was. And all we had to do was keep interest rates a little on the low side…
Debt Is Deflationary
Again… the line gets fuzzy for a bit. Then the voices come back.
Janet: Ben… I’m going to hop off the line… I’ve got an FOMC meeting…
Ben: Hold on, Janet… Just a minute… I’ve got something figured out. It’s important…In the old system, people had to earn money before they could lend it. That imposed a natural limit on credit. You couldn’t lend it if you didn’t have it.
The scarcity of credit forced up the price of it. Interest rates never went to zero. So, savers were encouraged to save. And it forced investors and entrepreneurs to find projects that were worthy of precious capital. That’s what made the system work. It encouraged real capital formation and real wealth building. That’s how we got richer.
Now, all we’ve got is credit… unlimited credit. Banks’ cost of funds these days is so low it’s almost free. Nobody knows what anything is worth – because all prices are distorted by unlimited credit.
That’s what happened to the oil industry. Oil was $140, and then it was $30. You don’t know what it should be. So nobody wants to take the risk or trouble to fund long-term projects. We don’t build much real wealth any more. We just speculate. Short term. And the amount of credit in the system just goes up and up.
But the dark side of credit is debt. You have to pay interest on it… and eventually pay back the loan. So, as your debt increases, it takes more and more of your income to make the debt payments, leaving you less to spend. This means you have to borrow more – increasing your debt – just to maintain the same level of spending.
We know our income is not keeping up with our debt levels. Debt was about one and a half times GDP in the 1970s. Now, it’s three and a half times.
I know lower interest rates airbrush the picture… so the debt burden is not so obvious. But unless we’ve eliminated the credit cycle, we have to assume rates will one day turn up again. Then, the cost of all this debt will suddenly hit us – hard. It will take a big chunk out of current spending… leading to those “D” words that you can’t use in public.
The gloom and doomers were right all along. But they didn’t understand any better than anyone else how it really worked. They kept expecting inflation. And it never came. So, they went broke and went away.
Debt is not inflationary. It’s deflationary. You either earn your way out… or you reach a limit, and the economy melts down. And here’s the thing: The super abundance of credit reduces real growth. That’s the thing I just realized. The more credit you make available… to try to ‘stimulate’ the economy… the more you stimulate speculation and suppress real growth. Less real growth means less real income to pay your debt.
So, there’s really no way out… because the debt is slowing down the economy it depends on, like a huge leech that is killing its host. You eventually end up in a Minsky Moment… [when asset values plunge after a long period of speculation and unsustainable growth]…
What are you going to do then?
Janet: You’re asking me?
Ben: Yea… Janet. I know what I’m going to be doing – collecting more big bucks for telling Goldman how you screwed up. Heh heh.What are you going to do?

God Bless
Amen

[NYBob]

Enjoy Great SAVE US RALLY; Trump * Rally in Mendon, Il. >

On air now via RSBN ... to 8:00PM EDT.

https://rumble.com/vi1or5-rsbn-live.html?mc_cid=66e6ab557b&mc_eid=a19c8148b2

$TPRFF, $MMY, $MMTMF, $AGI, $AEM, $GGGOF, $GPL DD 10 Bagger Gold Mines Producer, oversold & undervalued Au-Bargain
IMO!

BRICS MEMBERS CHINA, RUSSIA, INDIA, SOUTH AFRICA & BRAZIL WANT:

GOLD STANDARD; THE REAL LEGAL MONEY:

https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/wikispeedia/wpcd/wp/g/Gold_standard.htm#:~:text=Advocates%20of%20a%20variety%20of,basis%20for%20a%20monetary%20system.

https://www.usdebtclock.org/

WARNING!!! SHOCKING INDICTMENTS JUST REVEASED UPDATE OF JUNE 24, 2022 - TRUMP NEWS

https://rumble.com/v19tgff-warning-shocking-indictments-just-reveased-update-of-june-24-2022-trump-new.html

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=169239430

https://rumble.com/c/TrumpNewsChannel

THANK THE LORD; TRUMP RALLY LIVE ON STAGE BACKGROUND 2PAC COBAIN
ALICEINCHAINS ELVIS JFK JR CAROLYN BOB MARLEY DIANA
WATCH

https://www.bitchute.com/video/TVd1h7jISupR/


ARKANSAS DECERTIFIED THE ELECTION
JUN 21, 2022 BRIAN ROBERT HYLAND LEAVE A COMMENT

https://conspiracydailyupdate.com/2022/06/21/arkansas-decertified-the-election/

TEXAS & ARIZONA DECERTIFY 2020 ELECTION! THE FIRST DOMINOS TO FALL! FROM 2000 MULES TO 2500 SHERIFFS
WATCH

https://www.bitchute.com/video/SGfzk7odaAef/

Republicans Formally Reject Joe Biden's 2020 Election Victory As 'illegitimate'
Nearly two years after Joe Biden was declared as the US President



Republicans adopt platform that falsely declares Biden election wasn't legitimate

Joe Biden
Dylan Wells, USA TODAY
Mon, June 20, 2022, 12:52 PM·2 min read
In this article:
Joe Biden
46th and current president of the United States
The Republican Party of Texas adopted a new party platform over the weekend
that falsely claims that President Joe Biden was not legitimately elected.

"We reject the certified results of the 2020 Presidential election, and we hold that
acting President Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. was not legitimately elected by the
people of the United States," the resolution reads.

Nearly 5,000 delegates attending the Texas GOP Convention in Houston passed
the resolution by voice vote.



"Texas Republicans rightly have no faith in the 2020 election results and we don’t
care how many times the elites tell us we have to," party Chairman Matt Rinaldi
said in a statement.
"The Texas Republican Party is raising record funds for election integrity, and
we’ve made election integrity a top priority to ensure Texas never goes the way of Pennsylvania, Georgia, or Arizona.
We refuse to let Democrats rig the elections in 2022 or 2024.”

https://news.yahoo.com/texas-republicans-adopt-platform-falsely-195204219.html

Texas Republicans declare Biden election illegitimate, despite evidence
June 20, 2022

WASHINGTON, June 19 (Reuters) - Republicans in Texas formally rejected
President Joe Biden's election in 2020 as illegitimate and voted in a state-wide
convention that wrapped up this weekend on a party platform that calls
homosexuality an "abnormal lifestyle choice."…
According to a recent Reuters/Ipsos poll, about two-thirds of Republicans
believe the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Trump. State and federal
judges dismissed more than 50 lawsuits brought by Trump and his allies
challenging the election while reviews and audits found no evidence of
widespread fraud.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/texas-republicans-declare-biden-election-illegitimate-despite-evidence-2022-06-19/

Jesus Alive; Timothy Dixon PROPHETIC WORD: TRUMP Has Been Reinstated To Run
Shadow GOVERNMENT
899 views Jun 16, 2022 Timothy Dixon PROPHETIC WORD: TRUMP Has Been
Reinstated To Run Shadow GOVERNMENT

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNBA1F-MS4k

Prophet Mario Murillo Powerful Word - Trump will protect the unborn children

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hExcd6N5ss

Mario Murillo [Powerful Message] - Trump's policies made great values for America
3,912 views Premiered 15 hours ago Mario Murillo [Prophetic Warning]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUz3Mu3B4sM

Demonic Biden Child Sex Revelation Ignites Trump World War III Warning

https://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index3952.htm



Trump warns of World War III - Washington’s handling of the Ukraine
conflict could lead to a global conflict, the former US president has said


President Donald Trump speaks at the Faith and Freedom Coalition’s “Road to Majority” event. © AP / Mark Humphre

https://www.rt.com/news/557380-trump-ukraine-aid-putin/

It’s Not a Turndown, It’s a Takedown – . Let’s look very simply at what
happened. They voted on the direct reset. Then they injected $5 trillion into the
economy that went to the insiders. Then they used Covid to shut down the
economy run by the outsiders.Catherine Austin Fitts; VIDEO Must See!
By Greg Hunter On June 18, 2022 In Media 31 Comments; $5 trillion = $5000 billions!

https://usawatchdog.com/its-not-a-turndown-its-a-takedown-catherine-austin-fitts/

LIVE: President Donald J. Trump in Nashville, Tennessee
Donald J. Trump Published June 16, 2022 168,307 Views

https://rumble.com/v18osbd-live-president-donald-j.-trump-in-nashville-tennessee.html

Qproofs
A Qproof demonstrates a remarkably coordinated effort between Q and President Trump, Military and events.
How many coincidences before it becomes mathematically impossible? It was over before it began. ~Q

https://qproofs.com/q-proofs

More Than a Threat: China Collects Americans’ DNA

https://freebeacon.com/coronavirus/u-s-handing-china-americans-private-health-care-data/


Depopulation: "500,000 Americans Have Died After The Vaccination"

https://rumble.com/v18xnbj-depopulation-500000-americans-have-died-after-the-vaccination.html

NWO China's New Way of WarIII To Make All To Be Bio-Jab Zombies & Depopulation Genocide-

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18612/china-new-way-of-war

Yes, We Prefer Jesus for all to be blessed by His love........

Take a deep breath, you smell that ???? Nothing Can Stop Whats Coming

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=169181133


FED BANKSTERS: THE INFLATION RACKET SQUAD
WATCH

https://www.bitchute.com/video/hDMczja6ZSeQ/


BIG BACKLASH TOWARDS BANKSTERS - BIGHARMYA AND KHAZARIAN MAFIA
WATCH

https://www.bitchute.com/video/NaTxLvZq96Qh/

President Donald J. Trump, 45th President of the United States of America, will
hold a rally in Mendon, Illinois, on Saturday, June 25, 2022, at 7:00PM CDT.:
Adams County Fairgrounds
2010 E 1250th St
Mendon, IL 62351

CT; END THE FED? AUDIT THE FED? AUDIT THE GOLD!
WATCH

https://www.bitchute.com/video/MiMbbKJJnskP/

BEWARE: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=169181133

5G IS DANGEROUS - WARN US & CANADIAN DOCTORS AND SCIENTISTS
WATCH

https://www.bitchute.com/video/2SNoycyIyaAf/

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=169181133

Is the Game Over for The NWO Fed Mafia - TIA
GoldCore's Photo

BY GOLDCORE

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2022-06-16/game-over-fed

FED ANNOUNCES DEATH OF AMERICA! - HYPERINFLATION IS COMING! -
THIS IS THE FINAL NAIL IN THE COFFIN!
WATCH

https://www.bitchute.com/video/F4YkN4nVj6mc/


BEWARE: PFIZER DOCS REVEAL AT LEAST 800 PEOPLE NEVER FINISHED COV-ID INJECTION (PHASE 1) CLINICAL TRIAL...
WATCH

https://www.bitchute.com/video/9msDzCzPnnTu/


ASK DR. JANE: NEWLY INSTALLED CELL TOWERS & RADIATION POISONING, SHEDDING SYMPTOM EXPLOSION
WATCH

https://www.bitchute.com/video/zCnG40QBeil9/


Republican who voted to impeach Trump defeated in South Carolina :)
Tom Rice, who voted to impeach Donald Trump after the Capitol riot, lost his re-
election bid in South Carolina.



https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/6/15/us-republican-who-voted-to-impeach-trump-defeated-in-south-carolina

CT Thanks; How many more good music artists has been hit like Justin Bieber???

DR. JUDY MIKOVITS PhD - THE PLAN TO INJECT HUMANITY WITH CANCER VIRUSES!
WATCH

https://www.bitchute.com/video/QMT4KXNWow9c/


Justin Bieber recently came out to tell fans he’s come down with Ramsay Hunt
Syndrome, which caused partial paralysis in his face — it turns out RHS is a
known vaccine side effect.



https://thecountersignal.com/justin-bieber-paralysis-is-a-known-vaccine-side-effect/

STATEMENT BY PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP
Quote:
could not copy the entire story-- here is the link
:
https://cdn.nucleusfiles.com/e7/e746fae9-7a5f-462d-a0dd-dd9a11895451/statement-by-president-donald-j.-trump.pdf?

M_P; $500 TRILLION LAWSUIT AGAINST THE FEDERAL GOVT AND OVER 140
MONOPOLISTS (REMOVED BY YOUTUBE IN 5HRS)
WATCH

https://www.bitchute.com/video/QFcfDjifRl6u/

Leaked medicare data shows a 50% rise in all cause mortality of the elderly for the first time ever.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/DdxZLSGHmKLB/

[Suppressed Image]

They are right. Covid kills...the Covid vaccine is killing the elderly by the thousands. Source: Fat News.

CLIF HIGH - THE JABBED ARE ABOUT TO GET A RUDE AWAKENING
https://www.bitchute.com/video/bBcmJoO3BRdh/

"Organoids "Jab victim discharging biological creatures woman reports horror after Moderna shot
https://www.bitchute.com/video/BCrvrznQFaME/

SUBMIT TO THE BIOWEAPON OR REMAIN OUR HOSTAGE FOREVER --
BRENT JOHNSON - NWO Totalitarian Dictators Blackmail Anti-Human Genocide
killer agenda super communistic evil khazarian
WATCH

https://www.bitchute.com/video/l881ILlbk6UJ/


BREAKING!!! COVID VACCINE CLAIMS OVERWHELM COURTS
WATCH

https://www.bitchute.com/video/fxqw0Y7twx3o/

MASS DEPOPULATION ACCORDING TO PFIZER! - DOCUMENT LEAK
PROVES VACCINE IS CAUSING DIE OFF!
WATCH

https://www.bitchute.com/video/Ga7fvxiL1jFa/


Zardiw; Sarah Palin Pulls Ahead In Race For Alaska Representative
Photo of Carmine Sabia Carmine SabiaJune 12, 2022



https://conservativebrief.com/sarah-p-63700/


CT; M_P; VACCINES ARE MAKING PEOPLE NEUROLOGICALLY NUMB
WATCH

https://www.bitchute.com/video/aT3AxrAOGWeT/

US Is "Beyond Bankrupt" - Kim Dotcom Fears "Controlled Demolition" Enabling A "New Dystopian Future"
Tyler Durden's Photo
BY TYLER DURDEN
SATURDAY, JUN 11, 2022 - 04:44 AM

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/its-worse-many-can-imagine-kim-dotcom-sees-controlled-demolition-enabling-new-dystopian

https://rumble.com/v1896jo-real-love.html

https://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index.htm

God Bless.

Ps.
Bill Holter – A Parallel Economy Is Emerging Which Wreak Havoc On The [CB]
System - X22 Report - VIDEO

https://x22report.com/aiovg_videos/bill-holter-a-parallel-economy-is-emerging-which-wreak-havoc-on-the-cb-system/

Jan. 6 Was ‘An Inside Job to Entrap People Who Attended Trump’s Speech’:
Investigative Journalist.. :+O

https://www.theepochtimes.com/jan-6-was-an-inside-job-to-entrap-people-who-attended-trumps-speech-investigative-journalist_4524391.html







God Bless
Amen

[NYBob]

COVID-19 vaccines contain snake venom substrate NWO depopulation;
1060 views

https://www.brighteon.com/5b8ae2bd-7ae8-485a-b23d-9b6b91dfab4c



The Government based on the Constitution. Now and Forever!

https://friendsoftheoriginalconstitution.org/


$500 Trillion Lawsuit against FEDERAL GOVT 140 MONOPOLISTS via our
Constitutional Convention & Court
8,347 views


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2GaRbVZHwE

God Bless America
Amen

[NYBob]

Love PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP RALLY LIVE IN SELMA, NC 4/9/22
by RSBN Updated

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=168501467


https://gettr.com/user/rsbnetwork

God Bless America


Breaking! Gun Control Law Just Passed and Most Don't Realize it
5480 views


https://www.brighteon.com/e3ced701-7db0-4b31-84aa-77b92488b433

[NYBob]

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP RALLY LIVE IN SELMA, NC 4/9/22
by RSBN Updated

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=168501467


https://gettr.com/user/rsbnetwork

God Bless America


Breaking! Gun Control Law Just Passed and Most Don't Realize it
5480 views


https://www.brighteon.com/e3ced701-7db0-4b31-84aa-77b92488b433

[NYBob]

LOVE & WATCH: PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP RALLY LIVE IN WASHINGTON TWP., MI – 4/2/22
by RSBN March 15, 2022




https://www.rsbnetwork.com/video/watch-president-donald-trump-rally-live-in-washington-twp-mi-4-2-22/


Putin critic Mikhail Khodorkovsky: Putin realizes 'there can be no military solution' | DW Interview
232,076 viewsMar 31, 2022

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfYVX5ZWxBA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7jxPqeOF5s

Ukraine busts over 600 Russian spies in huge blow to Putin's espionage war
768,937 viewsMar 29, 2022

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ivEgotpuOo&ab_channel=news.com.au


FINANCIAL WAR: Russia Is Now Initiating A Short Squeeze On Gold Derivatives In The West
March 31, 2022

https://kingworldnews.com/financial-war-russia-is-now-initiating-a-short-squeeze-on-gold-derivatives-in-the-west/


Biden got 255,000 ‘excess’ votes in fraud-tainted swing states in 2020, study finds


https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/mar/28/joe-biden-got-255000-excess-votes-fraud-tainted-sw/


CDD watch; Scoop: FEC fines DNC and Clinton for Trump dossier hoax
by Paul Bedard, Washington Secrets Columnist
March 30, 2022 11:27 AM

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/fec-fines-dnc-clinton-for-trump-dossier-hoax


WWIII NWO depopulation genocide in USA; United States NWO Coronavirus Cases: much more dead
of NWO deep state genocide destruction of people in USA than in Ukraine -
81,704,205

Deaths:
1,005,598 and
millions more will be dead by the NWO biojabs and 5G EMFR within the
next 5 years -

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/


Paul Craig Roberts – Russia Just Announced A Gold-Backed Ruble
March 30, 2022


https://kingworldnews.com/paul-craig-roberts-russia-just-announced-a-gold-backed-ruble/



Massive Texas Wildfire Spreads To America's Largest Army Base
Tyler Durden's Photo
BY TYLER DURDEN
MONDAY, MAR 28, 2022 - 06:20 PM
(very few waterbombers left - BS ozama made them to chemtrails)

https://www.zerohedge.com/weather/massive-wildfire-spreads-americas-largest-army-base


$10,000 Gold & $370 Silver, Plus Some Really Shocking Numbers!
March 28, 2022

https://kingworldnews.com/10000-gold-370-silver-plus-some-really-shocking-numbers/


https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=167110521


$Brett Arends: Russia just made a case for owning gold -- and nobody noticed

By Brett Arends
MarketWatch, New York
Monday, March 28, 2022

Here's a strong argument for adding some gold bullion to your retirement portfolio right now, alongside those stocks and bonds.

And it comes courtesy of Pavel Zavalny, the head of the Russian parliament.

For the remainder of the report:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/russia-just-made-a-case-for-owning-goldand-nobody-noticed-11648415950

* * *


TM Yes Russia Is Now Allowing Payments In Gold For Its Natural Gas As
Western Financial System In Open Decline
March 28, 2022


https://kingworldnews.com/yes-russia-is-now-allowing-payments-in-gold-for-its-natural-gas-as-western-financial-system-in-open-decline/


Every currency collapse in history DESTROYED those who believed the government propaganda
5290 views


https://www.brighteon.com/75d8843e-51a9-418d-998d-54c5ff7de6a7


Billions will Die from the Death VAX this year.
1620 views
channel image
Viva Costa Rica 1821
Published a day ago |

https://www.brighteon.com/52acc704-913d-468f-a69d-471a4304a61f


This Shocker Will Cause Gold To Vault To $5,000 Virtually Overnight
March 27, 2022


https://kingworldnews.com/this-will-cause-gold-to-vault-to-5000-virtually-overnight/


DON’T PLAY RUSSIAN ROULETTE — DR. JANE RUBY


https://www.sgtreport.com/2022/03/dont-play-russian-roulette-dr-jane-ruby/

Dr. Ryan Cole In one month to have over 1200 people dead

https://www.brighteon.com/edb898ba-b685-4a42-89d8-a9c0d148c702


TRUMP; HOLD ON ..I'AM COMING
WATCH

https://www.bitchute.com/video/Q6TeDtldRB80/

Biden's 'New World Order' -

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18361/biden-new-world-order


https://www.helleniscope.com/2022/03/04/boom-putin-returns-russia-to-the-gold-standard/

https://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index.htm

Very Sad!
https://www.newswars.com/frontline-doctor-millions-will-get-aids-from-covid-vax-by-the-fall/


United States Coronavirus Cases: 81,621,888 Deaths:1,003,467

VOTERGA PROVIDES CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE SHOWING FULTON 2020 ELECTION RESULTS WERE ELECTRONICALLY MANIPULATED

https://www.georgiarecord.com/voterga-provides-conclusive-evidence-showing-fulton-2020-election-results-were-electronically-manipulated/

$In GOD We Trust - Real Money - AU Safety 6000yrs )



https://www.kitconet.com/images/quotes_7a.gif?1493417496003














http://www.kitconet.com/images/live/au0001wb.gif


https://www.kitco.com/images/live/silver.gif?0.8344882022363285


Gold & Silver is the only REAL Legal Tender -

by The Founding Fathers for your -

Rights, Liberty and Freedom -

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/monie.htm

https://www.usdebtclock.org/

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

https://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index.htm

God Bless

[NYBob]

$Freedom Love thanks; PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP RALLY LIVE IN COMMERCE, GA 3/26/22
by RSBN March 17, 2022


https://rsbnetwork.com/video/president-donald-trump-rally-live-in-commerce-ga-3-26-22/





Saturday, March 26, 2022: Join the RSBN team LIVE from Commerce, GA
for all day coverage of President Donald J. Trump’s SAVE AMERICA rally.

President Donald J. Trump, 45th President of the United States of
America, will hold a rally in Commerce, Georgia, on Saturday, March 26,
2022, at 7:00PM EST.

Saturday, March 26, 2022, at 7:00PM EST President Donald J. Trump, 45th
President of the United States of America, Delivers Remarks in support
of David Perdue Candidate for Governor, Herschel Walker Candidate for
U.S. Senate, and other endorsed candidates.

Venue: Banks County Dragway (Formally NHRA International Dragway) 500
East Ridgeway Road Commerce, GA 30529

Timeline of Events: 8:00AM – Parking and Line Opens 2:00PM – Doors Open
and Entertainment Begins 4:00PM – Pre-program Speakers Deliver Remarks
7:00PM – 45th President of the United States Donald J. Trump Delivers
Remarks


Point Roberts Safety; Are you in safe area or you don't want it; Things Are Escalating Very Quickly!

https://youtu.be/ggQzxPWCpgc

Watch; Chinese from Hong Kong and China etc. buying up Point Roberts, WA

an investment of $475K+ may give them a greencard and immigration
rights needed to move in full time to stay and work in US -
(vs. Canada require about $2mil. + for immigration)

They bought the golf course, Marina and developed farms -

Ex.....


Bald Eagle Golf Club
Unlisted
555 views Jul 12, 2019

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNYgIhD_RdU

Watch; This US City Could Be Sold To Canada

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARYL03Dq8cg

if it happen? The property values in the Point Roberts may
go UP 5 times or better,

mick thanks, you are right on my friend; great wild life and
best fishing on the west coast, in the safest witness
protection area, only 30 min. drive to Vancouver BC Canada,
but still in US on the border to Canada to enjoy the best
of two countries; )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnXffkvWukU

5 acres Right beside one of the nicest golf clubs;

https://baldeaglepointroberts.com/

across a road from the golf course on Canadian side;

a small lot coast about $one mil.

so the 5 acres are a great bargain )


God Bless America

[NYBob]

Love Freedom a NO-NO to NWO Depopulation Agendas 21- 2030 - NWO Depopulace Agenda 21/2030

https://rumble.com/vvcw0b-nwo-depopulation-agendas-21-2030-nwo-depopulace-agenda-212030.html


TRUMP WARNS AGAINST THE DANGERS OF COVID MANDATES: ‘OUR COUNTRY IS A TINDERBOX’
by Summer Lane February 15, 2022



https://rsbnetwork.com/news/trump-warns-against-the-dangers-of-covid-mandates-our-country-is-a-tinderbox/

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=167905936

Biden NWO wants to inoculate as many people as possible” You’ll have to get an annual shot'
#ExposeFDA

BREAKING: @US_FDA Executive Officer on Hidden Cam Reveals Future COVID policy

“Biden wants to inoculate as many people as possible”

'You’ll have to get an annual shot'#ExposeFDA https://t.co/yuZ6aAu4Fi

— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) February 16, 2022

Oh No! We Won’t Go!

Oh No! We Won’t Go! https://t.co/ojEO7Qlrmm

— Laura-Lynn Tyler Thompson (@LauraLynnTT) February 15, 2022

THE DEATH CULT 5G/ Radiation/EMF FOR-Warned The PLAN is BIGGER Listen & Learn

https://www.brighteon.com/c9bce9af-109c-415c-8900-ae9a372e737a




Canadian Freedom Truckers Protests Spread Across The World
381,191 viewsFeb 11, 2022

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0jrBDba7f0

USA Freedom convoy 2022 California to Washington DC #freedomconvoy2022 #truckingnews #convoy
2,834 viewsFeb 12, 2022




Dr. Byram Bridle's Presentation at the Doctor's Debate
Live With Laura-Lynn Published February 11, 2022 1,590 Views


https://rumble.com/vupz7o-dr.-byram-bridles-presentation-at-the-doctors-debate.html


CANCER EXPLODING IN THE BOOSTED
WATCH


https://www.bitchute.com/video/XyaZCsRxB8vL/


SGW Note; Sweden News; Trudeau's brother: "Justin is a puppet"
THE PROGRESS OF GLOBALISM
PUBLISHED FEBRUARY 7, 2022 - BY ISAC BOMAN



In an interview with Pat King, the half-brother of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau explicitly says that the Canadian Prime Minister has no political will of his own but only follows orders from globalist power networks such as the World Economic Forum, the Bilderberg Group and the Council on Foreign Relations.

Kyle Kemper, as his brother is called, is asked by Pat King what drives Justin Trudeau's increasingly totalitarian policy, and also why he repeatedly speaks out against the traditional identity of Canadians.

Among other things, Kemper believes that it is not Trudeau himself who writes the speeches or even the posts on Twitter, even though he is the face of Canada's ruling party. These are rather produced by the Prime Minister's team. Ultimately, Kemper adds, he is just an outward face of completely different interests than those of the Canadian people.

- He is the face of the outside world and the leading spokesman for the Government of Canada, but all the policies and initiatives that drive this narrative that he continues to push for and which in my opinion are anti-Canadian and anti-liberal come from above, from groups like the World Economic Forum, Council of Foreign Relations and the Bilderberg Group.

Kemper points out that the same system is used around the world, where weak leaders act as spokespersons for influential interest groups that act in the background.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=181&v=hPvfURUyCS8&feature=emb_imp_woyt


The half-brother himself believes that Trudeau does not speak from the heart or is honest when he condemns and criticizes the protests against the country's vaccine passport and that this is also why he is hiding instead.

- The truth can easily be debated, but lies can not be debated , Kemper states.

Kemper also points to actors such as the sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and believes that his role was to set traps and blackmail influential people of various kinds in order to get hold of them - for example by creating situations where they are persuaded to be unfaithful to their partners and where this documented and used for extortion purposes.

- Blackmail is a very powerful weapon , he says and adds that he does not know if Trudeau himself has been subjected to something like that.

Kemper has previously been a vocal critic of Canada's corona policy and has called on Justin Trudeau to step down as Prime Minister as a necessary step towards the world's people regaining their traditional freedoms.

https://nyadagbladet.se/utrikes/klaus-schwab-vi-har-penetrerat-varldens-regeringar/


BREAKING: Alberta to drop vax passport at midnight after truckers pressure government

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-alberta-to-drop-vax-passport-at-midnight-after-truckers-pressure-government/?utm_source=onesignal0209

[NYBob]

The Sad Truth About 911 -

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20Government/911%20Cover-up/sad_truth.htm

The 911 Attacks Were An Inside Job!

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20Government/911%20Cover-up/inside_job.htm

Wargames Were Cover For the Operational Execution of 9/11

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20Government/911%20Cover-up/wargames_cover_for_911_attacks.htm

9/11: Smoking Guns -

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20Government/911%20Cover-up/911_smoking_guns.htm

200 People Jumped To Their Death On 911 -

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20Government/911%20Cover-up/200_people_jumped.htm

Official 911 Story is False -

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20Government/911%20Cover-up/official_story.htm

Bush Sued for 911!

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20Government/911%20Cover-up/bush_sued_for_911.htm

What Really Happened On 911?

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20Government/911%20Cover-up/911.htm

911 Facts!

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20Government/911%20Cover-up/911%20Facts.htm

ReThink911 Campaign by AE911Truth Sept 2013



http://www.reinvestigate911.org/

911 James Corbett: Starting a Real Criminal Investigation on the Events of 9/11 -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ef-SK_nN8Ko

http://youtu.be/ef-SK_nN8Ko

The book mentioned in this video: Another Nineteen: Investigating Legitimate 9/11 Suspects

http://www.dailypaul.com/298778/9-11-truth-and-the-way-forward-starting-a-real-criminal-investigation-james-corbett-video

Americans Are “Rethinking” 9/11 -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7tSfwkKaUo

http://rethink911.org/

http://www.dailypaul.com/298747/ben-swann-reality-check-more-americans-are-rethinking-9-11

http://www.dailypaul.com/


9-11 Visibility Project:

http://www.septembereleventh.org

In support of the 9-11 families struggle for truth.

We are a national organization calling for a complete

investigation into 9-11 and the evidence for Bush ...

New Book Reveals 9/11 Suspects



http://911blogger.com/news/2013-06-14/new-book-reveals-911-suspects

The Real 9/11 Perpetrators Walk Free -

Who Was Really Behind the 9/11 Attacks?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWLis-TVB2w

Published on Sep 6, 2013
SHOW NOTES AND MP3: http://www.corbettreport.com/?p=7944

As we approach the 12th anniversary of 9/11, it is time for 9/11 truth
to mature as a movement before it stagnates into insignificance.
Either the movement will live up to its potential by naming
names and identifying suspects in the crime, or it will become
another JFK assassination investigation, doomed to spend half a
century fighting pointless territorial battles while the real
perpetrators walk free.
Join us for this 9/11 anniversary edition of
The Corbett Report as we ask the question and demand an answer:
Who was really behind the attacks?

http://911blogger.com/news/2013-09-07/who-was-really-behind-911-attacks

When False Flags Don't Fly

http://911blogger.com/news/2013-04-16/when-false-flags-no-longer-work

1821 - Georg W. F. Hegel formulates what is called the Hegelian dialectic -
the process by which Illuminati objectives are achieved.
According to the Hegelian ...

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Illuminati/the_illuminati_chronicles.htm

history often repeat itself -
the BS osama pawn has to follow the khazarian king pin agenda -
and if the People wake up to the true knowledge, we
all better understand the 666 agenda and why the
nonsense bail out robberies and destruction of USA etc.
taking place -

Rothschild NWO cult follow an agenda of

"The Illuminati Chronicles"

thee 666 nwo introduced it to East Europe and
it become the USSR soviet -
now the nwo 666 try to copycat it in Western
World EURO and incl. US and Canada to plunder it as thee did
in "ussr union of soviet socialist republics". frown -
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Illuminati/the_illuminati_chronicles.htm

AE911Truth: World Trade Center Building 7 Demolished on 9/11

http://www.ae911truth.org/?

18-Language DVD Puts WTC Evidence Before the World.
Mike Cook and Sandra Jelmi.
Editor's Note: The Translation Team is always looking
to add to its ...

http://www.ae911truth.org/

New Poll Finds Most Americans Open to Alternative 9/11 Theories
Published September 10, 2013

http://www.911truth.org/new-poll-finds-americans-open-alternative-911-theories/

REALITY CHECK: MORE AMERICANS ARE “RETHINKING” 9/11?
Published September 10, 2013

http://www.911truth.org/all-articles/

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=91875393
God Bless

[Vexari]

enjoy what?

[Briboy]

That's fine....this is the denial we have

been talking about, but enjoy till November

regards

[Vexari]

freedom to disagree

either one's crystal ball is unplugged

or

the sky is falling


why preach?

without knowledge..

[Briboy]

In one month CONSERVATIVISM will be back

[NYBob]

Why I Like The NRA -

God Bless

[NYBob]

Ron Paul a campaign for Liberty...

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/74925

http://current.com/items/89514272/ron_paul_a_campaign_for_liberty.htm

Ron Paul Endorses Young Americans for Liberty -

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/74897

http://blog.yaliberty.org/

This past presidential season I saw a renewed enthusiasm
from our country’s youth.

An excitement for liberty gripped the college campuses
unlike I have ever seen before.
Young people were energized for real change.

Still to my amazement, our college rallies attracted thousands
of young people.
Students were hungry for the message of freedom, peace,
and prosperity.

For this reason, a youth-based movement for liberty
is essential to our cause.
It is these young men and women who will become
tomorrow’s champions of liberty.

That’s why I am giving my enthusiastic endorsement to
Young Americans for Liberty (YAL), an organization
that is built directly on the success of
Students for Ron Paul.

My National Youth Coordinator, Jeff Frazee, is launching
this organization with an ambitious goal of starting
over 100 campus chapters in 2009.
They have already started 47 chapters this semester.

Jeff worked with me exclusively to start the Campaign
for Liberty (C4L) and host the Rally for
the Republic in Minneapolis.
Now, he is leaving to follow his real passion and
lead Young Americans for Liberty.

The Campaign for Liberty has supplied $25,000 in seed money to help start YAL.
I hope you will join in support as well.

Young Americans for Liberty is the continuation of Students
for Ron Paul.

Students for Ron Paul established over 500 college chapters
in all 50 states.
Over 26,000 students joined our campaign.
With this network and my support,
Young Americans for Liberty is essential to building a
genuine liberty movement in America.

You and I must remain serious about our ideas and goals.
I am. I believe you are too.

Back in the 1960s, an influential youth movement formed
around another anti-establishment presidential candidate.
His name was Barry Goldwater.
The organization was called Young Americans for Freedom;
and without it, we may have never seen Ronald Reagan
in the White House.

I have high hopes for Young Americans for Liberty, and
wish them a similar fortune.

Please visit the Young Americans for Liberty website,
sign up for their weekly E-Newsletter,
and read about their plans for next semester.

Their website is at http://www.YALiberty.org

The importance of YAL to the future of liberty
cannot be overstated.

Young people have the passion, energy, and dedication that
many of you can relate to from this past year and a half.
But, young people do not have very much money.
It is up to you and me to give them our support.

So please go to Young Americans for Liberty’s website - http://www.YALiberty.org,
sign up for their free E-Newsletter, and read about
the future of our youth.

In liberty,


Ron Paul

http://blog.yaliberty.org/

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/

http://www.realjewnews.com/

God Bless

[Vexari]

midas


why did you ban me on the simply politics board?

you have not answered one of my pm's

feel empowered?


did not violate anything in your ibox or tos

what say you?

[NYBob]

Congressman Ron Paul on “Campaign for Liberty” rally -

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-185953131286146122&hl=en

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/board.aspx?board_id=9002

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/board.aspx?board_id=9201

God Bless America

[The Original dpb5!]

US / European Powers recognize Kosovo

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23219277/

[The Original dpb5!]

KOSOVO DECLARES INDEPENDENCE !!!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23203607/

[BullNBear52]

The Politics of God
By MARK LILLA
August 19, 2007


I. “The Will of God Will Prevail”

The twilight of the idols has been postponed. For more than two centuries, from the American and French Revolutions to the collapse of Soviet Communism, world politics revolved around eminently political problems. War and revolution, class and social justice, race and national identity — these were the questions that divided us. Today, we have progressed to the point where our problems again resemble those of the 16th century, as we find ourselves entangled in conflicts over competing revelations, dogmatic purity and divine duty. We in the West are disturbed and confused. Though we have our own fundamentalists, we find it incomprehensible that theological ideas still stir up messianic passions, leaving societies in ruin. We had assumed this was no longer possible, that human beings had learned to separate religious questions from political ones, that fanaticism was dead. We were wrong.

An example: In May of last year, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran sent an open letter to President George W. Bush that was translated and published in newspapers around the world. Its theme was contemporary politics and its language that of divine revelation. After rehearsing a litany of grievances against American foreign policies, real and imagined, Ahmadinejad wrote, “If Prophet Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ishmael, Joseph or Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) were with us today, how would they have judged such behavior?” This was not a rhetorical question. “I have been told that Your Excellency follows the teachings of Jesus (peace be upon him) and believes in the divine promise of the rule of the righteous on Earth,” Ahmadinejad continued, reminding his fellow believer that “according to divine verses, we have all been called upon to worship one God and follow the teachings of divine Prophets.” There follows a kind of altar call, in which the American president is invited to bring his actions into line with these verses. And then comes a threatening prophecy: “Liberalism and Western-style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today, these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the liberal democratic systems. . . . Whether we like it or not, the world is gravitating towards faith in the Almighty and justice and the will of God will prevail over all things.”

This is the language of political theology, and for millennia it was the only tongue human beings had for expressing their thoughts about political life. It is primordial, but also contemporary: countless millions still pursue the age-old quest to bring the whole of human life under God’s authority, and they have their reasons. To understand them we need only interpret the language of political theology — yet that is what we find hardest to do. Reading a letter like Ahmadinejad’s, we fall mute, like explorers coming upon an ancient inscription written in hieroglyphics.

The problem is ours, not his. A little more than two centuries ago we began to believe that the West was on a one-way track toward modern secular democracy and that other societies, once placed on that track, would inevitably follow. Though this has not happened, we still maintain our implicit faith in a modernizing process and blame delays on extenuating circumstances like poverty or colonialism. This assumption shapes the way we see political theology, especially in its Islamic form — as an atavism requiring psychological or sociological analysis but not serious intellectual engagement. Islamists, even if they are learned professionals, appear to us primarily as frustrated, irrational representatives of frustrated, irrational societies, nothing more. We live, so to speak, on the other shore. When we observe those on the opposite bank, we are puzzled, since we have only a distant memory of what it was like to think as they do. We all face the same questions of political existence, yet their way of answering them has become alien to us. On one shore, political institutions are conceived in terms of divine authority and spiritual redemption; on the other they are not. And that, as Robert Frost might have put it, makes all the difference.

Understanding this difference is the most urgent intellectual and political task of the present time. But where to begin? The case of contemporary Islam is on everyone’s mind, yet is so suffused with anger and ignorance as to be paralyzing. All we hear are alien sounds, motivating unspeakable acts. If we ever hope to crack the grammar and syntax of political theology, it seems we will have to begin with ourselves. The history of political theology in the West is an instructive story, and it did not end with the birth of modern science, or the Enlightenment, or the American and French Revolutions, or any other definitive historical moment. Political theology was a presence in Western intellectual life well into the 20th century, by which time it had shed the mind-set of the Middle Ages and found modern reasons for seeking political inspiration in the Bible. At first, this modern political theology expressed a seemingly enlightened outlook and was welcomed by those who wished liberal democracy well. But in the aftermath of the First World War it took an apocalyptic turn, and “new men” eager to embrace the future began generating theological justifications for the most repugnant — and godless — ideologies of the age, Nazism and Communism.

It is an unnerving tale, one that raises profound questions about the fragility of our modern outlook. Even the most stable and successful democracies, with the most high-minded and civilized believers, have proved vulnerable to political messianism and its theological justification. If we can understand how that was possible in the advanced West, if we can hear political theology speaking in a more recognizable tongue, represented by people in familiar dress with familiar names, perhaps then we can remind ourselves how the world looks from its perspective. This would be a small step toward measuring the challenge we face and deciding how to respond.

II. The Great Separation

Why is there political theology? The question echoes throughout the history of Western thought, beginning in Greek and Roman antiquity and continuing down to our day. Many theories have been proposed, especially by those suspicious of the religious impulse. Yet few recognize the rationality of political theology or enter into its logic. Theology is, after all, a set of reasons people give themselves for the way things are and the way they ought to be. So let us try to imagine how those reasons might involve God and have implications for politics.

Imagine human beings who first become aware of themselves in a world not of their own making. Their world has unknown origins and behaves in a regular fashion, so they wonder why that is. They know that the things they themselves fashion behave in a predictable manner because they conceive and construct them with some end in mind. They stretch the bow, the arrow flies; that is why they were made. So, by analogy, it is not difficult for them to assume that the cosmic order was constructed for a purpose, reflecting its maker’s will. By following this analogy, they begin to have ideas about that maker, about his intentions and therefore about his personality.

In taking these few short steps, the human mind finds itself confronted with a picture, a theological image in which God, man and world form a divine nexus. Believers have reasons for thinking that they live in this nexus, just as they have reasons for assuming that it offers guidance for political life. But how that guidance is to be understood, and whether believers think it is authoritative, will depend on how they imagine God. If God is thought to be passive, a silent force like the sky, nothing in particular may follow. He is a hypothesis we can do without. But if we take seriously the thought that God is a person with intentions, and that the cosmic order is a result of those intentions, then a great deal can follow. The intentions of such a God reveal something man cannot fully know on his own. This revelation then becomes the source of his authority, over nature and over us, and we have no choice but to obey him and see that his plans are carried out on earth. That is where political theology comes in.

One powerful attraction of political theology, in any form, is its comprehensiveness. It offers a way of thinking about the conduct of human affairs and connects those thoughts to loftier ones about the existence of God, the structure of the cosmos, the nature of the soul, the origin of all things and the end of time. For more than a millennium, the West took inspiration from the Christian image of a triune God ruling over a created cosmos and guiding men by means of revelation, inner conviction and the natural order. It was a magnificent picture that allowed a magnificent and powerful civilization to flower. But the picture was always difficult to translate theologically into political form: God the Father had given commandments; a Redeemer arrived, reinterpreting them, then departed; and now the Holy Spirit remained as a ghostly divine presence. It was not at all clear what political lessons were to be drawn from all this. Were Christians supposed to withdraw from a corrupted world that was abandoned by the Redeemer? Were they called upon to rule the earthly city with both church and state, inspired by the Holy Spirit? Or were they expected to build a New Jerusalem that would hasten the Messiah’s return?

Throughout the Middle Ages, Christians argued over these questions. The City of Man was set against the City of God, public citizenship against private piety, the divine right of kings against the right of resistance, church authority against radical antinomianism, canon law against mystical insight, inquisitor against martyr, secular sword against ecclesiastical miter, prince against emperor, emperor against pope, pope against church councils. In the late Middle Ages, the sense of crisis was palpable, and even the Roman Church recognized that reforms were in order. But by the 16th century, thanks to Martin Luther and John Calvin, there was no unified Christendom to reform, just a variety of churches and sects, most allied with absolute secular rulers eager to assert their independence. In the Wars of Religion that followed, doctrinal differences fueled political ambitions and vice versa, in a deadly, vicious cycle that lasted a century and a half. Christians addled by apocalyptic dreams hunted and killed Christians with a maniacal fury they had once reserved for Muslims, Jews and heretics. It was madness.

The English philosopher Thomas Hobbes tried to find a way out of this labyrinth. Traditionally, political theology had interpreted a set of revealed divine commands and applied them to social life. In his great treatise “Leviathan” (1651), Hobbes simply ignored the substance of those commands and talked instead about how and why human beings believed God revealed them. He did the most revolutionary thing a thinker can ever do — he changed the subject, from God and his commands to man and his beliefs. If we do that, Hobbes reasoned, we can begin to understand why religious convictions so often lead to political conflicts and then perhaps find a way to contain the potential for violence.

The contemporary crisis in Western Christendom created an audience for Hobbes and his ideas. In the midst of religious war, his view that the human mind was too weak and beset by passions to have any reliable knowledge of the divine seemed common-sensical. It also made sense to assume that when man speaks about God he is really referring to his own experience, which is all he knows. And what most characterizes his experience? According to Hobbes, fear. Man’s natural state is to be overwhelmed with anxiety, “his heart all the day long gnawed on by fear of death, poverty, or other calamity.” He “has no repose, nor pause of his anxiety, but in sleep.” It is no wonder that human beings fashion idols to protect themselves from what they most fear, attributing divine powers even, as Hobbes wrote, to “men, women, a bird, a crocodile, a calf, a dog, a snake, an onion, a leek.” Pitiful, but understandable.

And the debilitating dynamics of belief don’t end there. For once we imagine an all-powerful God to protect us, chances are we’ll begin to fear him too. What if he gets angry? How can we appease him? Hobbes reasoned that these new religious fears were what created a market for priests and prophets claiming to understand God’s obscure demands. It was a raucous market in Hobbes’s time, with stalls for Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, Calvinists, Anabaptists, Quakers, Ranters, Muggletonians, Fifth Monarchy Men and countless others, each with his own path to salvation and blueprint for Christian society. They disagreed with one another, and because their very souls were at stake, they fought. Which led to wars; which led to more fear; which made people more religious; which. . . .

Fresh from the Wars of Religion, Hobbes’s readers knew all about fear. Their lives had become, as he put it, “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” And when he announced that a new political philosophy could release them from fear, they listened. Hobbes planted a seed, a thought that it might be possible to build legitimate political institutions without grounding them on divine revelation. He knew it was impossible to refute belief in divine revelation; the most one can hope to do is cast suspicion on prophets claiming to speak about politics in God’s name. The new political thinking would no longer concern itself with God’s politics; it would concentrate on men as believers in God and try to keep them from harming one another. It would set its sights lower than Christian political theology had, but secure what mattered most, which was peace.

Hobbes was neither a liberal nor a democrat. He thought that consolidating power in the hands of one man was the only way to relieve citizens of their mutual fears. But over the next few centuries, Western thinkers like John Locke, who adopted his approach, began to imagine a new kind of political order in which power would be limited, divided and widely shared; in which those in power at one moment would relinquish it peacefully at another, without fear of retribution; in which public law would govern relations among citizens and institutions; in which many different religions would be allowed to flourish, free from state interference; and in which individuals would have inalienable rights to protect them from government and their fellows. This liberal-democratic order is the only one we in the West recognize as legitimate today, and we owe it primarily to Hobbes. In order to escape the destructive passions of messianic faith, political theology centered on God was replaced by political philosophy centered on man. This was the Great Separation.

III. The Inner Light

It is a familiar story, and seems to conclude with a happy ending. But in truth the Great Separation was never a fait accompli, even in Western Europe, where it was first conceived. Old-style Christian political theology had an afterlife in the West, and only after the Second World War did it cease to be a political force. In the 19th and early 20th centuries a different challenge to the Great Separation arose from another quarter. It came from a wholly new kind of political theology heavily indebted to philosophy and styling itself both modern and liberal. I am speaking of the “liberal theology” movement that arose in Germany not long after the French Revolution, first among Protestant theologians, then among Jewish reformers. These thinkers, who abhorred theocracy, also rebelled against Hobbes’s vision, favoring instead a political future in which religion — properly chastened and intellectually reformed — would play an absolutely central role.

And the questions they posed were good ones. While granting that ignorance and fear had bred pointless wars among Christian sects and nations, they asked: Were those the only reasons that, for a millennium and a half, an entire civilization had looked to Jesus Christ as its savior? Or that suffering Jews of the Diaspora remained loyal to the Torah? Could ignorance and fear explain the beauty of Christian liturgical music or the sublimity of the Gothic cathedrals? Could they explain why all other civilizations, past and present, founded their political institutions in accordance with the divine nexus of God, man and world? Surely there was more to religious man than was dreamed of in Hobbes’s philosophy.

That certainly was the view of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who did more than anyone to develop an alternative to Hobbes. Rousseau wrote no treatise on religion, which was probably a wise thing, since when he inserted a few pages on religious themes into his masterpiece, “Émile” (1762), it caused the book to be burned and Rousseau to spend the rest of his life on the run. This short section of “Émile,” which he called “The Profession of Faith of the Savoyard Vicar,” has so deeply shaped contemporary views of religion that it takes some effort to understand why Rousseau was persecuted for writing it. It is the most beautiful and convincing defense of man’s religious instincts ever to flow from a modern pen — and that, apparently, was the problem. Rousseau spoke of religion in terms of human needs, not divine truths, and had his Savoyard vicar declare, “I believe all particular religions are good when one serves God usefully in them.” For that, he was hounded by pious Christians.

Rousseau had a Hobbes problem, too: he shared the Englishman’s criticisms of theocracy, fanaticism and the clergy, but he was a friend of religion. While Hobbes beat the drums of ignorance and fear, Rousseau sang the praises of conscience, of charity, of fellow feeling, of virtue, of pious wonder in the face of God’s creation. Human beings, he thought, have a natural goodness they express in their religion. That is the theme of the “Profession of Faith,” which tells the parable of a young vicar who loses his faith and then his moral compass once confronted with the hypocrisy of his co-religionists. He is able to restore his equilibrium only when he finds a new kind of faith in God by looking within, to his own “inner light” (lumière intérieure). The point of Rousseau’s story is less to display the crimes of organized churches than to show that man yearns for religion because he is fundamentally a moral creature. There is much we cannot know about God, and for centuries the pretense of having understood him caused much damage to Christendom. But, for Rousseau, we need to believe something about him if we are to orient ourselves in the world.

Among modern thinkers, Rousseau was the first to declare that there is no shame in saying that faith in God is humanly necessary. Religion has its roots in needs that are rational and moral, even noble; once we see that, we can start satisfying them rationally, morally and nobly. In the abstract, this thought did not contradict the principles of the Great Separation, which gave reasons for protecting the private exercise of religion. But it did raise doubts about whether the new political thinking could really do without reference to the nexus of God, man and world. If Rousseau was right about our moral needs, a rigid separation between political and theological principles might not be psychologically sustainable. When a question is important, we want an answer to it: as the Savoyard vicar remarks, “The mind decides in one way or another, despite itself, and prefers being mistaken to believing in nothing.” Rousseau had grave doubts about whether human beings could be happy or good if they did not understand how their actions related to something higher. Religion is simply too entwined with our moral experience ever to be disentangled from it, and morality is inseparable from politics.

IV. Rousseau’s Children

By the early 19th century, two schools of thought about religion and politics had grown up in the West. Let us call them the children of Hobbes and the children of Rousseau. For the children of Hobbes, a decent political life could not be realized by Christian political theology, which bred violence and stifled human development. The only way to control the passions flowing from religion to politics, and back again, was to detach political life from them completely. This had to happen within Western institutions, but first it had to happen within Western minds. A reorientation would have to take place, turning human attention away from the eternal and transcendent, toward the here and now. The old habit of looking to God for political guidance would have to be broken, and new habits developed. For Hobbes, the first step toward achieving that end was to get people thinking about — and suspicious about — the sources of faith.

Though there was great reluctance to adopt Hobbes’s most radical views on religion, in the English-speaking world the intellectual principles of the Great Separation began to take hold in the 18th century. Debate would continue over where exactly to place the line between religious and political institutions, but arguments about the legitimacy of theocracy petered out in all but the most forsaken corners of the public square. There was no longer serious controversy about the relation between the political order and the divine nexus; it ceased to be a question. No one in modern Britain or the United States argued for a bicameral legislature on the basis of divine revelation.

The children of Rousseau followed a different line of argument. Medieval political theology was not salvageable, but neither could human beings ignore questions of eternity and transcendence when thinking about the good life. When we speculate about God, man and world in the correct way, we express our noblest moral sentiments; without such reflection we despair and eventually harm ourselves and others. That is the lesson of the Savoyard vicar.

In the aftermath of the French Revolution, the Terror and Napoleon’s conquests, Rousseau’s children found a receptive audience in continental Europe. The recent wars had had nothing to do with political theology or religious fanaticism of the old variety; if anything, people reasoned, it was the radical atheism of the French Enlightenment that turned men into beasts and bred a new species of political fanatic. Germans were especially drawn to this view, and a wave of romanticism brought with it great nostalgia for the religious “world we have lost.” It even touched sober philosophers like Immanuel Kant and G. W. F. Hegel. Kant adored “Émile” and went somewhat further than Rousseau had, not only accepting the moral need for rational faith but arguing that Christianity, properly reformed, would represent the “true universal Church” and embody the very “idea” of religion. Hegel went further still, attributing to religion an almost vitalistic power to forge the social bond and encourage sacrifice for the public good. Religion, and religion alone, is the original source of a people’s shared spirit, which Hegel called its Volksgeist.

These ideas had an enormous impact on German religious thought in the 19th century, and through it on Protestantism and Judaism throughout the West. This was the century of “liberal theology,” a term that requires explanation. In modern Britain and the United States, it was assumed that the intellectual, and then institutional, separation of Christianity and modern politics had been mutually beneficial — that the modern state had benefited by being absolved from pronouncing on doctrinal matters, and that Christianity had benefited by being freed from state interference. No such consensus existed in Germany, where the assumption was that religion needed to be publicly encouraged, not reined in, if it was to contribute to society. It would have to be rationally reformed, of course: the Bible would have to be interpreted in light of recent historical findings, belief in miracles abandoned, the clergy educated along modern lines and doctrine adapted to a softer age. But once these reforms were in place, enlightened politics and enlightened religion would join hands.

Protestant liberal theologians soon began to dream of a third way between Christian orthodoxy and the Great Separation. They had unshaken faith in the moral core of Christianity, however distorted it may have been by the forces of history, and unshaken faith in the cultural and political progress that Christianity had brought to the world. Christianity had given birth to the values of individuality, moral universalism, reason and progress on which German life was now based. There could be no contradiction between religion and state, or even tension. The modern state had only to give Protestantism its due in public life, and Protestant theology would reciprocate by recognizing its political responsibilities. If both parties met their obligations, then, as the philosopher F. W. J. Schelling put it, “the destiny of Christianity will be decided in Germany.”

Among Jewish liberal thinkers, there was a different sort of hope, that of acceptance as equal citizens. After the French Revolution, a fitful process of Jewish emancipation began in Europe, and German Jews were more quickly integrated into modern cultural life than in any other European country — a fateful development. For it was precisely at this moment that German Protestants were becoming convinced that reformed Christianity represented their national Volksgeist. While the liberal Jewish thinkers were attracted to modern enlightened faith, they were also driven by the apologetic need to justify Judaism’s contribution to German society. They could not appeal to the principles of the Great Separation and simply demand to be left alone. They had to argue that Judaism and Protestantism were two forms of the same rational moral faith, and that they could share a political theology. As the Jewish philosopher and liberal reformer Hermann Cohen once put it, “In all intellectual questions of religion we think and feel ourselves in a Protestant spirit.”

V. Courting the Apocalypse

This was the house that liberal theology built, and throughout the 19th century it looked secure. It wasn’t, and for reasons worth pondering. Liberal theology had begun in hope that the moral truths of biblical faith might be intellectually reconciled with, and not just accommodated to, the realities of modern political life. Yet the liberal deity turned out to be a stillborn God, unable to inspire genuine conviction among a younger generation seeking ultimate truth. For what did the new Protestantism offer the soul of one seeking union with his creator? It prescribed a catechism of moral commonplaces and historical optimism about bourgeois life, spiced with deep pessimism about the possibility of altering that life. It preached good citizenship and national pride, economic good sense and the proper length of a gentleman’s beard. But it was too ashamed to proclaim the message found on every page of the Gospels: that you must change your life. And what did the new Judaism bring to a young Jew seeking a connection with the traditional faith of his people? It taught him to appreciate the ethical message at the core of all biblical faith and passed over in genteel silence the fearsome God of the prophets, his covenant with the Jewish people and the demanding laws he gave them. Above all, it taught a young Jew that his first obligation was to seek common ground with Christianity and find acceptance in the one nation, Germany, whose highest cultural ideals matched those of Judaism, properly understood. To the decisive questions — “Why be a Christian?” and “Why be a Jew?” — liberal theology offered no answer at all.

By the turn of the 20th century, the liberal house was tottering, and after the First World War it collapsed. It was not just the barbarity of trench warfare, the senseless slaughter, the sight of burned-out towns and maimed soldiers that made a theology extolling “modern civilization” contemptible. It was that so many liberal theologians had hastened the insane rush to war, confident that God’s hand was guiding history. In August 1914, Adolf von Harnack, the most respected liberal Protestant scholar of the age, helped Kaiser Wilhelm II draft an address to the nation laying out German military aims. Others signed an infamous pro-war petition defending the sacredness of German militarism. Astonishingly, even Hermann Cohen joined the chorus, writing an open letter to American Jews asking for support, on the grounds that “next to his fatherland, every Western Jew must recognize, revere and love Germany as the motherland of his modern religiosity.” Young Protestant and Jewish thinkers were outraged when they saw what their revered teachers had done, and they began to look elsewhere.

But they did not turn to Hobbes, or to Rousseau. They craved a more robust faith, based on a new revelation that would shake the foundations of the whole modern order. It was a thirst for redemption. Ever since the liberal theologians had revived the idea of biblical politics, the stage had been set for just this sort of development. When faith in redemption through bourgeois propriety and cultural accommodation withered after the Great War, the most daring thinkers of the day transformed it into hope for a messianic apocalypse — one that would again place the Jewish people, or the individual Christian believer, or the German nation, or the world proletariat in direct relation with the divine.

Young Weimar Jews were particularly drawn to these messianic currents through the writings of Martin Buber, who later became a proponent of interfaith understanding but as a young Zionist promoted a crude chauvinistic nationalism. In an early essay he called for a “Masada of the spirit” and proclaimed: “If I had to choose for my people between a comfortable, unproductive happiness . . . and a beautiful death in a final effort at life, I would have to choose the latter. For this final effort would create something divine, if only for a moment, but the other something all too human.” Language like this, with strong and discomforting contemporary echoes for us, drew deeply from the well of biblical messianism. Yet Buber was an amateur compared with the Marxist philosopher Ernst Bloch, who used the Bible to extol the utopia then under construction in the Soviet Union. Though an atheist Jew, Bloch saw a connection between messianic hope and revolutionary violence, which he admired from a distance. He celebrated Thomas Müntzer, the 16th-century Protestant pastor who led bloody peasant uprisings and was eventually beheaded; he also praised the brutal Soviet leaders, famously declaring “ubi Lenin, ibi Jerusalem” — wherever Lenin is, there is Jerusalem.

But it was among young Weimar Protestants that the new messianic spirit proved most consequential. They were led by the greatest theologian of the day, Karl Barth, who wanted to restore the drama of religious decision to Christianity and rejected any accommodation of the Gospel to modern sensibilities. When Hitler came to power, Barth acquitted himself well, leading resistance against the Nazi takeover of the Protestant churches before he was forced into exile in 1935. But others, who employed the same messianic rhetoric Barth did, chose the Nazis instead. A notorious example was Emanuel Hirsch, a respected Lutheran theologian and translator of Kierkegaard, who welcomed the Nazi seizure of power for bringing Germany into “the circle of the white ruling peoples, to which God has entrusted the responsibility for the history of humanity.” Another was Friedrich Gogarten, one of Barth’s closest collaborators, who sided with the Nazis in the summer of 1933 (a decision he later regretted). In the 1920s, Gogarten rejoiced at the collapse of bourgeois Europe, declaring that “we are glad for the decline, since no one enjoys living among corpses,” and called for a new religion that “attacks culture as culture . . . that attacks the whole world.” When the brownshirts began marching and torching books, he got his wish. After Hitler completed his takeover, Gogarten wrote that “precisely because we are today once again under the total claim of the state, it is again possible, humanly speaking, to proclaim the Christ of the Bible and his reign over us.”

All of which served to confirm Hobbes’s iron law: Messianic theology eventually breeds messianic politics. The idea of redemption is among the most powerful forces shaping human existence in all those societies touched by the biblical tradition. It has inspired people to endure suffering, overcome suffering and inflict suffering on others. It has offered hope and inspiration in times of darkness; it has also added to the darkness by arousing unrealistic expectations and justifying those who spill blood to satisfy them. All the biblical religions cultivate the idea of redemption, and all fear its power to inflame minds and deafen them to the voice of reason. In the writings of these Weimar figures, we encounter what those orthodox traditions always dreaded: the translation of religious notions of apocalypse and redemption into a justification of political messianism, now under frightening modern conditions. It was as if nothing had changed since the 17th century, when Thomas Hobbes first sat down to write his “Leviathan.”

VI. Miracles

The revival of political theology in the modern West is a humbling story. It reminds us that this way of thinking is not the preserve of any one culture or religion, nor does it belong solely to the past. It is an age-old habit of mind that can be reacquired by anyone who begins looking to the divine nexus of God, man and world to reveal the legitimate political order. This story also reminds us how political theology can be adapted to circumstances and reassert itself, even in the face of seemingly irresistible forces like modernization, secularization and democratization. Rousseau was on to something: we seem to be theotropic creatures, yearning to connect our mundane lives, in some way, to the beyond. That urge can be suppressed, new habits learned, but the challenge of political theology will never fully disappear so long as the urge to connect survives.

So we are heirs to the Great Separation only if we wish to be, if we make a conscious effort to separate basic principles of political legitimacy from divine revelation. Yet more is required still. Since the challenge of political theology is enduring, we need to remain aware of its logic and the threat it poses. This means vigilance, but even more it means self-awareness. We must never forget that there was nothing historically inevitable about our Great Separation, that it was and remains an experiment. In Europe, the political ambiguities of one religion, Christianity, happened to set off a political crisis that might have been avoided but wasn’t, triggering the Wars of Religion; the resulting carnage made European thinkers more receptive to Hobbes’s heretical ideas about religious psychology and the political implications he drew from them; and over time those political ideas were liberalized. Even then, it was only after the Second World War that the principles of modern liberal democracy became fully rooted in continental Europe.

As for the American experience, it is utterly exceptional: there is no other fully developed industrial society with a population so committed to its faiths (and such exotic ones), while being equally committed to the Great Separation. Our political rhetoric, which owes much to the Protestant sectarians of the 17th century, vibrates with messianic energy, and it is only thanks to a strong constitutional structure and various lucky breaks that political theology has never seriously challenged the basic legitimacy of our institutions. Americans have potentially explosive religious differences over abortion, prayer in schools, censorship, euthanasia, biological research and countless other issues, yet they generally settle them within the bounds of the Constitution. It’s a miracle.

And miracles can’t be willed. For all the good Hobbes did in shifting our political focus from God to man, he left the impression that the challenge of political theology would vanish once the cycle of fear was broken and human beings established authority over their own affairs. We still make this assumption when speaking of the “social causes” of fundamentalism and political messianism, as if the amelioration of material conditions or the shifting of borders would automatically trigger a Great Separation. Nothing in our history or contemporary experience confirms this belief, yet somehow we can’t let it go. We have learned Hobbes’s lesson too well, and failed to heed Rousseau’s. And so we find ourselves in an intellectual bind when we encounter genuine political theology today: either we assume that modernization and secularization will eventually extinguish it, or we treat it as an incomprehensible existential threat, using familiar terms like fascism to describe it as best we can. Neither response takes us a step closer to understanding the world we now live in.

It is a world in which millions of people, particularly in the Muslim orbit, believe that God has revealed a law governing the whole of human affairs. This belief shapes the politics of important Muslim nations, and it also shapes the attitudes of vast numbers of believers who find themselves living in Western countries — and non-Western democracies like Turkey and Indonesia — founded on the alien principles of the Great Separation. These are the most significant points of friction, internationally and domestically. And we cannot really address them if we do not first recognize the intellectual chasm between us: although it is possible to translate Ahmadinejad’s letter to Bush from Farsi into English, its intellectual assumptions cannot be translated into those of the Great Separation. We can try to learn his language in order to create sensible policies, but agreement on basic principles won’t be possible. And we must learn to live with that.

Similarly, we must somehow find a way to accept the fact that, given the immigration policies Western nations have pursued over the last half-century, they now are hosts to millions of Muslims who have great difficulty fitting into societies that do not recognize any political claims based on their divine revelation. Like Orthodox Jewish law, the Muslim Shariah is meant to cover the whole of life, not some arbitrarily demarcated private sphere, and its legal system has few theological resources for establishing the independence of politics from detailed divine commands. It is an unfortunate situation, but we have made our bed, Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Accommodation and mutual respect can help, as can clear rules governing areas of tension, like the status of women, parents’ rights over their children, speech offensive to religious sensibilities, speech inciting violence, standards of dress in public institutions and the like. Western countries have adopted different strategies for coping, some forbidding religious symbols like the head scarf in schools, others permitting them. But we need to recognize that coping is the order of the day, not defending high principle, and that our expectations should remain low. So long as a sizable population believes in the truth of a comprehensive political theology, its full reconciliation with modern liberal democracy cannot be expected.

VII. The Opposite Shore

This is not welcome news. For more than two centuries, promoters of modernization have taken it for granted that science, technology, urbanization and education would eventually “disenchant” the charmed world of believers, and that with time people would either abandon their traditional faiths or transform them in politically anodyne ways. They point to continental Europe, where belief in God has been in steady decline over the last 50 years, and suggest that, with time, Muslims everywhere will undergo a similar transformation. Those predictions may eventually prove right. But Europe’s rapid secularization is historically unique and, as we have just seen, relatively recent. Political theology is highly adaptive and can present to even educated minds a more compelling vision of the future than the prospect of secular modernity. It takes as little for a highly trained medical doctor to fashion a car bomb today as it took for advanced thinkers to fashion biblically inspired justifications of fascist and communist totalitarianism in Weimar Germany. When the urge to connect is strong, passions are high and fantasies are vivid, the trinkets of our modern lives are impotent amulets against political intoxication.

Realizing this, a number of Muslim thinkers around the world have taken to promoting a “liberal” Islam. What they mean is an Islam more adapted to the demands of modern life, kinder in its treatment of women and children, more tolerant of other faiths, more open to dissent. These are brave people who have often suffered for their efforts, in prison or exile, as did their predecessors in the 19th century, of which there were many. But now as then, their efforts have been swept away by deeper theological currents they cannot master and perhaps do not even understand. The history of Protestant and Jewish liberal theology reveals the problem: the more a biblical faith is trimmed to fit the demands of the moment, the fewer reasons it gives believers for holding on to that faith in troubled times, when self-appointed guardians of theological purity offer more radical hope. Worse still, when such a faith is used to bestow theological sanctification on a single form of political life — even an attractive one like liberal democracy — the more it will be seen as collaborating with injustice when that political system fails. The dynamics of political theology seem to dictate that when liberalizing reformers try to conform to the present, they inspire a countervailing and far more passionate longing for redemption in the messianic future. That is what happened in Weimar Germany and is happening again in contemporary Islam.

The complacent liberalism and revolutionary messianism we’ve encountered are not the only theological options. There is another kind of transformation possible in biblical faiths, and that is the renewal of traditional political theology from within. If liberalizers are apologists for religion at the court of modern life, renovators stand firmly within their faith and reinterpret political theology so believers can adapt without feeling themselves to be apostates. Luther and Calvin were renovators in this sense, not liberalizers. They called Christians back to the fundamentals of their faith, but in a way that made it easier, not harder, to enjoy the fruits of temporal existence. They found theological reasons to reject the ideal of celibacy, and its frequent violation by priests, and thus returned the clergy to ordinary family life. They then found theological reasons to reject otherworldly monasticism and the all-too-worldly imperialism of Rome, offering biblical reasons that Christians should be loyal citizens of the state they live in. And they did this, not by speaking the apologetic language of toleration and progress, but by rewriting the language of Christian political theology and demanding that Christians be faithful to it.

Today, a few voices are calling for just this kind of renewal of Islamic political theology. Some, like Khaled Abou El Fadl, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, challenge the authority of today’s puritans, who make categorical judgments based on a literal reading of scattered Koranic verses. In Abou El Fadl’s view, traditional Islamic law can still be applied to present-day situations because it brings a subtle interpretation of the whole text to bear on particular problems in varied circumstances. Others, like the Swiss-born cleric and professor Tariq Ramadan, are public figures whose writings show Western Muslims that their political theology, properly interpreted, offers guidance for living with confidence in their faith and gaining acceptance in what he calls an alien “abode.” To read their works is to be reminded what a risky venture renewal is. It can invite believers to participate more fully and wisely in the political present, as the Protestant Reformation eventually did; it can also foster dreams of returning to a more primitive faith, through violence if necessary, as happened in the Wars of Religion.

Perhaps for this reason, Abou El Fadl and especially Ramadan have become objects of intense and sometimes harsh scrutiny by Western intellectuals. We prefer speaking with the Islamic liberalizers because they share our language: they accept the intellectual presuppositions of the Great Separation and simply want maximum room given for religious and cultural expression. They do not practice political theology. But the prospects of enduring political change through renewal are probably much greater than through liberalization. By speaking from within the community of the faithful, renovators give believers compelling theological reasons for accepting new ways as authentic reinterpretations of the faith. Figures like Abou El Fadl and Ramadan speak a strange tongue, even when promoting changes we find worthy; their reasons are not our reasons. But if we cannot expect mass conversion to the principles of the Great Separation — and we cannot — we had better learn to welcome transformations in Muslim political theology that ease coexistence. The best should not be the enemy of the good.

In the end, though, what happens on the opposite shore will not be up to us. We have little reason to expect societies in the grip of a powerful political theology to follow our unusual path, which was opened up by a unique crisis within Christian civilization. This does not mean that those societies necessarily lack the wherewithal to create a decent and workable political order; it does mean that they will have to find the theological resources within their own traditions to make it happen.

Our challenge is different. We have made a choice that is at once simpler and harder: we have chosen to limit our politics to protecting individuals from the worst harms they can inflict on one another, to securing fundamental liberties and providing for their basic welfare, while leaving their spiritual destinies in their own hands. We have wagered that it is wiser to beware the forces unleashed by the Bible’s messianic promise than to try exploiting them for the public good. We have chosen to keep our politics unilluminated by divine revelation. All we have is our own lucidity, which we must train on a world where faith still inflames the minds of men.

Mark Lilla is professor of the humanities at Columbia University. This essay is adapted from his book “The Stillborn God: Religion, Politics and the Modern West,” which will be published next month.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/magazine/19Religion-t.html?ei=5087%0A&em=&en=315e8cba01361...

[Mariner*]

Bill Moyers on the war debate

Impeachment...the word feared and loathed by every sitting president is back. It's in the air and on your computer screen, a growing clamor aimed at both President Bush and Vice-President Cheney.

Video
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/watch.html

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/071407B.shtml


http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/transcript4.html

[BullNBear52]

Surgeon General Sees 4-Year Term as Compromised
By GARDINER HARRIS
WASHINGTON, July 10 — Former Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona told a Congressional panel Tuesday that top Bush administration officials repeatedly tried to weaken or suppress important public health reports because of political considerations.

The administration, Dr. Carmona said, would not allow him to speak or issue reports about stem cells, emergency contraception, sex education, or prison, mental and global health issues. Top officials delayed for years and tried to “water down” a landmark report on secondhand smoke, he said. Released last year, the report concluded that even brief exposure to cigarette smoke could cause immediate harm.

Dr. Carmona said he was ordered to mention President Bush three times on every page of his speeches. He also said he was asked to make speeches to support Republican political candidates and to attend political briefings.

And administration officials even discouraged him from attending the Special Olympics because, he said, of that charitable organization’s longtime ties to a “prominent family” that he refused to name.

“I was specifically told by a senior person, ‘Why would you want to help those people?’ ” Dr. Carmona said.

The Special Olympics is one of the nation’s premier charitable organizations to benefit disabled people, and the Kennedys have long been deeply involved in it.

When asked after the hearing if that “prominent family” was the Kennedys, Dr. Carmona responded, “You said it. I didn’t.”

In response to lawmakers’ questions, Dr. Carmona refused to name specific people in the administration who had instructed him to put political considerations over scientific ones. He said, however, that they included assistant secretaries of health and human services as well as top political appointees outside the department of health.

Dr. Carmona did offer to provide the names to the committee in a private meeting.

Bill Hall, a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services, said that the administration disagreed with Dr. Carmona’s statements. “It has always been this administration’s position that public health policy should be rooted in sound science,” Mr. Hall said.

Emily Lawrimore, a White House spokeswoman, said the surgeon general “is the leading voice for the health of all Americans.”

“It’s disappointing to us,” Ms. Lawrimore said, “if he failed to use this position to the fullest extent in advocating for policies he thought were in the best interests of the nation.”

Dr. Carmona is one of a growing list of present and former administration officials to charge that politics often trumped science within what had previously been largely nonpartisan government health and scientific agencies.

Dr. Carmona, 57, served as surgeon general for one four-year term, from 2002 to 2006, but was not asked to serve a second. Before being nominated, he was in the Army Special Forces, earned two purple hearts in the Vietnam War and was a trauma surgeon and leader of the Pima County, Ariz., SWAT team. He received a bachelor’s degree, in biology and chemistry, in 1976 and his M.D. in 1979, both from the University of California, San Francisco. He is now vice chairman of Canyon Ranch, a resort and residential development company.

His testimony comes two days before the Senate confirmation hearings of his designated successor, Dr. James W. Holsinger Jr. Two members of the Senate health committee have already declared their opposition to Dr. Holsinger’s nomination because of a 1991 report he wrote that concluded that homosexual sex was unnatural and unhealthy. Dr. Carmona’s testimony may further complicate Dr. Holsinger’s nomination.

In his testimony, Dr. Carmona said that at first he was so politically naïve that he had little idea how inappropriate the administration’s actions were. He eventually consulted six previous surgeons general, Republican and Democratic, and all agreed, he said, that he faced more political interference than they had.

On issue after issue, Dr. Carmona said, the administration made decisions about important public health issues based solely on political considerations, not scientific ones.

“I was told to stay away from those because we’ve already decided which way we want to go,” Dr. Carmona said.

He described attending a meeting of top officials in which the subject of global warming was discussed. The officials concluded that global warming was a liberal cause and dismissed it, he said.

“And I said to myself, ‘I realize why I’ve been invited. They want me to discuss the science because they obviously don’t understand the science,’ ” he said. “I was never invited back.”

Dr. Carmona testified under oath at a hearing before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee headed by Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California. The topic was strengthening the office of the surgeon general. Dr. C. Everett Koop, surgeon general in the Reagan administration, and Dr. David Satcher, surgeon general during the Clinton administration and the first year of the administration of George W. Bush, also testified.

Each complained about political interference and the declining status of the office. Dr. Satcher said that the Clinton administration discouraged him from issuing a report showing that needle-exchange programs were effective in reducing disease. He released the report anyway.

Dr. Koop, said he had been discouraged by top officials in the Reagan administration from discussing the AIDS crisis. He did so anyway.

All three men urged major changes in the way the surgeon general is chosen and the way the office is financed.

Dr. Carmona described being invited to testify at the government’s nine-month racketeering trial of the tobacco industry that ended in 2005. He said top administration officials discouraged him from testifying while simultaneously telling the lead government lawyer in the case that he was not competent to testify. Dr. Carmona testified anyway.

Sharon Y. Eubanks, director of the Justice Department’s tobacco litigation team, was in the audience during Dr. Carmona’s testimony.

“What he said is all correct,” she said. “He was one of the most powerful witnesses. His testimony was very important.”

Dr. Carmona said that he felt that the duty of the surgeon general, often called the “nation’s doctor,” was to tackle many of the nation’s most controversial health topics and to issue balanced reports about the studies underlying them.

When stem cells became a focus of debate, Dr. Carmona said he proposed that his office offer guidance “so that we can have, if you will, informed consent.”

“I was told to stand down and not speak about it,” he said. “It was removed from my speeches.”

The Bush administration rejected the advice of many top scientists on this subject, including that of the director of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Elias Zerhouni.

Similarly, Dr. Carmona wanted to address the controversial topic of sexual education, he said. Scientific studies suggest that the most effective approach includes a discussion of contraceptives.

“However there was already a policy in place that did not want to hear the science but wanted to preach abstinence only, but I felt that was scientifically incorrect,” he said.

Dr. Carmona said drafts of surgeon general reports on global health and prison health were still being debated by the administration. The global health report was never approved, Dr. Carmona said, because he refused to sprinkle the report with glowing references to the efforts of the Bush administration.

“The correctional health care report is pointing out the inadequacies of health care within our correctional health care system,” he said. “It would force the government on a course of action to improve that.”

Because the administration does not want to spend more money on prisoners’ health care, the report has been delayed, Dr. Carmona said.

“For us, the science was pretty easy,” he said. “These people go back into the community and take diseases with them.” He added, “This is not about the crime. It’s about protecting the public.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/11/washington/11surgeon.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=login&pagewant...

[VegasRage]

No punishment fits their crime.

[BullNBear52]

There goes the 30% club...

W.House debate over troop withdrawal deepens:

NYT Mon Jul 9, 3:38 AM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A debate is intensifying inside the White House over whether President George W. Bush should try to prevent more Republican defections by announcing intentions for a gradual withdrawal of troops from high-casualty Iraqi areas, the New York Times said on Monday.

Citing administration officials and consultants, the newspaper said these officials fear the last pillars of political support among U.S. Senate Republicans for Bush's Iraq strategy are "collapsing around them."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070709/pl_nm/iraq_usa_debate_dc_2;_ylt=AgVBC_hjK3tWNraxUWbGe_oE1vAI

[Mariner*]

Who Runs the CIA? Outsiders for Hire.
It just keeps getting better...
By R.J. Hillhouse
Sunday, July 8, 2007; Page B05

Red alert: Our national security is being outsourced.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/06/AR2007070601993.html?nav=rss_print/o....

[BullNBear52]

[BullNBear52]

This is exactly what I don't understand and you've taken me to task over.

The conspiracy people have taken their eye off the ball.

[Mariner*]

Unimpeachably Impeachable

By Ray McGovern
July 2, 2007

Last week’s four-part Washington Post feature on Vice President Dick Cheney removed any doubt in my mind as to whether he and President George W. Bush have committed the kinds of high crimes and misdemeanors that warrant impeachment.

While President George W. Bush bears the ultimate responsibility, the nature of the evidence against Cheney and his closest associates is so specific and overwhelming that it makes sense to impeach and bring him to trial first.

Subpoenas from Capitol Hill are flying downtown into executive office buildings like paper airplanes, but the potential for obfuscation and delay is immense, and the danger to the Republic speaks for a more urgent, simpler approach.

As hundreds are killed each day in the misbegotten war in Iraq with no end in sight, the same officials who brought us Iraq—with the vice president in the lead— are salivating for war on Iran.

There is a blizzard of possible charges warranting impeachment, and that is part of the problem. It’s not only outrage fatigue, it is knowing how to sort through what Thomas Jefferson called “a long train of abuses and usurpations” to select the most heinous, when it is difficult to discern which of them most offends our Constitution and the rule of law.

Suggestion: From the most heinous, select just one for which there is ready proof—one not susceptible of the kind of diddling that has been so prevalent in Washington these past several years.

Why not focus on a high crime that the Bush administration has already admitted to, with claims it is above the law and the Constitution: electronic eavesdropping on Americans without the required court warrant.

This charge has the additional advantage of precedent. It was included in the second (of three) Articles of Impeachment voted against President Richard Nixon by a 28 to 10 vote by the House Committee on the Judiciary on July 27, 1974.

That charge was “electronic surveillance of private citizens” in violation of the law and similar illegalities. Impeachment Article 2 stated that for these abuses:

“Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.”

Similarly, as William Goodman, former legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, has suggested, pride of place among the various possible charges against those of the George W. Bush administration should be given to the crime of unlawful electronic surveillance; namely, failing to take care that the laws were faithfully executed, by directing or authorizing the National Security Agency and various other agencies within the intelligence community to conduct electronic surveillance outside the statutes Congress has prescribed as the exclusive means for such surveillance.

What makes this a no-brainer is that the administration has proudly admitted to sponsoring an electronic surveillance program that violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978.

On Dec.17, 2005, a day after the New York Times front-paged an article on the administration practice of eavesdropping on Americans without the required court warrant, administration front man George W. Bush bragged about authorizing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens without the court order required by FISA.

The president stated defiantly, “I have reauthorized this program more than 30 times since the September 11th attacks, and I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al-Qaeda and related groups.”

By what authority did the Bush administration ignore the FISA requirement for a court order for such eavesdropping? “The authority vested in me by Congress, including the Joint Authorization for Use of Military Force [and] constitutional authority vested in me as commander-in-chief.”

That these arguments are quite a stretch is clear from the adjectives used by respected jurists to describe them. “Ludicrous” is the one most often applied. “The program appears on its face to violate existing law,” wrote a group of distinguished lawyers, several of whom worked in senior positions in Republican as well as Democratic administrations.

Anatomy of a Crime

While the buck still stops in the Oval Office, it lingers for an inordinately long time with the vice president. And, clearly, that is the way Bush prefers it.

Sen. Bob Graham recalls that when he became chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, the president told him, “The vice president should be your point of contact in the White House [and] has the portfolio for intelligence activities.”

And, sure enough, when the chairmen and ranking members were invited to the White House for their first briefing on electronic eavesdropping, they were ushered into the vice president’s office where Cheney chaired the discussion.

One of the authors of the FISA law, longtime NSA director, Admiral Bobby Ray Inman (ret.), expressed serious reservations at the flouting of FISA during a New York Public Library panel discussion on May 8, 2006.

“There clearly was a line in the FISA statutes which says you couldn’t do this,” said Inman. He went on to call specific attention to an “extra sentence put in the bill that said, ‘You can’t do anything that is not authorized by this bill.’”

Inman spoke proudly of the earlier ethos at NSA, where “it was deeply ingrained that you operate within the law and you get the law changed if you need to.” As for now, Inman insisted, “What you want is to get away from this idea that they can continue doing it.”

He placed the blame squarely on Vice President Dick Cheney, whose attitude he said was: “We don’t need law. The president has authorized these in the past and can authorize them now.”

Inman added that this attitude explains why there was no attempt to change the law. Whether Bush eventually decides to change course and work with Congress on this issue will depend on “whether the president walks away from the vice president on this issue,” said Inman.

John Dean, no stranger to White House intrigue, also sees Cheney’s hand behind the defiance of inconvenient laws like FISA. Dean’s sources tell him that there is serious doubt that the president and his staff is well informed as to what Cheney is doing, why he is doing it, or how he is doing it.

Bush may be the “decider,” says Dean, “but by shaping the debate and controlling the paper flow, Cheney decides what the decider will decide.”
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20070629.html

Eminence Grise Behind Eminence Grise

Please welcome David Addington, Cheney’s kemosabe, his main man, his legal adviser of many years, a strong advocate of the “unitary executive” concept invented by the Bush administration to amass power under, well, one executive.

Addington worked closely with Dick Cheney on the Iran-Contra Affair, and played a strong supporting role with those who set out to ensure that no one was held accountable. Addington came in with the vice president as his chief counsel and became his chief of staff as well, after Irv Lewis Libby left.

Addington is the author of the so-called “torture memo” of Jan. 25, 2002—the one signed by then-chief counsel to the president, Alberto Gonzales, calling provisions of the Geneva treaties on prisoners of war “quaint” and “obsolete.”

Assigning a “new paradigm” to the post-9/11 world, that memo advised Bush that he could authorize torture by simply saying that the U.S. would treat prisoners “humanely, as appropriate, and as consistent with military necessity.” This the president did in an executive memorandum on Feb. 7, 2002.

Addington’s legal legerdemain was applied liberally to the issue of warrantless eavesdropping, as well. Most are unaware that Addington earned his spurs while working in the CIA’s Office of General Counsel (OGC) under Director William Casey, certainly a kindred soul in terms of respect for the law—national or international.

The so-called “family jewels” released by the CIA last week provide insight into the corrosive effect of folks like Casey and Addington on the professionalism and integrity of those working in the Office of General Counsel.

To be sure, there were liberties taken with law and regulation before Casey, but before Casey and Addington there was also high sensitivity to observing the letter of the law regarding surveillance of Americans. One sees in the correspondence reflections of the ethos of the lawyers I encountered during my 27-year Agency career.

There were abuses like illegal wiretaps, despite admonitions from directors like William Colby against monitoring American citizens. But the correspondence is replete with examples of operations abruptly shut down after an OGC determination that they violated CIA statutory responsibilities.

The documents show, for example, OGC putting the kibosh on radio intercepts made from abroad, but with one terminal in the U.S. Well before the FISA law, Agency officials were particularly uncomfortable with widespread electronic surveillance of American citizens.

As national security blogger Noah Shachtman has noted, it is clear from the “family jewels” material that many in the leadership of the Nixon-era intelligence community were relatively successful in avoiding becoming drawn into the kind of comprehensive, intrusive electronic eavesdropping that would later become a hallmark of the George W. Bush-era intelligence community.

CIA Director Michael Hayden’s timing in releasing the “family jewels” begs interpretation. Without any sense of irony, Hayden told CIA staffers that internal reforms and increased oversight have given the CIA “a far stronger place in our democratic system.” Right.

The post-9/11 warrantless electronic surveillance program he devised as head of NSA, at the direction of Cheney and the president tears that claim to shreds.

Martinet

Hayden’s followed illegal orders to create an aggressive NSA program skirting strict 30-year old legal restrictions on eavesdropping on American citizens. As NSA director from 1999 to 2005, Hayden did the White House’s bidding in devising and implementing that program without adequately informing Congress—as required by law.

When an unauthorized disclosure revealed the program to the press, Hayden agreed to play point man with smoke and mirrors. Small wonder that the White House later deemed him the perfect man to head the CIA.

Hayden, of course, evidences no outward embarrassment. A whiff of conscience showed through his nomination hearing, though, when he flubbed the answer to a soft-pitch from administration loyalist, Sen. Kit Bond, R-Missouri:

“Did you believe that your primary responsibility as director of NSA was to execute a program that your NSA lawyers, the Justice Department lawyers, and White House officials all told you was legal and that you were ordered to carry it out by the president of the United States?”

Instead of the simple “Yes” that was anticipated, Hayden paused and spoke rather poignantly—and revealingly:

“I had to make this personal decision in early October 2001, and it was a personal decision...I could not not do this.”

Why should it be such an enormous personal decision whether or not to obey a White House order? No one asked Hayden, but it requires no particular acuity to figure it out.

This is a military officer who had indoctrinated NSA employees with what used to be known as NSA’s “First Commandment”—Thou Shalt Not Eavesdrop on U.S. Citizens; an officer who, like the rest of us, had sworn to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; a military man well aware one must never obey an unlawful order.

That, it seems clear, is why Hayden found it a difficult personal decision. Did the new, post-9/11 “paradigm” – created by then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and David Addington – trump the Constitution?

President George W. Bush assured us on Jan. 23, 2006, “I had all kinds of lawyers review the process.” Seems so. The same ones who were concurrently devising ways to “legalize” torture and indefinite detention without due process.

No American, save perhaps Admiral Inman who was present at the creation of FISA, knew the FISA law better than Hayden. Nonetheless, the general conceded that he did not even require a written legal opinion to satisfy himself that the new, post-9/11 comprehensive surveillance program, to be implemented without warrant and without adequate consultation in Congress, could pass the smell test.

If Addington and Cheney said it was okay, it must be okay. When one of his NSA director predecessors learned what Hayden had agreed to do, he said angrily, “He ought to be court-martialed.” I agree.

Addington’s tenure with CIA lawyers seems to have left a residue of malleability that the George W. Bush administration has found very helpful.

Intercepting Americans communications? Torture? Kidnapping? Extraordinary Rendition? You name it, we can justify it. All this makes things a lot easier for Cheney and Addington to work their will on the bureaucracy.

Another gift from Bill Casey. Not only did he corrupt analysis on the substantive side of the Agency; he also deprofessionalized the operational side, promoting yes-people, such that you end up with the bunch of amateurs caught kidnapping and “rendering” a suspected terrorist in Italy. And the corruption included the Office of General Counsel.

Who is Stepping Up to the Plate?

An African American judge, Anna Diggs Taylor of the U.S. District Court in Detroit ruled on Aug. 17, 2006, that the surveillance program was unconstitutional (against the Fourth Amendment prohibition on “unreasonable searches and seizures”) as well as illegal (violating FISA).

She emphasized that “the Office of the Chief Executive has itself been created, with its powers, by the Constitution. There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution.”

The government appealed Judge Taylor’s decision, and the surveillance program continues, since the Sixth Circuit Court has granted a stay.

In keeping with Thomas Jefferson’s warning that the only remedy for the kind of situation in which we find ourselves is removal of those responsible, some courageous members of the House of Representatives have signed on as co-sponsors of Dennis Kucinich’s (D-Ohio) bill to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney.

I find it highly interesting that seven of the 11 co-sponsors are African-American, with black women leading the way. Seems they have a more highly developed sense of the implications of the oppression that comes of ignoring, breaking, or bending the law.

They have an excellent model in the late Barbara Jordan, D-Texas, an African-American legislator and educator who made such a valuable contribution while sitting on the House Committee on the Judiciary during the hearings on impeaching President Richard Nixon.

I will not soon forget her stirring words on July 25, 1974:

“Earlier today, we heard the beginning of the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States, ‘We, the people.’ It is a very eloquent beginning. But when the document was completed on the seventeenth of September 1787 I was not included in that ‘We, the people.’ I felt somehow for many years that George Washington and Alexander Hamilton just left me out by mistake. But through the process of amendment, interpretation and court decision, I have finally been included in ‘We, the people.’

“My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution.... [As was said at] the North Carolina ratification convention: ‘No one need be afraid that officers who commit oppression will pass with immunity.’”

Jordan stressed James Madison’s reminder at the constitutional convention that those who “subvert the Constitution” are “impeachable.”

Congressman John Conyers, D-Michigan, also a member of the Committee on the Judiciary in 1974, heard those words. He is now chair of that key committee. Inexplicably, he is now hiding from those words.

Wake up, John. Show some courage.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/070207a.html

[BullNBear52]

Justices Limit the Use of Race in School Plans for Integration
By LINDA GREENHOUSE
WASHINGTON, June 28 — With competing blocs of justices claiming the mantle of Brown v. Board of Education, a bitterly divided Supreme Court declared Thursday that public school systems cannot seek to achieve or maintain integration through measures that take explicit account of a student’s race.

Voting 5 to 4, the court, in an opinion by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., invalidated programs in Seattle and metropolitan Louisville, Ky., that sought to maintain school-by-school diversity by limiting transfers on the basis of race or using race as a “tiebreaker” for admission to particular schools.

Both programs had been upheld by lower federal courts and were similar to plans in place in hundreds of school districts around the country. Chief Justice Roberts said such programs were “directed only to racial balance, pure and simple,” a goal he said was forbidden by the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection.

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race,” he said. His side of the debate, the chief justice said, was “more faithful to the heritage of Brown,” the landmark 1954 decision that declared school segregation unconstitutional. “When it comes to using race to assign children to schools, history will be heard,” he said.

The decision came on the final day of the court’s 2006-7 term, which showed an energized conservative majority in control across many areas of the court’s jurisprudence.

Chief Justice Roberts’s control was not quite complete, however. While Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined his opinion on the schools case in full, the fifth member of the majority, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, did not. Justice Kennedy agreed that the two programs were unconstitutional. But he was highly critical of what he described as the chief justice’s “all-too-unyielding insistence that race cannot be a factor in instances when, in my view, it may be taken into account.”

In a separate opinion that could shape the practical implications of the decision and provide school districts with guidelines for how to create systems that can pass muster with the court, Justice Kennedy said achieving racial diversity, “avoiding racial isolation” and addressing “the problem of de facto resegregation in schooling” were “compelling interests” that a school district could constitutionally pursue as long as it did so through programs that were sufficiently “narrowly tailored.”

The four justices were “too dismissive” of the validity of these goals, Justice Kennedy said, adding that it was “profoundly mistaken” to read the Constitution as requiring “that state and local school authorities must accept the status quo of racial isolation in schools.”

As a matter of constitutional doctrine and practical impact, Justice Kennedy’s opinion thus placed a significant limitation on the full reach of the other four justices’ embrace of a “colorblind Constitution” under which all racially conscious government action, no matter how benign or invidious its goal, is equally suspect.

How important a limitation Justice Kennedy’s opinion proves to be may become clear only with time, as school districts devise and defend plans that appear to meet his test.

Among the measures that Justice Kennedy said would be acceptable were the drawing of school attendance zones, “strategic site selection of new schools,” and directing resources to special programs. These would be permissible even if adopted with a consciousness of racial demographics, Justice Kennedy said, because in avoiding the labeling and sorting of individual children by race they would satisfy the “narrow tailoring” required to meet the equal protection demands of the 14th Amendment.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who wrote the principal dissenting opinion, was dismissive of Justice Kennedy’s proposed alternatives and asserted that the court was taking a sharp and seriously mistaken turn.

Speaking from the bench for more than 20 minutes, Justice Breyer made his points to a courtroom audience that had never seen the coolly analytical justice express himself with such emotion. His most pointed words, in fact, appeared nowhere in his 77-page opinion.

“It is not often in the law that so few have so quickly changed so much,” Justice Breyer said.

In his written opinion, Justice Breyer said the decision was a “radical” step away from settled law and would strip local communities of the tools they need, and have used for many years, to prevent resegregation of their public schools. Predicting that the ruling would “substitute for present calm a disruptive round of race-related litigation,” he said, “This is a decision that the court and the nation will come to regret.”

Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg signed Justice Breyer’s opinion. Justice Stevens wrote a dissenting opinion of his own, as pointed as it was brief.

He said the chief justice’s invocation of Brown v. Board of Education was “a cruel irony” when the opinion in fact “rewrites the history of one of this court’s most important decisions” by ignoring the context in which it was issued and the Supreme Court’s subsequent understanding of it to permit voluntary programs of the sort that were now invalidated.

“It is my firm conviction that no member of the court that I joined in 1975 would have agreed with today’s decision,” Justice Stevens said. He did not mention, nor did he need to, that one of the justices then was William H. Rehnquist, later the chief justice, for whom Chief Justice Roberts once worked as a law clerk.

Justice Clarence Thomas was equally pointed and equally personal in an opinion concurring with the majority.

“If our history has taught us anything,” Justice Thomas said, “it has taught us to beware of elites bearing racial theories.” He added in a footnote, “Justice Breyer’s good intentions, which I do not doubt, have the shelf life of Justice Breyer’s tenure.”

The justices had been wrestling for over a year with the two cases. It was in January 2006 that parents who objected to the Louisville and Seattle programs filed their Supreme Court appeals from the lower court decisions that had upheld the programs.

The Louisville case was Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education, No. 05-915, filed by the mother of a student who was denied a transfer to his chosen kindergarten class because the school he wanted to leave needed to keep its white students to stay within the program’s racial guidelines.

The Seattle case, Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, No. 05-908, was filed by a group of parents who had formed a nonprofit corporation to fight the city’s high school assignment plan.

Because a single Supreme Court opinion resolved both cases, the decision carries only the name of the Seattle case, which had the lower docket number.

The appeals provoked a long internal struggle over how the court should respond. Months earlier, when Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was still on the court, the justices had denied review in an appeal challenging a similar program in Massachusetts. With no disagreement among the federal appellate circuits on the validity of such programs, the new appeals did not meet the criterion the court ordinarily uses to decide which cases to hear. It was June of last year before the court, reconfigured by the additions of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, announced, over the unrecorded but vigorous objection of the liberal justices, that it would hear both appeals.

By the time the court ruled on Thursday, there was little suspense over what the outcome would be. Not only the act of accepting the appeals, but also the tenor of the argument on Dec. 4, gave clear indications that the justices were on course to strike down both plans.

The cases were by far the oldest on the docket by the time they were decided; the other decisions the court announced on Thursday were in cases that were argued in March and April. What consumed the court during the seven months the cases were under consideration, it appears likely, was an effort by each side to edge Justice Kennedy closer to its point of view.

While it is hardly uncommon to find Justice Kennedy in the middle of the court, his position there this time carried a special resonance. He holds the seat once occupied by Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. who, 29 years ago to the day, announced his separate opinion in the Bakke case. That solitary opinion, rejecting quotas but accepting diversity as a rationale for affirmative action in university admissions, defined the law for the next 25 years, until the decision was refined and to some degree strengthened in the University of Michigan Law School decision.

Justice Kennedy was a dissenter from that 2003 decision. But, surprisingly, he cited it on Thursday, invoking it to rebut the argument that the Constitution must be always be, regardless of context or circumstance, colorblind.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/29/washington/29scotus.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=0&adxnnlx=118...

[BullNBear52]

Taking on the Supreme Court Case
When it came to vetting potential nominees, the vice president steered the selection committee.


In May 2005, a small group of the president's senior advisers gathered to weigh a historic choice: who should succeed an ailing William H. Rehnquist as chief justice of the United States.

The meeting wasn't held at the White House or the Justice Department. And the highest-ranking official in the room wasn't the attorney general, the White House chief of staff, the White House counsel or the president's chief political adviser, although they were all there.

It was Vice President Cheney, and it was to an unpretentious room off the vice president's quarters that potential candidates were summoned for interviews.

The handful of candidates who survived a grilling of more than two hours by the Cheney-led selection committee would go on to what one participant described as a much shorter and "far more relaxed" interview with the president. President Bush seemed more interested in personal matters than in case law. By contrast, Cheney pressed for information that would shed light on the candidates' legal philosophies, demonstrating a sophisticated knowledge of doctrine and, without crossing the line by asking about specific cases, leaving a clear impression of the constitutional issue he considered paramount.

"I think one of the reasons that this is a primary interest of Cheney's is 9/11," the participant said. "Questions about every aspect of the government's war on terrorism could come before the courts."

That Cheney should play such an unprecedented role in vetting potential candidates is a measure of the trust Bush places in him, said David A. Yalof, who wrote a book about the history of Supreme Court selections. Senior aides to former vice presidents Al Gore, Dan Quayle and George H.W. Bush said that their old bosses' involvement was cursory by comparison.

From the start of his administration, aides said, Bush had made clear his desire for diversity on the federal bench, pressing his staff to consider qualified women and minorities, according to participants in the selection process. The subject of judicial appointments also animated the normally reserved Cheney, who rarely makes his views known in group settings with the president. Cheney's primary concern was ensuring that potential picks be reliably conservative.

"Some of the few times I can remember the vice president speaking up in an Oval Office meeting was on this subject," said former White House lawyer Bradford A. Berenson.

The Cheney-led selection group started with 11 potential Supreme Court finalists that included women and minorities and whose dossiers had been forwarded to Bush. They then culled that list, recommending that the president interview just five, according to two former senior White House officials with direct knowledge. They were U.S. Court of Appeals Judges John G. Roberts Jr., Samuel A. Alito Jr., James Harvie Wilkinson III, J. Michael Luttig and Edith Brown Clement.

All five finalists were white. All but one were men. What they shared were clear records of support for the positions most important to Cheney.

Collectively, the group had expansive views on executive power and limited views of congressional authority. One judge had already given the administration a victory in its quest, championed by Cheney, to detain terrorism suspects indefinitely. Two other candidates would soon bless other aspects of the administration's terrorism policies. The majority also had records indicating that they shared Cheney's view that affirmative action was unconstitutional, and one had sided with power companies in a case involving a pollution rule Cheney considered overly burdensome.

On July 19, 2005, Bush drew from the pool of five in nominating Roberts to fill the seat of Sandra Day O'Connor, who was retiring.

The office of the vice president took the lead in developing a strategic communications plan to sell Roberts to the public and to the senators who would vote to confirm him. Then, in early September, Rehnquist died. The president moved Roberts to chief justice. That still left another vacancy, one that would give Bush the opportunity to definitively shift the court to the right.

And that is when the president departed from the list.

First, Bush openly speculated about making his longtime friend and aide Alberto R. Gonzales the first Hispanic on the court. Conservatives, who saw the attorney general as insufficiently devoted to their cause on issues such as affirmative action and abortion mobilized against the former Texas judge, slipping intelligence on Gonzales's background to Cheney's office.

"In general, on Supreme Court judicial selection issues, conservatives would talk to Karl Rove but also would make sure to communicate expectations to the office of the vice president," said Leonard A. Leo, a conservative leader who was involved in the nomination process.

Conservatives got their way on Gonzales, only to find themselves confronted with what many considered an even worse choice. On Oct. 2, White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. was dispatched to tell Cheney that Bush had nominated White House counsel Harriet E. Miers, another longtime Texas associate, to fill the Supreme Court vacancy. "Didn't have the nerve to tell me himself," Cheney muttered to an associate in a rare display of pique with the president.

Cheney's office disputed that account. "The vice president did not say that," said his spokeswoman, Lea Anne McBride.

In any case, Cheney did as he often does when he disagrees with a policy decision by the president -- he loyally defended it. Within hours of the announcement the following day, he was on the air reassuring conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh. "You'll be proud of Harriet's record, Rush," he said. "Trust me."

"It's fair to say that he wasn't thrilled by that nomination," said one former senior White House official. "But he's a good trouper."

In the end, Miers was forced to withdraw amid a firestorm of criticism from the right. Bush then nominated Alito, a white male federal appellate judge. This time, he stuck to the Cheney committee's list.

-- Jo Becker and Barton Gellman

[BullNBear52]

Expanding Authority for No. 2 Spot
In 1980, as Ford was being wooed to run for vice president, Cheney played a key role in re-imagining the job


'If there is precedent for Dick Cheney's role, according to former vice president Dan Quayle, it is the might-have-been second vice presidency of Gerald R. Ford.

Pollsters spoke of a "dream ticket" after Ronald Reagan won the 1980 Republican nomination and talk turned to Ford as his No. 2. Aides to both men tried to negotiate arrangements that might lure a former commander in chief into a secondary position.

Contemporary accounts said Ford was represented by former secretary of state Henry A. Kissinger and others. But at a 2000 conference of former White House chiefs of staff, Cheney disclosed that he had been deeply involved. He recalled an intense debate about how to shape expanded lines of authority in a job often ridiculed as largely ceremonial.

Ford "made a number of requests in terms of his influence over the budget, personnel, foreign policy, et cetera," Cheney said. "I can remember sitting in a session with Bill Casey, who later became CIA director. Bill had a list of items that in fact the Reagan people were prepared to discuss. They went a long way toward trying to accommodate President Ford."

Tempted, but wary of splintering presidential authority, Ford finally withdrew his name. Quayle, looking back on it, said Cheney appears to have accepted much the same deal.

[BullNBear52]

Protecting the President's Power
James A. Baker III came to see Wyoming's sole member of Congress on Nov. 19, 1980, days after Ronald Reagan won election as president. He was about to assume the post of White House chief of staff, which then-Rep. Dick Richard B. Cheney (R-Wyo.) had held at the age of 34. Cheney's advice, recorded in four pages of handwritten notes on Baker's yellow legal pad, began with this:

1. Restore power & auth to Exec Branch -- Need strong ldr'ship. Get rid of War Powers Act -- restore independent rights.****** Central theme we ought to push

Cheney's muscular views on presidential power, then and now, offer one answer to the question raised often by former colleagues in recent years: What happened to the careful, mainstream conservative they once thought they understood?

In fact, Cheney's views on executive supremacy -- like many of his core beliefs about foreign policy and defense -- have held remarkably steady over the years. What changed was his power to promote them.



RELATED DOCUMENT
Cheney's Advice to Baker
Advice from Cheney to then incoming presidential chief of staff James A. Baker filled four pages of a yellow legal pad. View the actual notes and a transcript. More »In the Ford administration, Cheney backed largely losing arguments on executive authority, resisting the limits set by Congress after the Watergate scandal and the Church Committee's revelations of CIA abuse. He lamented a congressional override of President Gerald R. Ford's veto of amendments strengthening the Freedom of Information Act, opposed the limits on eavesdropping set by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and described the War Powers Act of 1973 as unconstitutional.

Cheney left the White House at what he later called "the low point" of presidential authority. Congress is "all too often swayed by the public opinion of the moment" and is incapable of making the swift decisions required in "a dangerous and hostile world," Cheney said at an American Enterprise Institute conference on Dec. 6, 1983, according to the transcript.

In a turn of phrase he would use many times after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Cheney said -- in the context of Reagan's invasion of Grenada, an island nation with 1,500 men under arms -- that it "might have cost hundreds of lives" had Reagan waited for "the usual dialog and debate about whether Congress would authorize action."

Simply by creating a defense establishment, Cheney said, Congress had "already given prior approval" for any presidential decision on where and how to make war. "We have appropriated the funds and raised the army and purchased the equipment and built the missiles and the bombers, and the president has the authority to make decisions about how to use those things," he said.

Not long before becoming vice president, at a 2000 conference about White House chiefs of staff, Cheney recalled that even as "a congressman, I found that I was still very much taken with the notion, the preeminence, if you will, of the president" in foreign policy and defense.

Every modern president, to some degree, has shared that view. But none -- including Reagan -- took the absolutist path that Cheney urged. Rather than "get rid of" the War Powers Act of 1973, which requires the consent of Congress after any 60-day deployment of U.S. forces abroad, Baker helped Reagan finesse the issue. Without acknowledging an obligation to do so, Baker negotiated a 1983 resolution with then-Rep. Clement J. Zablocki (D-Wisc.), chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, to permit Marines to remain in Lebanon.

But the Reagan administration also maneuvered secretly to circumvent congressional bans on trading with Iran and funding Nicaraguan rebels known as Contras. An independent counsel indicted three top officials, including National Security Adviser John M. Poindexter, and a special congressional committee of Congress concluded that the Reagan White House had subverted the Constitution.

Cheney was among the principal authors of a blistering dissent. The scandal, according to the Iran-Ccontra committee's minority report, was not that the White House had broken the law, but that Congress had tried to command the commander in chief. Reagan's secret decisions -- to sell prohibited arms to Iran and funnel the proceeds to Nicaragua's Contra rebels -- were not always wise, according to the minority report, but they "were constitutionally protected exercises of inherent Presidential powers."

Cheney was particularly concerned that the scandal would give momentum to a congressional effort to require notification of all covert actions within 48 hours, said Michael J. Malbin, who worked for Cheney on the committee.

Malbin recalled Cheney asking what would have happened if that rule had been in place during President Jimmy Carter's attempt to rescue hostages in Iran. Canada had offered assistance, conducting a clandestine operation to evacuate six U.S. citizens who had found their way to Canadian diplomats in Tehran. The Ottawa government insisted that Carter not inform Congress, and he agreed.

David Gergen, who worked with Cheney during the Ford years, said the vice president's "zealous reassertion of the power of the presidency" during this administration is completely consistent with the views he expressed long ago.

"He felt that what had become known as the imperial presidency during Nixon had become the imperiled presidency," Gergen said. "Where a number of us people part company with him is that a number of us believe that through Reagan, those powers had been substantially restored. When George W. Bush became president, I didn't think that should or would be a major priority."

[BullNBear52]

Leaving No Tracks
By Jo Becker and Barton Gellman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, June 27, 2007; Page A01

Sue Ellen Wooldridge, the 19th-ranking Interior Department official, arrived at her desk in Room 6140 a few months after Inauguration Day 2001. A phone message awaited her.

"This is Dick Cheney," said the man on her voice mail, Wooldridge recalled in an interview. "I understand you are the person handling this Klamath situation. Please call me at -- hmm, I guess I don't know my own number. I'm over at the White House."


Enlarge PhotoThe vice president has intervened in many cases to undercut long-standing environmental rules for the benefit of business. Here, Cheney is photographed during an August 2004 family vacation in Moose, Wyoming. Getty Images
More photos >>Wooldridge wrote off the message as a prank. It was not. Cheney had reached far down the chain of command, on so unexpected a point of vice presidential concern, because he had spotted a political threat arriving on Wooldridge's desk.

In Oregon, a battleground state that the Bush-Cheney ticket had lost by less than half of 1 percent, drought-stricken farmers and ranchers were about to be cut off from the irrigation water that kept their cropland and pastures green. Federal biologists said the Endangered Species Act left the government no choice: The survival of two imperiled species of fish was at stake.

Law and science seemed to be on the side of the fish. Then the vice president stepped in.

First Cheney looked for a way around the law, aides said. Next he set in motion a process to challenge the science protecting the fish, according to a former Oregon congressman who lobbied for the farmers.

Because of Cheney's intervention, the government reversed itself and let the water flow in time to save the 2002 growing season, declaring that there was no threat to the fish. What followed was the largest fish kill the West had ever seen, with tens of thousands of salmon rotting on the banks of the Klamath River.

Characteristically, Cheney left no tracks.

The Klamath case is one of many in which the vice president took on a decisive role to undercut long-standing environmental regulations for the benefit of business.

By combining unwavering ideological positions -- such as the priority of economic interests over protected fish -- with a deep practical knowledge of the federal bureaucracy, Cheney has made an indelible mark on the administration's approach to everything from air and water quality to the preservation of national parks and forests.

It was Cheney's insistence on easing air pollution controls, not the personal reasons she cited at the time, that led Christine Todd Whitman to resign as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, she said in an interview that provides the most detailed account so far of her departure.

The vice president also pushed to make Nevada's Yucca Mountain the nation's repository for nuclear and radioactive waste, aides said, a victory for the nuclear power industry over those with long-standing safety concerns. And his office was a powerful force behind the White House's decision to rewrite a Clinton-era land-protection measure that put nearly a third of the national forests off limits to logging, mining and most development, former Cheney staff members said.

Cheney's pro-business drive to ease regulations, however, has often set the administration on a collision course with the judicial branch.

The administration, for example, is appealing the order of a federal judge who reinstated the forest protections after she ruled that officials didn't adequately study the environmental consequences of giving states more development authority.

And in April, the Supreme Court rejected two other policies closely associated with Cheney. It rebuffed the effort, ongoing since Whitman's resignation, to loosen some rules under the Clean Air Act. The court also rebuked the administration for not regulating greenhouse gases associated with global warming, issuing its ruling less than two months after Cheney declared that "conflicting viewpoints" remain about the extent of the human contribution to the problem.

In the latter case, Cheney made his environmental views clear in public. But with some notable exceptions, he generally has preferred to operate with stealth, aided by loyalists who owe him for their careers.

When the vice president got wind of a petition to list the cutthroat trout in Yellowstone National Park as a protected species, his office turned to one of his former congressional aides.

The aide, Paul Hoffman, landed his job as deputy assistant interior secretary for fish and wildlife after Cheney recommended him. In an interview, Hoffman said the vice president knew that listing the cutthroat trout would harm the recreational fishing industry in his home state of Wyoming and that he "followed the issue closely." In 2001 and again in 2006, Hoffman's agency declined to list the trout as threatened.

Hoffman also was well positioned to help his former boss with what Cheney aides said was one of the vice president's pet peeves: the Clinton-era ban on snowmobiling in national parks. "He impressed upon us that so many people enjoyed snowmobiling in the Tetons," former Cheney aide Ron Christie said.

With Cheney's encouragement, the administration lifted the ban in 2002, and Hoffman followed up in 2005 by writing a proposal to fundamentally change the way national parks are managed. That plan, which would have emphasized recreational use over conservation, attracted so much opposition from park managers and the public that the Interior Department withdrew it. Still, the Bush administration continues to press for expanded snowmobile access, despite numerous studies showing that the vehicles harm the parks' environment and polls showing majority support for the ban.

Hoffman, now in another job at the Interior Department, said Cheney never told him what to do on either issue -- he didn't have to.

"His genius," Hoffman said, is that "he builds networks and puts the right people in the right places, and then trusts them to make well-informed decisions that comport with his overall vision."

'Political Ramifications'

Robert F. Smith had grown desperate by the time he turned to the vice president for help.


Enlarge PhotoBush and Cheney, who lost Oregon by less than half of 1 percent in 2000, couldn't afford to anger thousands of Republican farmers and ranchers in the state during the 2002 midterm elections. Above, in 2001 a sign stands in a field near Klamath Falls, Oregon. Aurora/Getty ImagesThe former Republican congressman from Oregon represented farmers in the Klamath basin who had relied on a government-operated complex of dams and canals built almost a century ago along the Oregon-California border to irrigate nearly a quarter-million acres of arid land.

In April 2001, with the region gripped by the worst drought in memory, the spigot was shut off.

Studies by the federal government's scientists concluded unequivocally that diverting water would harm two federally protected species of fish, violating the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The Bureau of Reclamation was forced to declare that farmers must go without in order to maintain higher water levels so that two types of suckerfish in Upper Klamath Lake and the coho salmon that spawn in the Klamath River could survive the dry spell.

Farmers and their families, furious and fearing for their livelihoods, formed a symbolic 10,000-person bucket brigade. Then they took saws and blowtorches to dam gates, clashing with U.S. marshals as water streamed into the canals that fed their withering fields, before the government stopped the flow again.

What they didn't know was that the vice president was already on the case.

Smith had served with Cheney on the House Interior Committee in the 1980s, and the former congressman said he turned to the vice president because he knew him as a man of the West who didn't take kindly to federal bureaucrats meddling with private use of public land. "He saw, as every other person did, what a ridiculous disaster shutting off the water was," Smith said.

Cheney recognized, even before the shut-off and long before others at the White House, that what "at first blush didn't seem like a big deal" had "a lot of political ramifications," said Dylan Glenn, a former aide to President Bush.

Bush and Cheney couldn't afford to anger thousands of solidly Republican farmers and ranchers during the midterm elections and beyond. The case also was rapidly becoming a test for conservatives nationwide of the administration's commitment to fixing what they saw as an imbalance between conservation and economics.

"What does the law say?" Christie, the former aide, recalled the vice president asking. "Isn't there some way around it?"

Next, Cheney called Wooldridge, who was then deputy chief of staff to Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton and the woman handling the Klamath situation.

Aides praise Cheney's habit of reaching down to officials who are best informed on a subject he is tackling. But the effect of his calls often leads those mid-level officials scrambling to do what they presume to be his bidding.

That's what happened when a mortified Wooldridge finally returned the vice president's call, after receiving a tart follow-up inquiry from one of his aides. Cheney, she said, "was coming from the perspective that the farmers had to be able to farm -- that was his concern. The fact that the vice president was interested meant that everyone paid attention."

Cheney made sure that attention did not wander. He had Wooldridge brief his staff weekly and, Smith said, he also called the interior secretary directly.

"For months and months, at almost every briefing it was 'Sir, here's where we stand on the Klamath basin,'" recalled Christie, who is now a lobbyist. "His hands-on involvement, it's safe to say, elevated the issue."

'Let the Water Flow'

There was, as it happened, an established exemption to the Endangered Species Act.

A rarely invoked panel of seven Cabinet officials, known informally as the "God Squad," is empowered by the statute to determine that economic hardship outweighs the benefit of protecting threatened wildlife. But after discussing the option with Smith, Cheney rejected that course. He had another idea, one that would not put the administration on record as advocating the extinction of endangered or threatened species.

The thing to do, Cheney told Smith, was to get science on the side of the farmers. And the way to do that was to ask the National Academy of Sciences to scrutinize the work of the federal biologists who wanted to protect the fish.

Smith said he told Cheney that he thought that was a roll of the dice. Academy panels are independently appointed, receive no payment and must reach a conclusion that can withstand peer review.

"It worried me that these are individuals who are unreachable," Smith said of the academy members. But Cheney was firm, expressing no such concerns about the result. "He felt we had to match the science."

Smith also wasn't sure that the Klamath case -- "a small place in a small corner of the country" -- would meet the science academy's rigorous internal process for deciding what to study. Cheney took care of that. "He called them and said, 'Please look at this, it's important,'" Smith said. "Everyone just went flying at it."

William Kearney, a spokesman for the National Academies, said he was unaware of any direct contact from Cheney on the matter. The official request came from the Interior Department, he said.

It was Norton who announced the review, and it was Bush and his political adviser Karl Rove who traveled to Oregon in February 2002 to assure farmers that they had the administration's support. A month later, Cheney got what he wanted when the science academy delivered a preliminary report finding "no substantial scientific foundation" to justify withholding water from the farmers.

There was not enough clear evidence that proposed higher lake levels would benefit suckerfish, the report found. And it hypothesized that the practice of releasing warm lake water into the river during spawning season might do more harm than good to the coho, which thrive in lower temperatures. [Read the report.]

Norton flew to Klamath Falls in March to open the head gate as farmers chanted "Let the water flow!" And seizing on the report's draft findings, the Bureau of Reclamation immediately submitted a new decade-long plan to give the farmers their full share of water.

When the lead biologist for the National Marine Fisheries Service team critiqued the science academy's report in a draft opinion objecting to the plan, the critique was edited out by superiors and his objections were overruled, he said. The biologist, Michael Kelly, who has since quit the federal agency, said in a whistle-blower claim that it was clear to him that "someone at a higher level" had ordered his agency to endorse the proposal regardless of the consequences to the fish.


Enlarge PhotoAn estimated 77,000 salmon washed up on the banks of the Klamath River. Last year, the government declared a "commercial fishery failure" on the West Coast. Above, dead salmon line the banks of the Klamath River in Sept. 2002. APMonths later, the first of an estimated 77,000 dead salmon began washing up on the banks of the warm, slow-moving river. Not only were threatened coho dying -- so were chinook salmon, the staple of commercial fishing in Oregon and Northern California. State and federal biologists soon concluded that the diversion of water to farms was at least partly responsible.

Fishermen filed lawsuits and courts ruled that the new irrigation plan violated the Endangered Species Act. Echoing Kelly's objections, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit observed that the 10-year plan wouldn't provide enough water for the fish until year nine. By then, the 2005 opinion said, "all the water in the world" could not save the fish, "for there will be none to protect." In March 2006, a federal judge prohibited the government from diverting water for agricultural use whenever water levels dropped beneath a certain point.

Last summer, the federal government declared a "commercial fishery failure" on the West Coast after several years of poor chinook returns virtually shut down the industry, opening the way for Congress to approve more than $60 million in disaster aid to help fishermen recover their losses. That came on top of the $15 million that the government has paid Klamath farmers since 2002 not to farm, in order to reduce demand.

The science academy panel, in its final report, acknowledged that its draft report was "controversial," but it stood by its conclusions. Instead of focusing on the irrigation spigot, it recommended broad and expensive changes to improve fish habitat. [Read the final report]

"The farmers were grateful for our decision, but we made the decision based on the scientific outcome," said the panel chairman, William Lewis, a biologist at the University of Colorado at Boulder. "It just so happened the outcome favored the farmers."

But J.B. Ruhl, another member of the panel and a Florida State University law professor who specializes in endangered species cases, said the Bureau of Reclamation went "too far," making judgments that were not backed up by the academy's draft report. "The approach they took was inviting criticism," Ruhl said, "and I didn't think it was supported by our recommendations."

'More Pro-Industry'

Whitman, then head of the EPA, was on vacation with her family in Colorado when her cellphone rang. The vice president was on the line, and he was clearly irked.

Why was the agency dragging its feet on easing pollution rules for aging power and oil refinery plants?, Cheney wanted to know. An industry that had contributed heavily to the Bush-Cheney campaign was clamoring for change, and the vice president told Whitman that she "hadn't moved it fast enough," she recalled.

Whitman protested, warning Cheney that the administration had to proceed cautiously. It was August 2001, just seven months into the first term. We need to "document this according to the books," she said she told him, "so we don't look like we are ramrodding something through. Because it's going to court."

But the vice president's main concern was getting it done fast, she said, and "doing it in a way that didn't hamper industry."


Enlarge PhotoCheney's insistence on easing air pollution controls led Christine Todd Whitman, shown with Secretary of State Colin Powell and Cheney aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby, to resign as EPA administrator. Getty ImagesAt issue was a provision of the Clean Air Act known as the New Source Review, which requires older plants that belch millions of tons of smog and soot each year to install modern pollution controls when they are refurbished in a way that increases emissions.

Industry officials complained to the White House that even when they had merely performed routine maintenance and repairs, the Clinton administration hit them with violations and multimillion-dollar lawsuits. Cheney's energy task force ordered the EPA to reconsider the rule.

Whitman had already gone several rounds with the vice president over the issue.

She and Cheney first got to know each other in one of the Nixon administration's anti-poverty agencies, working under Donald H. Rumsfeld. When Cheney offered her the job in the Bush administration, the former New Jersey governor marveled at how far both had come. But as with Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill, another longtime friend who owed his Cabinet post to Cheney, Whitman's differences with the vice president would lead to her departure.

Sitting through Cheney's task force meetings, Whitman had been stunned by what she viewed as an unquestioned belief that EPA's regulations were primarily to blame for keeping companies from building new power plants. "I was upset, mad, offended that there seemed to be so much head-nodding around the table," she said.

Whitman said she had to fight "tooth and nail" to prevent Cheney's task force from handing over the job of reforming the New Source Review to the Energy Department, a battle she said she won only after appealing to White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. This was an environmental issue with major implications for air quality and health, she believed, and it shouldn't be driven by a task force primarily concerned with increasing production.

Whitman agreed that the exception for routine maintenance and repair needed to be clarified, but not in a way that undercut the ongoing Clinton-era lawsuits -- many of which had merit, she said.

Cheney listened to her arguments, and as usual didn't say much. Whitman said she also met with the president to "explain my concerns" and to offer an alternative.

She wanted to work a political trade with industry -- eliminating the New Source Review in return for support of Bush's 2002 "Clear Skies" initiative, which outlined a market-based approach to reducing emissions over time. But Clear Skies went nowhere. "There was never any follow-up," Whitman said, and moreover, there was no reason for industry to embrace even a modest pollution control initiative when the vice president was pushing to change the rules for nothing.

She decided to go back to Bush one last time. It was a crapshoot -- the EPA administrator had already been rolled by Cheney when the president reversed himself on a campaign promise to limit carbon dioxide emissions linked to global warming -- so she came armed with a political argument.

Whitman said she plunked down two sets of folders filled with news clips. This one, she said, pointing to a stack about 2-1/2 inches thick, contained articles, mostly negative, about the administration's controversial proposal to suspend tough new standards governing arsenic in drinking water. And this one, she said as she pointed to a pile four or five times as thick, are the articles about the rules on aging power plants and refineries -- and the administration hadn't even done anything yet.

"If you think arsenic was bad," she recalled telling Bush, "look at what has already been written about this."

But Whitman left the meeting with the feeling that "the decision had already been made." Cheney had a clear mandate from the president on all things energy-related, she said, and while she could take her case directly to Bush, "you leave and the vice president's still there. So together, they would then shape policy."

What happened next was "a perfect example" of that, she said.

The EPA sent rule revisions to White House officials. The read-back was that they weren't happy and "wanted something that would be more pro-industry," she said.

The end result, which she said was written at the direction of the White House and announced in August 2003, vastly broadened the definition of routine maintenance. It allowed some of the nation's dirtiest plants to make major modifications without installing costly new pollution controls.

By that time, Whitman had already announced her resignation, saying she wanted to spend more time with her family. But the real reason, she said, was the new rule.

"I just couldn't sign it," she said. "The president has a right to have an administrator who could defend it, and I just couldn't."

A federal appeals court has since found that the rule change violated the Clean Air Act. In their ruling, the judges said that the administration had redefined the law in a way that could be valid "only in a Humpty-Dumpty world."

Staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.

[BullNBear52]

A Strong Push From Backstage
By Jo Becker and Barton Gellman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, June 26, 2007; Page A01

Air Force Two touched down at the Greenbrier Valley Airport in West Virginia on Feb. 6, 2003, carrying Vice President Cheney to the annual retreat of Republican House and Senate leaders. He had come to sell them on the economic centerpiece of President Bush's first term: a $674 billion tax cut.


Enlarge PhotoWhen the president announced his economic package the day after this Cabinet meeting in January 2003, Cheney had one more thing to add. CorbisCheney had spent months making sure the package contained everything he wanted. One thing was missing.

The president had accepted Cheney's diagnosis that the sluggish economy needed a jolt, overruling senior economic advisers who forecast dangerous budget deficits. But Bush rejected one of Cheney's remedies: deep reductions in the capital gains tax on investments.

The vice president "was just hot on that," said Cesar Conda, then Cheney's domestic policy adviser. "It goes to show you: He wins and he loses, and he lost on that one."

Not for long.

As the Republican lawmakers debated in a closed-door session at the Greenbrier resort, the vice president revived the argument, touting his idea as a way to energize a stock market battered by scandals such as Enron. House allies inserted Cheney's cut into their package. But that came at the expense of one of Bush's priorities: abolishing the tax on stock dividends.

Cheney has changed history more than once, earning his reputation as the nation's most powerful vice president. His impact has been on public display in the arenas of foreign policy and homeland security, and in a long-running battle to broaden presidential authority. But he has also been the unseen hand behind some of the president's major domestic initiatives.

Scores of interviews with advisers to the president and vice president, as well as with other senior officials throughout the government, offer a backstage view of how the Bush White House operates. The president is "the decider," as Bush puts it, but the vice president often serves up his menu of choices.

Cheney led a group that winnowed the president's list of potential Supreme Court nominees. Cheney resolved a crisis in the space program after the Columbia shuttle disaster. Cheney fashioned a controversial truce between the legislative and executive branches -- and averted resignations at the top of the Justice Department and the FBI -- over the right of law enforcement authorities to investigate political corruption in Congress.

And it was Cheney who served as the guardian of conservative orthodoxy on budget and tax matters. He shaped and pushed through Bush's tax cuts, blunting the influence of Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, a longtime friend, and of Cabinet rivals he had played a principal role in selecting. He managed to overcome the president's "compassionate conservative" resistance to multiple breaks for the wealthy. He even orchestrated a decision to let a GOP senator switch parties -- giving control of the chamber to Democrats -- rather than meet the senator's demand for billions of dollars in new spending.

On the home front, the vice president is well known for leading a secretive task force on energy policy. But in a town where politicians routinely scurry for credit, Cheney more often kept his role concealed, even from top Bush advisers.

"A lot of it was a black box, and I think designedly so," said former Bush speechwriter David Frum. "It was like -- you know that experiment where you pass a magnet under the table and you see the iron filings on the top of the table move? You know there's a magnet there because of what you see happening, but you never see the magnet."

A 'More Effective Role'

When Bush tapped Cheney to be his running mate seven years ago, he chose a man who had put a great deal of thought into how a vice president can transform himself from a funeral-trotting figurehead into a center of real power.



RELATED STORY
Expanding Authority for No. 2 Spot
In 1980, as Ford was being wooed to run for vice president, Cheney played a key role in re-imagining the job. More »
Photo: President Bush and Vice President Cheney check their watches in the White House on Jan. 26, 2001, following the ceremonial swearing-in ceremony for Secretary of State Colin Powell. (White House via Reuters)As President Gerald R. Ford's chief of staff in the 1970s, Cheney saw firsthand how White House policies got shaped -- and how a vice president such as Nelson Rockefeller could become so marginalized as to be dumped from the ticket. Former Army secretary John O. Marsh Jr. said Cheney knew that he needed to control the process by which the president makes choices to ride "the rushing river of power" that winds through the West Wing to the Oval Office.

"Dick's major concern, one of them was, and I agree, that there needs to be a greater and more effective role for the vice president," Marsh, a longtime Cheney friend, said in an interview. "He holds the view, as do I, that the vice president should be the chief of staff in effect, that everything should run through his office."

In Bush, Cheney found the perfect partner. The president's willingness to delegate left plenty of room for his more detail-oriented vice president.

"My impression is that the president thinks that the Reagan style of leadership is best -- guiding the ship of state from high up on the mast," said former White House lawyer Bradford A. Berenson. "It seems to me that the vice president is more willing to get down in the wheelhouse below the decks."

When the space shuttle Columbia disintegrated over Texas on Feb. 1, 2003, for example, Bush was consumed with concern for the families of the seven dead astronauts. That left Cheney to make the first critical decisions about the future of manned spaceflight.

Even as the vice president and others were grappling with the invasion of Iraq, Cheney crafted a solution to the most pressing problem facing the space program, said former NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe, a Cheney protege.

With its shuttle fleet grounded, the space agency had no way to resupply the crew aboard the international space station, including two Americans. Russia was demanding $100 million to take up the slack. But Congress had barred space-related payments to Moscow unless the administration could certify that the Russians were not transferring banned technology to Iran for nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. Getting the law changed would take time, and could "open up a can of worms" with no guarantee that the result would be to the administration's liking, O'Keefe said.

The vice president's solution, he said, was to get around the law by cutting the deal as a barter. The Russians wouldn't charge the United States for the costs of flying to the space station, and in return, the Americans wouldn't charge the Russians for their share of some operating and equipment costs.

The vice president then took the lead in persuading the State Department to go along with the plan, which never came to public attention. "He helped frame how to do this without a major diplomatic dust-up," O'Keefe said.



RELATED STORY
Taking on the Supreme Court Case
When it came to vetting potential nominees, the vice president steered the selection committee. More »
Photo: The president meets with Supreme Court justices on Oct. 3, 2005. A day earlier, Cheney learned, through a Bush aide, that the president had nominated White House counsel Harriet E. Miers for a spot on the court. (AP)Last year, Cheney was behind another unprecedented and controversial deal that inserted the White House into an ongoing criminal probe.

When the FBI seized files from the office of Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) as part of a bribery investigation, House Republican leaders erupted. With a number of their own members under investigation for other matters, they charged that the search violated the Constitution. They demanded the return of the files.

Cheney quickly gravitated toward the House's position, aides said, but Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales; his top deputy, Paul J. McNulty; and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III threatened to resign if forced to hand over evidence they believed had been properly collected under a warrant.

White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten called a meeting on May 25, 2006, to resolve the political and legal crisis. The president's lawyers and congressional liaison were in the room, and so was Cheney. Once again, it was the vice president who came up with a solution, according to a participant. Cheney's plan met his goal of keeping the files from federal investigators. The files would be placed under seal for 45 days. Within hours of the meeting, Bush made Cheney's recommendation official. As often happens in government, delay was decisive. Jefferson was indicted earlier this month on 16 counts of bribery, racketeering, fraud, money laundering and obstruction of justice. But nearly half of the files remain off-limits, tied up in legal disputes.

Taking Options 'Off the Table'

Cheney's influence is manifested not just in crisis but also through his extraordinary involvement in the daily machinery of the White House.

The vice president chairs a budget review board, a panel the Bush administration created to set spending priorities and serve as arbiter when Cabinet members appeal decisions by White House budget officials. The White House has portrayed the board as a device to keep Bush from wasting time on petty disagreements, but previous administrations have seldom seen Cabinet-level disputes in that light. Cheney's leadership of the panel gives him direct and indirect power over the federal budget -- and over those who must live within it. [Read then-OMB Director Joshua Bolten's memo about the review board.]

Mitchell E. Daniels Jr., who served as Bush's budget director from 2001 to 2003 and is now governor of Indiana, said that during his tenure the number of times a Cabinet official made a direct budget appeal to Bush "was zero," which aides from previous administrations found "stunning," he added.

Daniels said he chalked that track record up to "the respect people had for the vice president." Cabinet members, he said, recognized that if the board didn't agree with them, "then the president wasn't likely to, either."

It is well known that Cheney is usually the last to speak to the president before Bush makes a decision. Less so is his role, to a degree unmatched by his predecessors, in steering debate by weighing in at the lower-level meetings where proposals are born and die.

Cheney, Bolten said, is a vocal participant at a weekly luncheon meeting of Bush's economic team, which gathers without the president. As the most senior official in the room, Cheney receives great deference from Bush's advisers.

Wise officials vet their proposals in advance. White House budget director Rob Portman, for instance, sought Cheney's counsel as he was putting together the budget for the upcoming year, using him as a "sounding board" on issues as varied as defense spending and tax reform.

"He never, ever has said to me, 'Do this.' Never. Which is interesting, because that might be the perception of how he operates," Portman said. "But it is 'What do you think of this?' Well, he's the vice president of the United States -- and obviously I'm interested in his point of view."

Perhaps more important than Cheney's influence in pushing policies is his power to stop them before they reach the Oval Office.

When Edward P. Lazear, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, broached the idea of limiting the popular mortgage tax deduction, he said he quickly dropped it after Cheney told him it would never fly with Congress. "He's a big timesaver for us in that he takes off the table a lot of things he knows aren't going to go anywhere," Lazear said.

Lazear, who is otherwise known as a fierce advocate for his views, said that he may argue a point with Cheney "for 10 minutes or so" but that in the end he is always convinced. "I can't think of a time when I have thought I was right and the vice president was wrong."

But Cheney is careful to choose which issues deserve his attention, preferring not to dissipate his influence. "Dick Cheney learned early on to say no to things that were peripheral to his primary interests or assignments," said his longtime friend David Gribbin.

Current and former White House officials say that the vice president has largely steered clear of hot-button issues such as stem cell research and Bush's "faith-based" initiative to funnel more federal money to religious groups. He is also savvy enough, they say, to retreat when the president expresses strong personal views.

Cheney sided with conservatives who wanted to urge the Supreme Court to reverse a landmark ruling that permitted affirmative action. But, former officials said, he did not press the case when the president, who as governor of Texas had run a state university system, made it clear that he intended to take a more limited and nuanced legal position.

Word of a Cheney loss seldom leaks, a trait that has further endeared him to Bush -- and that has served to exaggerate his influence. Former Cheney and Bush aides described several domestic policy defeats that never reached public notice.

Cheney shared conservative trepidations about the president's signature education initiative, the No Child Left Behind Act, which gave the federal government more control over K-12 education. He has griped privately to confidants, such as economist and CNBC host Lawrence Kudlow, about the administration's failure to control spending. And in robust internal White House discussions, he raised concerns about the cost of the administration's decision to expand Medicare to include a new multibillion-dollar drug entitlement, but bowed to the political reality that the president had to fulfill a campaign promise.

"At least in my area, he didn't have a 100 percent batting average," said Conda, the former domestic policy adviser.

In each case, however, Cheney was a loyal soldier, instrumental in helping to sell the president's policies on the Hill and to the Republican base.

"Dick once told me that our president is a 'big-government conservative,'" said former senator Phil Gramm (R-Tex.), in a recollection disputed by Cheney's office. "Now, Dick keeps his opinions to himself whenever he disagrees with the administration, as he should. But I believe that Dick is a small-government conservative."

'A Spine Quotient'

When Sen. James M. Jeffords (Vt.) threatened to bolt the GOP during negotiations over the president's 2001 tax package, senior Bush advisers and Republican senators were deeply split over whether to buy him off. It was a momentous decision -- a Jeffords defection would toss the Senate to Democratic control for the first time since 1994.

But in a contentious internal debate, the vice president forcefully argued that the administration should not capitulate by giving Jeffords the billions of dollars in special-education funding he sought, recalled O'Keefe, at the time deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget.

O'Keefe said Cheney argued that the White House should not sacrifice conservative principle in the face of Jeffords's threat by scaling back tax cuts dear to the GOP base in order to create an expensive new mandate. Gramm, who confirmed that account, said there would have been no end to such demands if the president had caved.

"The principle was 'Hell, we can't go around funding programs based on what some individual might do,'" said Gramm, who worked closely with Cheney during the negotiations.

By the end of the critical meeting, O'Keefe said, the divided group presented Cheney's view as the consensus recommendation to the president. Bush's $1.35 trillion tax cut passed, and Jeffords defected as promised.

Such stands by Cheney were not uncommon, said Bolten, the White House chief of staff. Cheney often stepped in if he sensed the administration was softening its commitment to Republican "first principles," Bolten said, and he was "a pretty vigorous voice for holding the line on spending and for holding the line on tax cuts." Longtime Cheney adviser Mary Matalin said the vice president brings a "spine quotient" to internal debates.

Cheney's power derives in part from meticulous preparation paired with a strong will to prevail. He knows what he wants, and as one rival put it, Cheney and his staff are "just ferocious negotiators."

The vice president regularly convenes a kitchen cabinet of diverse outside economic experts, often before the president is about to make a major decision. Members of the group describe a man who enjoys the nitty-gritty of economics, poring over charts of obscure data such as freight-car loadings and quizzing experts on the subtle ways the government can influence the economy.

"With the president it was much shorter. It's 'Marty, what do you think of where we stand today?'" said Martin Feldstein, a Harvard economics professor and the president and chief executive of the National Bureau of Economic Research. "It's also a less technical presentation."

R. Glenn Hubbard, Bush's former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, said of Cheney: "I'd have conversations with him that were at a level of detail that those with the president were not."

In the weeks following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, as the White House was putting together an economic recovery package, Cheney gathered his kitchen cabinet, frequently interrupting the experts as he furiously jotted notes on a stack of cards embossed with the vice presidential seal. What kind of tax cuts are needed? Cheney wanted to know. How big?

A few days later, Cheney was "on fire" when he met with the president, Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, later told Conda. Cheney had decided that the best way to shake business leaders out of their post-attack paralysis was to let them immediately write off the cost of new plants and equipment. After hearing him out, Bush made Cheney's idea a centerpiece of his plan.

In previous administrations, such initiatives typically have been generated by the Treasury Department or the White House economic team. But Cheney has made the vice president's office a hub of tax policy, enabled by the fact that "this president appears to want to have Treasury take the orders from the White House," said John H. Makin, an economist and an informal Cheney adviser.

All this put Cheney in a position to outflank some of Bush's top advisers, and even his old friend Greenspan, to shape the administration's signature tax package: the 2003 cuts that Cheney sold at the Greenbrier resort in West Virginia.

'The President Made the Call'

As far as Greenspan knew, the vice president agreed with him on the danger of the tax package Bush was contemplating. The Federal Reserve chairman worried that the sheer size of the cuts would drown the federal budget in red ink.


Enlarge PhotoWhen Bush met with Alan Greenspan, Cheney was almost always present. Behind the scenes, the vice president took steps to undermine a study the Federal Reserve chairman gave him that could threaten the 2003 tax cuts. APCheney and Greenspan met regularly, far more often than the Fed chief met with Bush, according to interviews and Greenspan's calendar. And when the president did meet with Greenspan, Cheney was nearly always in the room.

The vice president and the Fed chairman had formed a close bond when both served in the Ford administration. The Fed chief saw the vice president as a conduit to a president he did not know nearly as well, someone he could trust to fairly present his views to Bush.

So Greenspan sent Cheney a study by one of the central bank's senior economists showing that big deficits lead to higher long-term interest rates, according to a person with firsthand knowledge. Higher rates, Greenspan believed, would wipe out any short-term benefit from a tax cut.

In subsequent meetings with the Fed chief, Cheney never took issue with the study. What Greenspan did not know was that, behind the scenes, the vice president took steps to undermine an argument that could threaten the big tax cut he favored. Conda, the vice president's aide, said Cheney asked him to critique the study. Conda attached his own memo arguing that the Fed's analytical model was flawed. He said "it wasn't my job to know" what Cheney did with the paperwork, but noted that Greenspan's study did not gain traction inside the White House.

Aside from Greenspan, Cheney had faced down opposition from many of the administration's senior economic voices, including Daniels, Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill and Commerce Secretary Donald L. Evans. They believed that the economy was recovering and that a deep tax cut wasn't needed. Daniels said he worried that it would undermine the GOP message of fiscal discipline.

Cheney, however, pressed his argument that the economy needed a jump-start. He wanted not only to reduce the tax on dividends but also to cut the capital gains tax and accelerate income tax breaks for top earners, according to Daniels, Conda, Hubbard and others. Conda said Cheney subscribed to the view of supply-side economists that when government cuts taxes the economy grows, generating additional tax revenue that largely offsets the losses from lower tax rates.

The standoff came to a head in late November 2002, during a meeting in the Roosevelt Room.

O'Neill continued to oppose the tax cut on grounds that the government was moving toward "fiscal crisis," irritating Cheney. "The vice president really got a sense of where O'Neill was coming from and surmised it was a problem," Conda said. The following month, Cheney would demand O'Neill's resignation.

Bush sided with Cheney on the dividends tax but thought it would be better to eliminate it altogether. The president was cooler on the capital gains tax, according to Conda and others. And having campaigned on a platform of compassionate conservatism, he expressed doubts about giving another income tax break to the wealthiest Americans, particularly because they would benefit the most from the elimination of the dividends tax, Hubbard said.

But by the time Bush publicly announced his tax package on Jan. 7, 2003, Cheney lost on only one major count. The president included no reduction in the tax on capital gains. [Read the legislation: As first introduced in the House | As passed by Congress.]

"There was a question of priorities and how to fit things in," said Karl Rove, Bush's chief political adviser. "And ultimately the president made the call."

It was then that Cheney doubled back at the Greenbrier retreat.

"We were deciding how to proceed," recalled Rep. Adam H. Putnam (Fla.), now the third-ranking Republican in the House. "Are we going to put all our eggs in the dividends basket, or are we going to move on capital gains? As I recall, he was a very strong advocate on both counts, but particularly capital gains in terms of its potential to unleash the economy."

In the end, the House decided against eliminating the dividends tax cut, as Bush had wanted, choosing instead to just reduce the rate to make room for a capital gains cut.

Bill Thomas, the California Republican who guided the final bill to passage as chairman of the House tax-writing committee, said he and Cheney go way back and "use each other in the best sense," with the two men deciding which one will make a proposal and which will speak up in its support.

In the case of the capital gains proposal, Cheney pitched it to the Greenbrier gathering. Thomas pitched it to the White House, and he credited the vice president with persuading Bush to go along. "That," Thomas said, "is why the administration changed its position."

The vote in the Senate was 51 to 50. Cheney, exercising his only formal power under the Constitution, cast the tie-breaking vote.

Staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.

[BullNBear52]

Pushing the Envelope on Presidential Power
Web Q&A:
» Reporter Barton Gellman, was online on Monday, June 25, to answer readers' questions about the Cheney series. Read the Q&A transcript.

By Barton Gellman and Jo Becker
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, June 25, 2007

Shortly after the first accused terrorists reached the U.S. naval prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, on Jan. 11, 2002, a delegation from CIA headquarters arrived in the Situation Room. The agency presented a delicate problem to White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales, a man with next to no experience on the subject. Vice President Cheney's lawyer, who had a great deal of experience, sat nearby.

The meeting marked "the first time that the issue of interrogations comes up" among top-ranking White House officials, recalled John C. Yoo, who represented the Justice Department. "The CIA guys said, 'We're going to have some real difficulties getting actionable intelligence from detainees'" if interrogators confined themselves to treatment allowed by the Geneva Conventions.

From that moment, well before previous accounts have suggested, Cheney turned his attention to the practical business of crushing a captive's will to resist. The vice president's office played a central role in shattering limits on coercion of prisoners in U.S. custody, commissioning and defending legal opinions that the Bush administration has since portrayed as the initiatives, months later, of lower-ranking officials.


Enlarge PhotoThe vice president's office pushed a policy of robust interrogation that made its way to the U.S. naval prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, above, and Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. More Cheney photos...Cheney and his allies, according to more than two dozen current and former officials, pioneered a novel distinction between forbidden "torture" and permitted use of "cruel, inhuman or degrading" methods of questioning. They did not originate every idea to rewrite or reinterpret the law, but fresh accounts from participants show that they translated muscular theories, from Yoo and others, into the operational language of government.

A backlash beginning in 2004, after reports of abuse leaked out of Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and Guantanamo Bay, brought what appeared to be sharp reversals in courts and Congress -- for Cheney's claims of executive supremacy and for his unyielding defense of what he called "robust interrogation."

But a more careful look at the results suggests that Cheney won far more than he lost. Many of the harsh measures he championed, and some of the broadest principles undergirding them, have survived intact but out of public view.



RELATED STORY
Presidential Power
Dick Cheney's views on executive supremacy -- like many of his core beliefs about foreign policy and defense -- have held remarkably steady over the years. More »The vice president's unseen victories attest to traits that are often ascribed to him but are hard to demonstrate from the public record: thoroughgoing secrecy, persistence of focus, tactical flexibility in service of fixed aims and close knowledge of the power map of government. On critical decisions for more than six years, Cheney has often controlled the pivot points -- tipping the outcome when he could, engineering stalemate when he could not and reopening debates that rivals thought were resolved.

"Once he's taken a position, I think that's it," said James A. Baker III, who has shared a hunting tent with Cheney more than once and worked with him under three presidents. "He has been pretty damn good at accumulating power, extraordinarily effective and adept at exercising power."

'At Any Time and in Any Place'
David S. Addington, Cheney's general counsel, set the new legal agenda in a blunt memorandum shortly after the CIA delegation returned to Langley. Geneva's "strict limits on questioning of enemy prisoners," he wrote on Jan. 25, 2002, hobbled efforts "to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists."

No longer was the vice president focused on procedural rights, such as access to lawyers and courts. The subject now was more elemental: How much suffering could U.S. personnel inflict on an enemy to make him talk? Cheney's lawyer feared that future prosecutors, with motives "difficult to predict," might bring criminal charges against interrogators or Bush administration officials.

Geneva rules forbade not only torture but also, in equally categorical terms, the use of "violence," "cruel treatment" or "humiliating and degrading treatment" against a detainee "at any time and in any place whatsoever." The War Crimes Act of 1996 made any grave breach of those restrictions a U.S. felony [Read the act]. The best defense against such a charge, Addington wrote, would combine a broad presidential directive for humane treatment, in general, with an assertion of unrestricted authority to make exceptions.

The vice president's counsel proposed that President Bush issue a carefully ambiguous directive. Detainees would be treated "humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of" the Geneva Conventions. When Bush issued his public decision two weeks later, on Feb. 7, 2002, he adopted Addington's formula -- with all its room for maneuver -- verbatim.

In a radio interview last fall, Cheney said, "We don't torture." What he did not acknowledge, according to Alberto J. Mora, who served then as the Bush-appointed Navy general counsel, was that the new legal framework was designed specifically to avoid a ban on cruelty. In international law, Mora said, cruelty is defined as "the imposition of severe physical or mental pain or suffering." He added: "Torture is an extreme version of cruelty."

How extreme? Yoo was summoned again to the White House in the early spring of 2002. This time the question was urgent. The CIA had captured Abu Zubaida, then believed to be a top al-Qaeda operative, on March 28, 2002. Case officers wanted to know "what the legal limits of interrogation are," Yoo said.

This previously unreported meeting sheds light on the origins of one of the Bush administration's most controversial claims. The Justice Department delivered a classified opinion on Aug. 1, 2002, stating that the U.S. law against torture "prohibits only the worst forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" and therefore permits many others. [Read the opinion] Distributed under the signature of Assistant Attorney General Jay S. Bybee, the opinion also narrowed the definition of "torture" to mean only suffering "equivalent in intensity" to the pain of "organ failure ..... or even death."

When news accounts unearthed that opinion nearly two years later, the White House repudiated its contents. Some officials described it as hypothetical, without disclosing that the opinion was written in response to specific questions from the CIA. Administration officials attributed authorship to Yoo, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley who had come to serve in the Office of Legal Counsel.

But the "torture memo," as it became widely known, was not Yoo's work alone. In an interview, Yoo said that Addington, as well as Gonzales and deputy White House counsel Timothy E. Flanigan, contributed to the analysis.

The vice president's lawyer advocated what was considered the memo's most radical claim: that the president may authorize any interrogation method, even if it crosses the line into torture. U.S. and treaty laws forbidding any person to "commit torture," that passage stated, "do not apply" to the commander in chief, because Congress "may no more regulate the President's ability to detain and interrogate enemy combatants than it may regulate his ability to direct troop movements on the battlefield."

That same day, Aug. 1, 2002, Yoo signed off on a second secret opinion, the contents of which have never been made public. According to a source with direct knowledge, that opinion approved as lawful a long list of interrogation techniques proposed by the CIA -- including waterboarding, a form of near-drowning that the U.S. government has prosecuted as a war crime since at least 1901. The opinion drew the line against one request: threatening to bury a prisoner alive.

Yoo said for the first time in an interview that he verbally warned lawyers for the president, Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld that it would be a risky policy to permit military interrogators to use the harshest techniques, because the armed services, vastly larger than the CIA, could overuse the tools or exceed the limits. "I always thought that only the CIA should do this, but people at the White House and at DOD felt differently," Yoo said. The migration of those techniques from the CIA to the military, and from Guantanamo Bay to Abu Ghraib, aroused worldwide condemnation when abuse by U.S. troops was exposed.

Through is spokeswoman, Tasia Scolinos, Gonzales declined a request for an interview about his time in the White House counsel's office and his interactions with Cheney. The vice president's spokeswoman, Lea Anne McBride, declined to comment on Yoo's recollection.


Enlarge PhotoCheney and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice confer in February 2002, around the time that detainee interrogation limits were being discussed. Rice wouldn't learn about the 'torture memo' until June 2004. More Cheney photos...On June 8, 2004, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell learned of the two-year-old torture memo for the first time from an article in The Washington Post [Read the article]. According to a former White House official with firsthand knowledge, they confronted Gonzales together in his office.

Rice "very angrily said there would be no more secret opinions on international and national security law," the official said, adding that she threatened to take the matter to the president if Gonzales kept them out of the loop again. Powell remarked admiringly, as they emerged, that Rice dressed down the president's lawyer "in full Nurse Ratched mode," a reference to the head nurse of the mental hospital in the 1975 film "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest."

Neither of them took their objections to Cheney, the official said, a much more dangerous course.

'His Client, the Vice President'
In the summer and fall of 2002, some of the Bush administration's leading lawyers began to warn that Cheney and his Pentagon allies had set the government on a path for defeat in court. As the judicial branch took up challenges to the president's assertion of wartime power, Justice Department lawyers increasingly found themselves defending what they believed to be losing positions -- directed by the vice president and his staff. One of the uneasy lawyers was Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson , a conservative stalwart whose wife, Barbara, had died on Sept. 11, 2001 when the hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. Olson shared Cheney's robust view of executive authority, but his job was to win cases. Two that particularly worried him involved U.S. citizens -- Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi -- who had been declared enemy combatants and denied access to lawyers.

Federal courts, Olson argued, would not go along with that. But the CIA and military interrogators opposed any outside contact, fearing relief from the isolation and dependence that they relied upon to break the will of suspected terrorists.

Flanigan said that Addington's personal views leaned more toward Olson than against him, but that Addington beat back the proposal to grant detainees access to lawyers, "because that was the position of his client, the vice president."

Decision time came in a heated meeting in Gonzales's corner office on the West Wing's second floor, according to four officials with direct knowledge, none of whom agreed to be quoted by name about confidential legal deliberations. Olson was backed by associate White House counsel Bradford A. Berenson , a former law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.

Berenson told colleagues that the court's swing voter would never accept absolute presidential discretion to declare a U.S. citizen an enemy and lock him up without giving him an opportunity to be represented and heard. Another former Kennedy clerk, White House lawyer Brett Kavanaugh, had made the same argument earlier.

Addington accused Berenson of surrendering executive power on a fool's prophecy about an inscrutable court. Berenson accused Addington of "know-nothingness."

Gonzales listened quietly as the Justice Department and his own staff lined up against Addington. Then he decided in favor of Cheney's lawyer.

John D. Ashcroft, who was attorney general at the time, declined to discuss details of the dispute but said the vice president's views "carried a great deal of weight. He was the E.F. Hutton in the room. When he talked, everybody would listen." Cheney, he said, "compelled people to think carefully about whatever he mentioned."

When a U.S. District Court ruled several months later that Padilla had a right to counsel, Cheney's office insisted on sending Olson's deputy, Paul Clement, on what Justice Department lawyers called "a suicide mission": to tell Judge Michael B. Mukasey that he had erred so grossly that he should retract his decision. Mukasey derided the government's "pinched legalism" and added acidly that his order was "not a suggestion or request."

Cheney's strategy fared worse in the Supreme Court, where two cases arrived for oral argument alongside Padilla's on April 28, 2004.

For months, Olson and his Justice Department colleagues had pleaded for modest shifts that would shore up the government's position. Hamdi, the American, had languished in a Navy brig for two and a half years with out a hearing or a lawyer. Shafiq Rasul, a British citizen at Guantanamo Bay, had been held even longer. Olson could make Cheney's argument that courts had no jurisdiction, but he wanted to "show them that you at least have some system of due process in place" to ensure against wrongful detention, according to a senior Justice Department official who closely followed the debates.

Addington, the vice president's counsel fought and won again. He argued that any declaration of binding rules would restrict the freedom of future presidents and open the door to further lawsuits. On June 28, 2004, the Supreme Court ruled 8 to 1 in the Hamdi case that detainees must have a lawyer and an opportunity to challenge their status as enemy combatants before a "neutral decision maker." The Rasul decision, the same day, held 6 to 3 that Guantanamo Bay is not beyond the reach of federal law.

Eleven days later, Olson stepped down as solicitor general. His deputy succeeded him. What came next was a reminder that it does not pay to cross swords with the vice president.

Ashcroft, with support from Gonzales, proposed a lawyer named Patrick Philbin for deputy solicitor general. Philbin was among the authors of the post-Sept. 11 legal revolution, devising arguments to defend Cheney's military commissions and the denial of habeas corpus rights at Guantanamo Bay. But he had tangled with the vice president's office now and then, objecting to the private legal channel between Addington and Yoo and raising questions about domestic surveillance by the National Security Agency.

Cheney's lawyer passed word that Philbin was an unsatisfactory choice. The attorney general and White House counsel abandoned their candidate.

"OVP plays hardball," said a high-ranking former official who followed the episode, referring to the office of the vice president. "No one would defend Philbin."

'Administration Policy'
Rumsfeld, Cheney's longtime friend and mentor, gathered his senior subordinates at the Pentagon in the summer of 2005. He warned them to steer clear of Senate Republicans John McCain, John W. Warner and Lindsay O. Graham, who were drafting a bill to govern the handling of terrorism suspects.

"Rumsfeld made clear, emphatically, that the vice president had the lead on this issue," said a former Pentagon official with direct knowledge.


Enlarge PhotoDefense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, a longtime Cheney mentor, tours Abu Ghraib in May 2004. In 2005, he made it clear that Cheney 'has the lead on this issue,' said a Pentagon official, referring to the treatment of detainees More Cheney photos...Though his fingerprints were not apparent, Cheney had already staked out a categorical position for the president. It came in a last-minute insert to a "statement of administration policy" by the Office of Management and Budget, where Nancy Dorn, Cheney's former chief of legislative affairs, was deputy director. Without normal staff clearance, according to two Bush administration officials, the vice president's lawyer added a paragraph -- just before publication on July 21, 2005 -- to the OMB's authoritative guidance on the 2006 defense spending bill [Read the document].

"The Administration strongly opposes" any amendment to "regulate the detention, treatment or trial of terrorists captured in the war on terror," the statement said. Before most Bush administration officials even became aware that the subject was under White House review, Addington wrote that "the President's senior advisers would recommend that he veto" any such bill.

Among those taken unawares was Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon R. England. More than a year had passed since Bush expressed "deep disgust" over the abuse photographed at Abu Ghraib, and England told aides it was past time to issue clear rules for U.S. troops.

In late August 2005, England called a meeting of nearly three dozen Pentagon officials, including the vice chief and top uniformed lawyer for each military branch. Matthew Waxman, the deputy assistant secretary for detainee affairs, set the agenda.

Waxman said that the president's broadly stated order of Feb. 7, 2002 -- which called for humane treatment, "subject to military necessity" -- had left U.S. forces unsure about how to behave. The Defense Department, he said, should clarify its bedrock legal requirements with a directive incorporating the language of Geneva's Common Article 3 [Read Common Article 3]. That was exactly the language -- prohibiting cruel, violent, humiliating and degrading treatment -- that Cheney had spent three years expunging from U.S. policy.

"Every vice chief came out strongly in favor, as did every JAG," or judge advocate general, recalled Mora, who was Navy general counsel at the time.

William J. Haynes II, a close friend of Addington's who served as Rumsfeld's general counsel, was one of two holdouts in the room. The other was Stephen A. Cambone, Rumsfeld's undersecretary for intelligence.

Waxman, believing his opponents isolated, circulated a draft of DOD Directive 2310. Within a few days, Addington and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's chief of staff, invited Waxman for a visit.

According to Mora, Waxman returned from the meeting with the message that his draft was "unacceptable to the vice president's office." Another defense official, who made notes of Waxman's report, said Cheney's lawyer ridiculed the vagueness of the Geneva ban on "outrages upon personal dignity," saying it would leave U.S. troops timid in the face of unpredictable legal risk. When Waxman replied that the official White House policy was far more opaque, according to the report, Addington accused him of trying to replace the president's decision with his own.

"The impact of that meeting is that Directive 2310 died," Mora said.

'Total Indifference to Public Opinion'
Over the next 12 months, Congress and the Supreme Court imposed many of the restrictions that Cheney had squelched.

"The irony with the Cheney crowd pushing the envelope on presidential power is that the president has now ended up with lesser powers than he would have had if they had made less extravagant, monarchical claims," said Bruce Fein, an associate deputy attorney general under President Ronald Reagan.

Flanigan, a founding member of that crowd, said he still believes that Addington and Yoo were right in their "application of generally accepted constitutional principles." But he acknowledged that many battles ended badly. "The Supreme Court," Flanigan said, "decided to change the rules."

Even so, Cheney's losses were not always as they appeared.

On Oct. 5, 2005, the Senate voted 90 to 9 in favor of McCain's Detainee Treatment Act, which included the Geneva language [Read the bill]. It was, by any measure, a rebuke to Cheney. Bush signed the bill into law. "Well, I don't win all the arguments," Cheney told the Wall Street Journal.

Yet he and Addington found a roundabout path to the exceptions they sought for the CIA, as allies in Congress made little-noticed adjustments to the bill.

The final measure confined only the Defense Department to the list of interrogation techniques specified in a new Army field manual. No techniques were specified for CIA officers, who were forbidden only in general terms to employ "cruel" or "inhuman" methods. Crucially, the new law said those words would be interpreted in light of U.S. constitutional law. That made a big difference to Cheney.

The Supreme Court has defined cruelty as an act that "shocks the conscience" under the circumstances. Addington suggested, according to another government lawyer, that harsh methods would be far less shocking under circumstances involving a mass-casualty terrorist threat. Cheney may have alluded to that advice in an interview with ABC's "Nightline" on Dec. 18, 2005, saying that "what shocks the conscience" is to some extent "in the eye of the beholder."

Eager to put detainee scandals behind them, Bush's advisers spent days composing a statement in which the president would declare support for the veto-proof bill on detainee treatment. Hours before Bush signed it into law on Dec. 30, 2005, Cheney's lawyer intercepted the accompanying statement "and just literally takes his red pen all the way through it," according to an official with firsthand knowledge.

Addington substituted a single sentence. Bush, he wrote, would interpret the law "in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief."

Cheney's office had used that technique often. Like his boss, Addington disdained what he called "interagency treaties," one official said. He had no qualms about discarding language "agreed between Cabinet secretaries," the official said.

Top officials from the CIA, and the Justice, State and Defense departments unanimously opposed the substitution, according to two officials. John B. Bellinger III, the ranking national security lawyer at the White House, warned that Congress would view Addington's statement as a "stick in the eye" after weeks of consensus-building by national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley.

None of that mattered. With Cheney's weight behind it, White House counsel Harriet E. Miers sent Addington's version to Bush for his signature.

"The only person in Washington who cares less about his public image than David Addington is Dick Cheney," said a former White House ally. "What both of them miss is that ..... in times of war, a prerequisite for success is people having confidence in their leadership. This is the great failure of the administration -- a complete and total indifference to public opinion."

'Almost Everything' Cheney Wanted
On June 29, 2006, the Supreme Court struck its sharpest blow to the house that Cheney built, ruling 5 to 3 that the president had no lawful power to try alleged terrorists in military commissions [Read the opinion]. The tribunal order that Cheney brought to Bush's private dining room, and the game plan Cheney's lawyer wrote to defend it, fetched condemnation on disparate legal grounds. The majority relied, as Addington's critics foresaw, on Justice Kennedy's vote.

Not only did the court leave the president beholden to Congress for the authority to charge and punish terrorists, but it rejected a claim of implicit legislative consent that Bush was using elsewhere to justify electronic surveillance without a warrant. And not only did it find that Geneva's Common Article 3 protects "unlawful enemy combatants," but it also said that those protections -- including humane treatment and the right to a trial by "a regularly constituted court" -- were enforceable by federal judges in the United States.

The court's decision, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, was widely seen as a calamity for Cheney's war plan against al-Qaeda. As the Bush administration formed its response, the vice president's position appeared to decline further still.

White House strategists agreed that they had to submit legislation to undo the damage of the Hamdan case. Cheney and Addington, according to a former official with firsthand knowledge, favored a one-page bill. Their proposal would simply have stated that the Geneva Conventions confer no right of access to U.S. courts, stripped U.S. courts of jurisdiction over foreign nationals declared to be enemy combatants and affirmed the president's authority to create military commissions exactly as he had already done. Bush chose to spend the fall of 2006 negotiating a much more complex bill that became the Military Commissions Act.

The White House proposal, said Joshua B. Bolten, the chief of staff, "did not come out exactly as the vice president would have wanted."

In another reversal for Cheney, Bush acknowledged publicly on Sept. 6 that the CIA maintained secret prisons overseas for senior al-Qaeda detainees, a subject on which he had held his silence since The Post disclosed them late in 2005. The president announced that he had emptied the "black sites" and transferred their prisoners to Guantanamo Bay to be tried.

The same week, almost exactly a year after the vice president's office shelved Waxman's Pentagon plan, Waxman's successor dusted it off. DOD Directive 2310.01E, the Department of Defense Detainee Program, included the verbatim text of Geneva's Common Article 3 and described it, as Waxman had, as "a minimum standard for the care and treatment of all detainees." [Read the directive] The new Army field manual, published with the directive, said that interrogators were forbidden to employ a long list of techniques that had been used against suspected terrorists since Sept. 11, 2001 -- including stripping, hooding, inflicting pain and forcing the performance of sex acts.

For all the apparent setbacks, close observers said, Cheney has preserved his top-priority tools in the "war on terror." After a private meeting with Cheney, one of them said, Bush decided not to promise that there would be no more black sites -- and seven months later, the White House acknowledged that secret detention had resumed.

The Military Commissions Act, passed by strong majorities of the Senate and House on Sept. 28 and 29, 2006, gave "the office of the vice president almost everything it wanted," said Yoo, who maintained his contact with Addington after returning to a tenured position at Berkeley.

The new law withstood its first Supreme Court challenge on April 2. It exempts CIA case officers and other government employees from prosecution for past war crimes or torture. Once again, an apparently technical provision held great importance to Cheney and his allies.

Without repealing the War Crimes Act, which imposes criminal penalties for grave breaches of Geneva's humane-treatment standards, Congress said the president, not the Supreme Court, has final authority to decide what the standards mean -- and whether they even apply.

'I'd Like to Close Guantanamo'
Air Force Two touched down in Sydney this past Feb. 24. Cheney had come to discuss Iraq. Prime Minister John Howard brought the conversation around to an Australian citizen who had unexpectedly become a political threat.

Under pressure at home, Howard said he told Cheney that there must be a trial "with no further delay" for David Hicks, 31, who was beginning his sixth year at the U.S. naval prison at Guantanamo Bay. Five days later, Hicks was indicted as a war criminal. On March 26, he pleaded guilty to providing "material support" for terrorism.

At every stage since his capture, as he changed taxis at the Afghan-Pakistan border, Hicks had crossed a legal landscape that Cheney did more than anyone to reshape. He was Detainee 002 at Guantanamo Bay, arriving on opening day at an asserted no man's land beyond the reach of sovereign law. Interrogators questioned him under guidelines that gave legal cover to the infliction of pain and fear -- and, according to an affidavit filed by British lawyer Steven Grosz, Hicks was subjected to beatings, sodomy with a foreign object, sensory deprivation, disorienting drugs and prolonged shackling in painful positions.


Enlarge PhotoAnkle cuffs are seen locked to the floor of an interrogation room at Guantanamo Bay. The new legal framework for interrogations was designed to leave room for cruelty. More Cheney photos...The U.S. government denied those claims, and before accepting Hicks's guilty plea it required him to affirm that he had "never been illegally treated." But the tribunal's rules, written under principles Cheney advanced, would have allowed the Australian's conviction with evidence obtained entirely by "cruel, inhuman or degrading" techniques.

Shortly after Cheney returned from Australia, the Hicks case died with a whimper. The U.S. government abruptly shifted its stance in plea negotiations, dropping the sentence it offered from 20 years in prison to nine months if Hicks would say that he was guilty.

Only the dramatic shift to lenience, said Joshua Dratel, one of three defense lawyers, resolved the case in time to return Hicks to Australia before Howard faces reelection late this year. The deal, negotiated without the knowledge of the chief prosecutor, Air Force Col. Morris Davis, was supervised by Susan J. Crawford, the convening authority over military commissions. Crawford received her three previous government jobs from then-Defense Secretary Cheney -- she was appointed as his special adviser, Pentagon inspector general and then judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.

Yet the tactical retreat on Hicks, according to Bush administration officials, diverted attention from the continuity of U.S. policy on detainees.

A year after Bush announced at a news conference that "I'd like to close Guantanamo," the camp remains open and has been expanded. Senior officials said Cheney, with few allies left, has turned back strong efforts -- by Rice, England, new Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and former Bush speechwriter Mike Gerson, among others -- to give the president what he said he wants.

Cheney and his aides "didn't circumvent the process," one participant said. "They were just very effective in using it."

'This is a Dangerous World'
More than a year after Congress passed McCain-sponsored restrictions on the questioning of suspected terrorists, the Bush administration is still debating how far the CIA's interrogators may go in their effort to break down resistant detainees. Two officials said the vice president has deadlocked the debate.

Bush said last September that he would "work with" Congress to review "an alternative set of procedures" for "tough" -- but, he said, lawful -- interrogation. He did not promise to submit legislation or to report particulars to any oversight committee, and he has not done so.

Two questions remain, officials said. One involves techniques to be authorized now. The other is whether any technique should be explicitly forbidden.

According to participants in the debate, the vice president stands by the view that Bush need not honor any of the new judicial and legislative restrictions. His lawyer, they said, has recently restated Cheney's argument that when courts and Congress "purport to" limit the commander in chief's warmaking authority, he has the constitutional prerogative to disregard them.

If Cheney advocates a return to waterboarding, they said, they have not heard him say so. But his office has fought fiercely against an executive order or CIA directive that would make the technique illegal.

"That's just the vice president," said Gerson, the former speechwriter, referring to Cheney's October remark that "a dunk in the water" for terrorists -- a radio interviewer's term -- is "a no-brainer for me."

Gerson added: "It's principled. He's deeply conscious that this is a dangerous world, and he wants this president and future presidents to be able to deal with that. He feels very strongly about these things, and it's his great virtue and his weakness."

Staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.

[BullNBear52]

'A Different Understanding With the President'
Web Q&A: Monday, 1 p.m. ET
» Reporter Barton Gellman, will be online on Monday, June 25 to answer readers' questions about the Cheney series. Submit a Question Here.

By Barton Gellman and Jo Becker
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, June 24, 2007; Page A01

Just past the Oval Office, in the private dining room overlooking the South Lawn, Vice President Cheney joined President Bush at a round parquet table they shared once a week. Cheney brought a four-page text, written in strict secrecy by his lawyer. He carried it back out with him after lunch.

In less than an hour, the document traversed a West Wing circuit that gave its words the power of command. It changed hands four times, according to witnesses, with emphatic instructions to bypass staff review. When it returned to the Oval Office, in a blue portfolio embossed with the presidential seal, Bush pulled a felt-tip pen from his pocket and signed without sitting down. Almost no one else had seen the text.

Cheney's proposal had become a military order from the commander in chief. Foreign terrorism suspects held by the United States were stripped of access to any court -- civilian or military, domestic or foreign. They could be confined indefinitely without charges and would be tried, if at all, in closed "military commissions."

"What the hell just happened?" Secretary of State Colin L. Powell demanded, a witness said, when CNN announced the order that evening, Nov. 13, 2001. National security adviser Condoleezza Rice, incensed, sent an aide to find out. Even witnesses to the Oval Office signing said they did not know the vice president had played any part.


Enlarge PhotoVice President Cheney, standing behind the president's desk during a July 2003 meeting, circumvented Secretary of State Colin L. Powell in 2001 on the military commissions order. More Cheney photos...The episode was a defining moment in Cheney's tenure as the 46th vice president of the United States, a post the Constitution left all but devoid of formal authority. "Angler," as the Secret Service code-named him, has approached the levers of power obliquely, skirting orderly lines of debate he once enforced as chief of staff to President Gerald R. Ford. He has battled a bureaucracy he saw as hostile, using intimate knowledge of its terrain. He has empowered aides to fight above their rank, taking on roles reserved in other times for a White House counsel or national security adviser. And he has found a ready patron in George W. Bush for edge-of-the-envelope views on executive supremacy that previous presidents did not assert.

Over the past six years, Cheney has shaped his times as no vice president has before. This article begins a four-part series that explores his methods and impact, drawing on interviews with more than 200 men and women who worked for, with or in opposition to Cheney's office. Many of those interviewed recounted events that have not been made public until now, sharing notes,e-mails, personal calendars and other records of their interaction with Cheney and his senior staff. The vice president declined to be interviewed.

Two articles, today and tomorrow, recount Cheney's campaign to magnify presidential war-making authority, arguably his most important legacy. Articles to follow will describe a span of influence that extends far beyond his well-known interests in energy and national defense.

In roles that have gone largely undetected, Cheney has served as gatekeeper for Supreme Court nominees, referee of Cabinet turf disputes, arbiter of budget appeals, editor of tax proposals and regulator in chief of water flows in his native West. On some subjects, officials said, he has displayed a strong pragmatic streak. On others he has served as enforcer of ideological principle, come what may.

Cheney is not, by nearly every inside account, the shadow president of popular lore. Bush has set his own course, not always in directions Cheney preferred. The president seized the helm when his No. 2 steered toward trouble, as Bush did, in time, on military commissions. Their one-on-one relationship is opaque, a vital unknown in assessing Cheney's impact on events. The two men speak of it seldom, if ever, with others. But officials who see them together often, not all of them admirers of the vice president, detect a strong sense of mutual confidence that Cheney is serving Bush's aims.

The vice president's reputation and, some say, his influence, have suffered in the past year and a half. Cheney lost his closest aide, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, to a perjury conviction, and his onetime mentor, Donald H. Rumsfeld, in a Cabinet purge. A shooting accident in Texas, and increasing gaps between his rhetoric and events in Iraq, have exposed him to ridicule and approval ratings in the teens. Cheney expresses indifference, in public and private, to any verdict but history's, and those close to him say he means it.

Waxing or waning, Cheney holds his purchase on an unrivaled portfolio across the executive branch. Bush works most naturally, close observers said, at the level of broad objectives, broadly declared. Cheney, they said, inhabits an operational world in which means are matched with ends and some of the most important choices are made. When particulars rise to presidential notice, Cheney often steers the preparation of options and sits with Bush, in side-by-side wing chairs, as he is briefed.

Before the president casts the only vote that counts, the final words of counsel nearly always come from Cheney.

'The Go-To Guy on the Hill'
In his Park Avenue corner suite at Cerberus Global Investments, Dan Quayle recalled the moment he learned how much his old job had changed. Cheney had just taken the oath of office, and Quayle paid a visit to offer advice from one vice president to another.

"I said, 'Dick, you know, you're going to be doing a lot of this international traveling, you're going to be doing all this political fundraising . . . you'll be going to the funerals,' " Quayle said in an interview earlier this year. "I mean, this is what vice presidents do. I said, 'We've all done it.' "

Cheney "got that little smile," Quayle said, and replied, "I have a different understanding with the president."

"He had the understanding with President Bush that he would be -- I'm just going to use the word 'surrogate chief of staff,' " said Quayle, whose membership on the Defense Policy Board gave him regular occasion to see Cheney privately over the following four years.



RELATED STORY
From Wyoming to the White House
Dick Cheney, the 46th vice president of the United States, entered office with unique qualifications. More »Cheney, 66, grew up in Lincoln, Neb., and Casper, Wyo., acquiring a Westerner's passion for hunting and fishing but not for the Democratic politics of his parents. He wed his high school sweetheart, Lynne Vincent, beginning what friends describe as a lifelong love affair. Cheney flunked out of Yale but became a highly regarded PhD candidate in political science at the University of Wisconsin -- avoiding the Vietnam War draft with five deferments along the way -- before abandoning the doctoral program and heading to Washington as a junior congressional aide.

He went on to build an unmatched Washington resume as White House chief of staff, House minority whip and secretary of defense. An aversion to political glad-handing and a series of chronic health problems, including four heart attacks, helped derail his presidential ambitions and shifted his focus to a lucrative stint as chairman of Halliburton, an oil services company. His controlled demeanor, ranging mainly from a tight-lipped gaze to the trademark half-smile, conceals what associates call an impish sense of humor and unusual kindness to subordinates.

Cheney's influence in the Bush administration is widely presumed but hard to illustrate. Many of the men and women who know him best said an explanation begins with the way he defined his role.

As the Bush administration prepared to take office, "I remember at the outset, during the transition, thinking, 'What do vice presidents do?' " said White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten, who was then the Bush team's policy director. Bolten joined Libby, his counterpart in Cheney's office, to compile a list of "portfolios we thought might be appropriate." Their models, Bolten said, were Quayle's Council on Competitiveness and Al Gore's National Partnership for Reinventing Government.

"The vice president didn't particularly warm to that," Bolten recalled dryly.

Cheney preferred, and Bush approved, a mandate that gave him access to "every table and every meeting," making his voice heard in "whatever area the vice president feels he wants to be active in," Bolten said.

Cheney has used that mandate with singular force of will. Other recent vice presidents have enjoyed a standing invitation to join the president at "policy time." But Cheney's interventions have also come in the president's absence, at Cabinet and sub-Cabinet levels where his predecessors were seldom seen. He found pressure points and changed the course of events by "reaching down," a phrase that recurs often in interviews with current and former aides.


Enlarge PhotoThe president and vice president have their weekly lunch meeting in a private dining room just past the Oval Office in October 2001. A few weeks later, Cheney would bring a proposal written by his lawyer in strict secrecy. More Cheney photos...Mary Matalin, who was counselor to the vice president until 2003 and remains an informal adviser, described Cheney's portfolio as "the iron issues" -- a list that, as she defined it, comprises most of the core concerns of every recent president. Cheney took on "the economic issues, the security issues . . . the energy issues" -- and the White House legislative agenda, Matalin said, because he became "the go-to guy on the Hill." Other close aides noted, as well, a major role for Cheney in nominations and appointments.

As constitutional understudy, with no direct authority in the executive branch, Cheney has often worked through surrogates. Many of them owed their jobs to him.

While lawyers fought over the 2000 Florida ballot recount, with the presidential election in the balance, Cheney was already populating a prospective Bush administration. Brian V. McCormack, then his 26-year-old personal aide, said Cheney worked three cellphones from the round kitchen table of his townhouse in McLean, "making up lists" of nominees beginning with the secretaries of state, defense and the Treasury.

"His focus was that we need to prepare for the event that [the recount] comes out in our favor, because we will have a limited time frame," McCormack recalled.

Close allies found positions as chief and deputy chief of the Office of Management and Budget, deputy national security adviser, undersecretary of state, and assistant or deputy assistant secretary in numerous Cabinet departments. Other loyalists -- including McCormack, who progressed to assignments in Iraq's occupation authority and then on Bush's staff -- turned up in less senior, but still significant, posts.

In the years that followed, crossing Cheney would cost some of the same officials their jobs. David Gribben, a friend from graduate school who became the vice president's chief of legislative affairs, said Cheney believes in the "educational use of power." Firing a disloyal or poorly performing official, he said, sometimes "sends a signal crisply." Cheney believes he is "using his authority to serve the American people, and he's obviously not afraid to be a rough opponent," Gribben said.

A prodigious appetite for work, officials said, prepares Cheney to shape the president's conversations with others. His Secret Service detail sometimes reports that he is awake and reading at 4:30 a.m. He receives a private intelligence briefing between 6:30 and 7 a.m., often identifying issues to be called to Bush's attention, and then sits in on the president's daily briefing an hour later. Aides said that Cheney insists on joining Bush by secure video link, no matter how many time zones divide them.

Stealth is among Cheney's most effective tools. Man-size Mosler safes, used elsewhere in government for classified secrets, store the workaday business of the office of the vice president. Even talking points for reporters are sometimes stamped "Treated As: Top Secret/SCI." Experts in and out of government said Cheney's office appears to have invented that designation, which alludes to "sensitive compartmented information," the most closely guarded category of government secrets. By adding the words "treated as," they said, Cheney seeks to protect unclassified work as though its disclosure would cause "exceptionally grave damage to national security."



A document from the Office of the Vice President is stamped "Treated as Secret/SCI" More Cheney photos... Across the board, the vice president's office goes to unusual lengths to avoid transparency. Cheney declines to disclose the names or even the size of his staff, generally releases no public calendar and ordered the Secret Service to destroy his visitor logs. His general counsel has asserted that "the vice presidency is a unique office that is neither a part of the executive branch nor a part of the legislative branch," and is therefore exempt from rules governing either. Cheney is refusing to observe an executive order on the handling of national security secrets, and he proposed to abolish a federal office that insisted on auditing his compliance.

In the usual business of interagency consultation, proposals and information flow into the vice president's office from around the government, but high-ranking White House officials said in interviews that almost nothing flows out. Close aides to Cheney describe a similar one-way valve inside the office, with information flowing up to the vice president but little or no reaction flowing down.

All those methods would be on clear display when the "war on terror" began for Cheney after eight months in office.

A 'Triumvirate' and Its Leader
In a bunker beneath the East Wing of the White House, Cheney locked his eyes on CNN, chin resting on interlaced fingers. He was about to watch, in real time, as thousands were killed on Sept. 11, 2001.

Previous accounts have described Cheney's adrenaline-charged evacuation to the Presidential Emergency Operations Center that morning, a Secret Service agent on each arm. They have not detailed his reaction, 22 minutes later, when the south tower of the World Trade Center collapsed.

"There was a groan in the room that I won't forget, ever," one witness said. "It seemed like one groan from everyone" -- among them Rice; her deputy, Stephen J. Hadley; economic adviser Lawrence B. Lindsey; counselor Matalin; Cheney's chief of staff, Libby; and the vice president's wife.

Cheney made no sound. "I remember turning my head and looking at the vice president, and his expression never changed," said the witness, reading from a notebook of observations written that day. Cheney closed his eyes against the image for one long, slow blink.

Three people who were present, not all of them admirers, said they saw no sign then or later of the profound psychological transformation that has often been imputed to Cheney. What they saw, they said, was extraordinary self-containment and a rapid shift of focus to the machinery of power. While others assessed casualties and the work of "first responders," Cheney began planning for a conflict that would call upon lawyers as often as soldiers and spies.


Enlarge PhotoIn a bunker under the White House on Sept. 11, 2001, Cheney speaks to administration officials, including from far left, Joshua B. Bolten, Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin (standing), Condoleezza Rice and I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby (behind Rice) More Cheney photos.... More than any one man in the months to come, Cheney freed Bush to fight the "war on terror" as he saw fit, animated by their shared belief that al-Qaeda's destruction would require what the vice president called "robust interrogation" to extract intelligence from captured suspects. With a small coterie of allies, Cheney supplied the rationale and political muscle to drive far-reaching legal changes through the White House, the Justice Department and the Pentagon.

The way he did it -- adhering steadfastly to principle, freezing out dissent and discounting the risks of blow-back -- turned tactical victory into strategic defeat. By late last year, the Supreme Court had dealt three consecutive rebuffs to his claim of nearly unchecked authority for the commander in chief, setting precedents that will bind Bush's successors.

Yet even as Bush was forced into public retreats, an examination of subsequent events suggests that Cheney has quietly held his ground. Most of his operational agenda, in practice if not in principle, remains in place.

In expanding presidential power, Cheney's foremost agent was David S. Addington, his formidable general counsel and legal adviser of many years. On the morning of Sept. 11, Addington was evacuated from the Eisenhower Executive Office Building next to the White House and began to make his way toward his Virginia home on foot. As he neared the Arlington Memorial Bridge, someone in the White House reached him with a message: Turn around. The vice president needs you.

Down in the bunker, according to a colleague with firsthand knowledge, Cheney and Addington began contemplating the founding question of the legal revolution to come: What extraordinary powers will the president need for his response?

Before the day ended, Cheney's lawyer joined forces with Timothy E. Flanigan, the deputy White House counsel, linked by secure video from the Situation Room. Flanigan patched in John C. Yoo at the Justice Department's fourth-floor command center. White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales joined later.

Thus formed the core legal team that Cheney oversaw, directly and indirectly, after the terrorist attacks.

Yoo, a Berkeley professor-turned-deputy chief of the Office of Legal Counsel, became the theorist of an insurrection against legal limits on the commander in chief. Addington, backed by Flanigan, found levers of government policy and wrote the words that moved them.

"Addington, Flanigan and Gonzales were really a triumvirate," recalled Bradford A. Berenson, then an associate White House counsel. Yoo, he said, "was a supporting player."

Gonzales, a former Texas judge, had the seniority and the relationship with Bush. But Addington -- a man of imposing demeanor, intellect and experience -- dominated the group. Gonzales "was not a law-of-war expert and didn't have very developed views," Yoo recalled, echoing blunter observations by the Texan's White House colleagues.

Cheney 'Has the Portfolio'
Flanigan, with advice from Yoo, drafted the authorization for use of military force that Congress approved on Sept. 18. [Read the authorization document] Yoo said they used the broadest possible language because "this war was so different, you can't predict what might come up."

In fact, the triumvirate knew very well what would come next: the interception -- without a warrant -- of communications to and from the United States. Forbidden by federal law since 1978, the surveillance would soon be justified, in secret, as "incident to" the authority Congress had just granted. Yoo was already working on that memo, completing it on Sept. 25.

It was an extraordinary step, bypassing Congress and the courts, and its authors kept it secret from officials who were likely to object. Among the excluded was John B. Bellinger III, a man for whom Cheney's attorney had "open contempt," according to a senior government lawyer who saw them often. The eavesdropping program was directly within Bellinger's purview as ranking national security lawyer in the White House, reporting to Rice. Addington had no line responsibility. But he had Cheney's proxy, and more than once he accused Bellinger, to his face, of selling out presidential authority for good "public relations" or bureaucratic consensus.

Addington, who seldom speaks to reporters, declined to be interviewed.

"David is extremely principled and dedicated to doing what he feels is right, and can be a very tough customer when he perceives others as obstacles to achieving those goals," Berenson said. "But it's not personal in the sense that 'I don't like you.' It's all about the underlying principle."

Bryan Cunningham, Bellinger's former deputy, said: "Bellinger didn't know. That was a mistake." Cunningham said Rice's lawyer would have recommended vetting the surveillance program with the secret court that governs intelligence intercepts -- a step the Bush administration was forced to take five years later.



Post 9/11 Timeline
'A Muscular Response'
Vice President Cheney, more than any one man, freed President Bush to aggressively fight the "war on terror." With a small coterie of allies, Cheney supplied the rationale and political muscle to drive far-reaching legal changes through the White House, Justice Department and Pentagon. More »On Oct. 25, 2001, the chairmen and ranking minority members of the intelligence committees were summoned to the White House for their first briefing on the eavesdropping and were told that it was one of the government's most closely compartmented secrets. Under Presidents George H.W. Bush or Bill Clinton, officials said, a conversation of that gravity would involve the commander in chief. But when the four lawmakers arrived in the West Wing lobby, an aide led them through the door on the right, away from the Oval Office.

"We met in the vice president's office," recalled former senator Bob Graham (D-Fla.). Bush had told Graham already, when the senator assumed the intelligence panel chairmanship, that "the vice president should be your point of contact in the White House." Cheney, the president said, "has the portfolio for intelligence activities."

'Oh, By the Way'
By late October, the vice president and his allies were losing patience with the Bush administration's review of a critical question facing U.S. forces in Afghanistan and elsewhere: What should be done with captured fighters from al-Qaeda and the Taliban? Federal trials? Courts-martial? Military commissions like the ones used for Nazis under President Franklin D. Roosevelt?

Cheney's staff did not reply to invitations to join the interagency working group led by Pierre Prosper, ambassador at large for war crimes. But Addington, the vice president's lawyer, knew what his client wanted, Berenson said. And Prosper's group was still debating details. "Once you start diving into it, and history has proven us right, these are complicated questions," one regular participant said.

The vice president saw it differently. "The interagency was just constipated," said one Cheney ally, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Flanigan recalled a conversation with Addington at the time in which the two discussed the salutary effect of showing bureaucrats that the president could act "without their blessing -- and without the interminable process that goes along with getting that blessing."

Throughout his long government career, Cheney had counseled against that kind of policy surprise, insisting that unvetted decisions lead presidents to costly mistakes.



RELATED DOCUMENT
Cheney's Advice to Baker
Advice from Cheney to then incoming presidential chief of staff James A. Baker filled four pages of a yellow legal pad. View the actual notes and a transcript. More »When James A. Baker III was tapped to be White House chief of staff in 1980, he interviewed most of his living predecessors. Advice from Cheney filled four pages of a yellow legal pad. Only once, to signify Cheney's greatest emphasis, did Baker write in all capital letters:

BE AN HONEST BROKER

DON'T USE THE PROCESS TO IMPOSE YOUR POLICY VIEWS ON PRES.

Cheney told Baker, according to the notes, that an "orderly paper flow is way you protect the Pres.," ensuring that any proposal has been tested against other views. Cheney added:

"It's not in anyone's interest to get an 'oh by the way decision' -- & all have to understand that. Can hurt the Pres. Bring it up at a Cab. mtg. Make sure everyone understands this."
In 1999, not long before he became Bush's running mate, Cheney warned again about "'oh, by the way' decisions" at a conference of White House historians. According to a transcript, he added: "The process of moving paper in and out of the Oval Office, who gets involved in the meetings, who does the president listen to, who gets a chance to talk to him before he makes a decision, is absolutely critical. It has to be managed in such a way that it has integrity."

Two years later, at his Nov. 13 lunch with Bush, Cheney brought the president the ultimate "oh, by the way" choice -- a far-reaching military order that most of Bush's top advisers had not seen.

According to Flanigan, Addington was not the first to think of military commissions but was the "best scholar of the FDR-era order" among their small group of trusted allies. "He gained a preeminent role by virtue of his sheer ability to turn out a draft of something in quick time."

That draft, said one of the few lawyers apprised of it, "was very closely held because it was coming right from the top."

'In Support of the President'
To pave the way for the military commissions, Yoo wrote an opinion on Nov. 6, 2001, declaring that Bush did not need approval from Congress or federal courts. Yoo said in an interview that he saw no need to inform the State Department, which hosts the archives of the Geneva Conventions and the government's leading experts on the law of war. "The issue we dealt with was: Can the president do it constitutionally?" Yoo said. "State -- they wouldn't have views on that."

Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, was astonished to learn that the draft gave the Justice Department no role in choosing which alleged terrorists would be tried in military commissions. Over Veterans Day weekend, on Nov. 10, he took his objections to the White House.

The attorney general found Cheney, not Bush, at the broad conference table in the Roosevelt Room. According to participants, Ashcroft said that he was the president's senior law enforcement officer, supervised the FBI and oversaw terrorism prosecutions nationwide. The Justice Department, he said, had to have a voice in the tribunal process. He was enraged to discover that Yoo, his subordinate, had recommended otherwise -- as part of a strategy to deny jurisdiction to U.S. courts.

Raising his voice, participants said, Ashcroft talked over Addington and brushed aside interjections from Cheney. "The thing I remember about it is how rude, there's no other word for it, the attorney general was to the vice president," said one of those in the room. Asked recently about the confrontation, Ashcroft replied curtly: "I'm just not prepared to comment on that."

According to Yoo and three other officials, Ashcroft did not persuade Cheney and got no audience with Bush. Bolten, in an October 2006 interview after becoming Bush's chief of staff, did not deny that account. He signaled an intention to operate differently in the second term.

"In my six months' experience it would not fall to the vice president to referee that kind of thing," Bolten added. "If it is a presidential decision, the president will make it. . . . I think the vice president appreciates that -- that his role is in support of the president, and not as a second-tier substitute."

Three days after the Ashcroft meeting, Cheney brought the order for military commissions to Bush. No one told Bellinger, Rice or Powell, who continued to think that Prosper's working group was at the helm.

After leaving Bush's private dining room, the vice president took no chances on a last-minute objection. He sent the order on a swift path to execution that left no sign of his role. After Addington and Flanigan, the text passed to Berenson, the associate White House counsel. Cheney's link to the document broke there: Berenson was not told of its provenance.

Berenson rushed the order to deputy staff secretary Stuart W. Bowen Jr., bearing instructions to prepare it for signature immediately -- without advance distribution to the president's top advisers. Bowen objected, he told colleagues later, saying he had handled thousands of presidential documents without ever bypassing strict procedures of coordination and review. He relented, one White House official said, only after "rapid, urgent persuasion" that Bush was standing by to sign and that the order was too sensitive to delay. [Read the order]

In an interview, Berenson said it was his understanding that "someone had briefed" the president "and gone over it" already. He added: "I don't know who that was."

'It'll Leak in 10 Minutes'
On Nov. 14, 2001, the day after Bush signed the commissions order, Cheney took the next big step. He told the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that terrorists do not "deserve to be treated as prisoners of war." [Read Cheney's full remarks]

The president had not yet made that decision. Ten weeks passed, and the Bush administration fought one of its fiercest internal brawls, before Bush ratified the policy that Cheney had declared: The Geneva Conventions would not apply to al-Qaeda or Taliban fighters captured on the battlefield.

Since 1949, Geneva had accorded protections to civilians and combatants in a war zone. Those protections varied with status, but the prevailing U.S. and international view was that anyone under military control -- even an alleged war criminal -- has some rights. Rumsfeld, elaborating on the position Cheney staked out, cast that interpretation aside. All captured fighters in Afghanistan, he said at a news briefing, are "unlawful combatants" who "do not have any rights" under Geneva.

At the White House, Bellinger sent Rice a blunt -- and, he thought, private -- legal warning. The Cheney-Rumsfeld position would place the president indisputably in breach of international law and would undermine cooperation from allied governments. Faxes had been pouring in at the State Department since the order for military commissions was signed, with even British authorities warning that they could not hand over suspects if the U.S. government withdrew from accepted legal norms.

One lawyer in his office said that Bellinger was chagrined to learn, indirectly, that Cheney had read the confidential memo and "was concerned" about his advice. Thus Bellinger discovered an unannounced standing order: Documents prepared for the national security adviser, another White House official said, were "routed outside the formal process" to Cheney, too. The reverse did not apply.

Powell asked for a meeting with Bush. The same day, Jan. 25, 2002, Cheney's office struck a preemptive blow. It appeared to come from Gonzales, a longtime Bush confidant whom the president nicknamed "Fredo." Hours after Powell made his request, Gonzales signed his name to a memo that anticipated and undermined the State Department's talking points. The true author has long been a subject of speculation, for reasons including its unorthodox format and a subtly mocking tone that is not a Gonzales hallmark.

A White House lawyer with direct knowledge said Cheney's lawyer, Addington, wrote the memo. Flanigan passed it to Gonzales, and Gonzales sent it as "my judgment" to Bush [Read the memo]. If Bush consulted Cheney after that, the vice president became a sounding board for advice he originated himself.

Addington, under Gonzales's name, appealed to the president by quoting Bush's own declaration that "the war against terrorism is a new kind of war." Addington described the Geneva Conventions as "quaint," casting Powell as a defender of "obsolete" rules devised for another time. If Bush followed Powell's lead, Addington suggested, U.S. forces would be obliged to provide athletic gear and commissary privileges to captured terrorists.

According to David Bowker, a State Department lawyer, Powell did not in fact argue that al-Qaeda and Taliban forces deserved the privileges of prisoners of war. Powell said Geneva rules entitled each detainee to a status review, but he predicted that few, if any, would qualify as POWs, because they did not wear uniforms on the battlefield or obey a lawful chain of command. "We said, 'If you give legal process and you follow the rules, you're going to reach substantially the same result and the courts will defer to you,'" Bowker said.

Late that afternoon, as the "Gonzales memo" began to circulate around the government, Addington turned to Flanigan.

"It'll leak in 10 minutes," he predicted, according to a witness.

The next morning's Washington Times carried a front-page article in which administration sources accused Powell of "bowing to pressure from the political left" and advocating that terrorists be given "all sorts of amenities, including exercise rooms and canteens."

Though the report portrayed Powell as soft on enemies, two senior government lawyers said, Addington blamed the State Department for leaking it. The breach of secrecy, Addington said, proved that William H. Taft IV, Powell's legal adviser, could not be trusted. Taft joined Bellinger on a growing -- and explicit -- blacklist, excluded from consultation. "I was off the team," Taft said in an interview. The vice president's lawyer had marked him an enemy, but Taft did not know he was at war.

"Which, of course, is why you're ripe for the taking, isn't it?" he added, laughing briefly.

Staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.

[VegasRage]

US auditors WARNING on fiscal outlook

The Government Accountability Office is responsible for auditing and keeping a pulse on our fiscal health. What is shown below comes from “just the preface” of “Fiscal Stewardship: A Critical Challenge Facing Our Nation GAO-07-362SP, January 31, 2007”
http://www.gao.gov/fiscalstewardship.html

IF YOU READ ONE THING TODAY MAKE THIS IT. KNOW THE TRUTH.

Note the title of the document it doesn’t reflect Bush’s precious outright lie of “progress” line of BS. We'd better start holding all of leaders to fire or we will be in another depression very soon, at the bottom is an article showing why another crash is unavoidable. Bush completely ignored it when he had a chance to do something about it, recall the 2000 elections? National debt was the hot topic. Then 9/11 and Iraq made it all go away. Wake up America your about to be bent over in the worst way.

Fiscal Stewardship GAO-07-362SP
The federal government’s financial condition and fiscal outlook are worse than many may understand. Despite an increase in revenues in fiscal year 2006 of about $255 billion, the federal government reported that its costs exceeded its revenues by $450 billion (i.e., net operating cost) and that its cash outlays exceeded its cash receipts by $248 billion (i.e., unified budget deficit). Further, as of September 30, 2006, the U.S. government reported that it owed (i.e., liabilities) more than it owned (i.e., assets) by almost $9 trillion. In addition, the present value1 of the federal government’s major reported long-term “fiscal exposures”—liabilities (e.g., debt), contingencies (e.g., insurance), and social insurance and other commitments and promises (e.g., Social Security, Medicare)—rose from $20 trillion to about $50 trillion in the last 6 years.

The federal government faces large and growing structural deficits in the future due primarily to known demographic trends and rising health care costs. These structural deficits—which are virtually certain given the design of our current programs and policies— will mean escalating and ultimately unsustainable federal deficits and debt levels. Based on various measures—and using reasonable assumptions—the federal government’s current fiscal policy is unsustainable. Continuing on this imprudent and unsustainable path will gradually erode, if not suddenly damage, our economy, our standard of living, and ultimately our domestic tranquility and national security.

America's Total Debt Report - Update 2007
$48 Trillion - and Soaring
http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/hodges/2007/0315.html

[kumqwatt]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173

[Mariner*]

Their men in Washington:Undercover with D.C.'s lobbyists for hire

By Ken Silverstein, Harpers

In March, when the U.S. State Department announced its new global survey of human rights, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice declared that the report demonstrated America’s commitment to civil liberties, the rule of law, and a free press. “We are recommitting ourselves to stand with those courageous men and women who struggle for their freedom and their rights,” she said. “And we are recommitting ourselves to call every government to account that still treats the basic rights of its citizens as options rather than, in President Bush’s words, the non-negotiable demands of human dignity.”

Flipping through the report, however, one cannot help but notice how many of the countries that flout “the non-negotiable demands of human dignity” seem to have negotiated themselves significant support from the U.S. government, whether military assistance (Egypt, Colombia), development aid (Azerbaijan, Nigeria), expanded trade opportunities (Angola, Cameroon), or official Washington visits for their leaders (Equatorial Guinea, Kazakhstan). The granting of favorable concessions to dictatorial regimes is a practice hardly limited to the current administration: Bill Clinton came into office having said that China’s access to American markets should be tied to improved human rights—specifically its willingness to “recognize the legitimacy of those kids that were carrying the Statue of Liberty” at Tiananmen Square—but left having helped Beijing attain its long-cherished goal of Permanent Most Favored Nation trade status. Jimmy Carter put the promotion of human rights at the heart of his foreign policy, yet he cut deals for South American generals and Persian Gulf monarchs in much the same fashion as his successor, Ronald Reagan.

Support great journalism. Subscribe to Harper's Magazine.

Not a subscriber? Subscribe now for as little as $16.97 a year. With your print subscription you'll gain access to this article along with every article ever published in Harper's back to 1850.

Already a print subscriber? Register for web access.

Already a registered web subscriber? Login with your username and password and return to this page to read the full article.

How is it that regimes widely acknowledged to be the world’s most oppressive nevertheless continually win favors in Washington? In part, it is because they often have something highly desired by the United States that can be leveraged to their advantage, be it natural resources, vast markets for trade and investment, or general geostrategic importance. But even the best-endowed regimes need help navigating the shoals of Washington, and it is their great fortune that, for the right price, countless lobbyists are willing to steer even the foulest of ships.

American lobbyists have worked for dictators since at least the 1930s, when the Nazi government used a proxy firm called the German Dye Trust to retain the public-relations specialist Ivy Lee. Exposure of Lee’s deal led Congress to pass the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (FARA), which required foreign lobbyists to register their contracts with the Justice Department. The idea seemed to be that with disclosure, lobbyists would be too embarrassed to take on immoral or corrupt clients, but this assumption predictably proved to be naive. Edward J. von Kloberg III, now deceased, for years made quite a comfortable living by representing men such as Saddam Hussein of Iraq (whose government’s gassing of its Kurdish population he sought to justify) and Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire (for whose notoriously crooked regime he helped win American foreign aid). Two other von Kloberg contracts—for Nicolae Ceaus¸escu of Romania and Samuel Doe of Liberia—were terminated, quite literally, when each was murdered by his own citizens. In the 1990s, after Burma’s military government arrested the future Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi and cracked down on the pro-democracy movement she led, the firm of Jefferson Waterman International signed on to freshen up the Burmese image.

Although there are distinct limits to what they can achieve, lobbyists are the crucial conduit through which pariah regimes advance their interests in Washington. “It’s like the secret handshake that gets you into the lodge,” as one former lobbyist told me. Occasionally, firms will achieve spectacular successes for a client: one particularly remarkable piece of lobbyist image management, for example, occurred in the mid-1980s, when the firm of Black, Manafort, Stone & Kelly helped refashion Jonas Savimbi, a murderous, demented Angolan rebel leader backed by the apartheid regime in South Africa, as a valiant anti-communist “freedom fighter.” Savimbi visited Washington on numerous occasions, where the lobby shop had him ferried about by limousine to meetings with top political leaders, conservative groups, and TV networks. Black, Manafort checked repeated threats by members of Congress to cut off aid to Savimbi’s rebel group, which was burning and raping its way through Angola with the help of American taxpayers.

Generally, though, lobbyists’ victories are more discreet. In 2004 six former members of Congress served as “election observers” in Cameroon and offered an upbeat assessment of President Paul Biya’s overwhelming reelection victory, which a local Roman Catholic cardinal described as “surrounded by fraud.” It turned out that the firm of Patton Boggs, which worked for the Cameroonian government, had arranged the trip of allegedly independent observers, whose expenses were paid by the Biya regime. Between 1999 and 2000, the Carmen Group received more than $1 million from the government of Kazakhstan to help “establish President [Nursultan] Nazarbayev as one of the foremost emerging leaders of the New World.” The lobby shop sent four writers—syndicated columnist Georgie Anne Geyer, Providence Journal associate editor Philip Terzian, R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. of The American Spectator, and Scott Hogenson of the Conservative News Service—on all-expenses-paid trips to Kazakhstan, and upon their return all wrote stories, ranging from critical but sympathetic to slavishly fawning, which the Carmen Group circulated on Capitol Hill.11. The most notable entry in the latter category came from Tyrrell. Despite traveling to Kazakhstan soon after a presidential balloting that was widely condemned as rigged, he wrote that the country “has at least four highly competitive political parties . . . the freedoms of our Bill of Rights, and commendable tolerance.”

The U.S. General Accounting Office estimated in 1990 that less than half of foreign lobbyists who should register under FARA actually do so, and there is no evidence that matters have improved. In theory, violators can be heavily fined and even sent to prison, but almost no one has been prosecuted for ignoring the act, so there are few risks for non-compliance. Those firms that do register generally reveal little information beyond the names of their clients, the fees they pay, and limited information about whom they contact. Because disclosure requirements are so lax, it is nearly impossible to monitor the activities of foreign lobbyists. What little knowledge we do have of lobbyist-orchestrated diplomacy—including most of the projects discussed above—has been gleaned not from FARA filings but from serendipitous revelations or investigative reporting.
* * *

Which leaves Americans to wonder: Exactly what sorts of promises do these firms make to foreign governments? What kind of scrutiny, if any, do they apply to potential clients? How do they orchestrate support for their clients? And how much of their work is visible to Congress and the public, and hence subject to oversight? To shed light on these questions, I decided to approach some top Washington lobbying firms myself, as a potential client, to see whether they would be willing to burnish the public image of a particularly reprehensible regime.

The first step was to select a suitably distasteful would-be client. Given that my first pick, North Korea, seemed too reviled to be credible, I settled on the only slightly less Stalinist regime of Turkmenistan. Until his sudden death last December, President-for-Life Saparmurat Niyazov built a personality cult that outdid that of any modern leader except possibly Kim Jong Il. High school students were required to study The Ruhnama, Niyazov’s book of personal and spiritual wisdom, described on its official website as being “on par with the Bible and the Koran.” The self-declared “Turkmenbashi,” or “Leader of all Ethnic Turkmens,” Niyazov had his image plastered on billboards and buildings across the country, as well as on the national currency, salt packets, and vodka bottles. He named after himself not only a town but an entire month of the year (the one we unenlightened non-Turkmen still call January). Any opposition to the Turkmen government is considered to be treason, and thousands of political dissidents have been imprisoned. In 2004 a man seeking permission to hold a peaceful demonstration was sent to a psychiatric hospital for two years.

Following Niyazov’s demise, Minister of Health Kurbanguly Berdymukhamedov, the Turkmenbashi’s personal dentist, became acting president.22. Berdymukhamedov was relatively unknown when he was declared acting president. Some have speculated that he is the Turkmenbashi’s illegitimate son, which would explain his unexpected ascendancy. He had been responsible, according to the BBC, for implementing Niyazov’s 2004 reform of the health service, “which many observers have blamed for its near collapse.” Berdymukhamedov was confirmed as president in an election held in February—he ran against five other candidates, all from the ruling party, and won 89 percent of the vote—in a balloting that he described as being held “on a democratic basis that has been laid by the great [late] leader,” but which just about everyone else deemed to be a sham. (“[H]is victory was always certain . . . and all official structures worked to ensure the outcome,” the International Crisis Group said of Berdymukhamedov’s triumph at the polls.) In an early interview after becoming president, he said that Niyazov was his role model; as for democracy, he said, “This tender substance cannot be imposed by applying ready imported models. It can be only carefully nurtured by using the wise national experience and traditions of previous generations.” He has allowed two new Internet cafés to open in Ashgabat, but business has reportedly been poor, perhaps due to the soldiers posted at the doorways or to the hourly fee, which runs about $10, more than the average Turkmen’s daily income.

I would have difficulty passing for Turkmen, I knew, so rather than approaching the firms as a representative of the government itself, I instead would be a consultant for “The Maldon Group,” a mysterious (and fictitious) firm that claimed to have a financial stake in improving Turkmenistan’s public image. We were, my story ran, a group of private investors involved in the export of natural gas from Turkmenistan to Ukrainian and other Eastern European markets. We felt it would strengthen our business position in Turkmenistan if we could convey to American policymakers and journalists just how heady were the reforms being plotted by the Berdymukhamedov government.33. It is not uncommon for lobbying on behalf of foreign governments to be contracted through private firms. Sometimes the firms are apparently acting in their own business interests: for example, a Washington-area construction and real estate company called American Worldwide in 2001 hired Patton Boggs to improve relations between the United States and Angola, where the firm had been pursuing business deals. In other cases, the firms are just cutouts for the regimes in question: when Jefferson Waterman worked for Burma, it was actually paid—in the manner of the German Dye Trust—by a firm called Myanmar Resource Development, which was fronting for the country’s generals. But it is unclear whether U.S. lobbying firms know, or care about, the difference.

If flacking for Turkmenistan did not in itself trouble the lobbying firms, my description of The Maldon Group was designed to raise a number of bright red flags. Turkmenistan has vast reserves of natural gas, from which it earns about $2 billion per year in export revenues, but the whole business has been marked by flagrant corruption—as can be ascertained very quickly by anyone who cares to perform a Google search. A 2006 study by London-based Global Witness reported that Niyazov kept billions of dollars in gas revenues under his effective control in overseas accounts. “Perhaps the murkiest and most complex aspect of the Turkmen-Ukraine gas trade,” the report went on to say, is the role of the intermediary companies that have inserted themselves for more than a decade between Turkmenistan, Russia, Ukraine and Europe. These companies have often come out of nowhere, parlaying tiny amounts of start-up capital into billion-dollar deals. Their ultimate beneficial ownership has been hidden behind complex networks of trusts, holding companies and nominee directors and there is almost no public information about where their profits go.

Before approaching the lobbying firms, I made a few minimal preparations. I printed up some Maldon Group business cards, giving myself the name “Kenneth Case” and giving the firm an address at a large office building in London, on Cavendish Square. I purchased a cell phone with a London number. I had a website created for The Maldon Group—just a home page with contact information—and an email account for myself. Then, in mid-February, soon after Berdymukhamedov’s ascent, I began contacting various lobbying firms by email, introducing my firm and explaining that we were eager to improve relations between the “newly-elected government of Turkmenistan” and the United States. We required the services of a firm, I said, that could quickly enact a “strategic communications” plan to help us. I hoped that the firms might be willing to meet with me at the end of the month, during a trip I had planned to Washington.
* * *

At around three on a pleasantly warm February afternoon, Barry Schumacher, a senior vice president at APCO Associates, ushered me into a conference room at the firm’s downtown Washington office, near the intersection of 12th and H Streets N.W. Accompanying me was “Ricardo,” a Spanish-born Maldon Group consultant (in actuality, a friend I had recruited to come along, since it seemed unlikely that a firm like mine would send a single associate to meet with potential lobbying firms). APCO was the first firm I had contacted, because it was such a natural candidate to represent Turkmenistan: it has experience working not just on behalf of authoritarian regimes in general—the dictatorship of General Sani Abacha in Nigeria, for example, which employed the firm in 1995, the same year it hanged nine democracy activists—but for Caspian regimes in particular, having done P.R. work for the oil-rich kleptocracy of Azerbaijan.

APCO, Schumacher had written eagerly to me by email, had “worked on image, policy, foreign investment and reputation issues for a host of governments.” He touted the firm’s “key professionals,” among them former members of Congress and former administration officials. In a follow-up note, he did ask if I might provide a bit more information about The Maldon Group, since, for obvious reasons, he hadn’t been able to discover anything about it. “We prefer to be discreet due to the sensitivity of our business,” I replied. Schumacher understood; he even volunteered that APCO would be “more than willing to sign a confidentiality agreement.” I assured him that if we were to proceed to the stage of contract negotiations, The Maldon Group would “certainly be able to satisfy any reasonable concerns” about our ability to pay, but until then, I wrote, “we’re not prepared to share much more than what I’ve already told you at the level of preliminary conversations.” To which Schumacher promptly replied, “I understand, and this is not unusual for us.”

Now, as Ricardo and I entered the meeting room, three of Schumacher’s colleagues rose from their seats around a conference table to greet us. There was Elizabeth Jones, a former assistant secretary of state for Europe and Eurasia until 2005 and an ex-ambassador to Kazakhstan; Robert Downen, a professorial type in a shirt and tie who had previously served as a senior aide to Senator Robert Dole and was a fellow at the Center for Strategic & International Studies; and, in a pinstriped suit, Jennifer Millerwise Dyck, a former spokeswoman for the CIA (where, I later read in her biography I received that day, she “initiated the agency’s first coordinated corporate branding and advertising strategy”) and for Vice President Dick Cheney.

The conference room, located just past the reception desk, was bland and sparsely decorated. A coffeepot and a black plastic tray of cookies lay on a countertop just across from where I sat. After offering us refreshments, Schumacher commenced with a PowerPoint slide show, which he projected onto a wall. One of the first slides was called “Soft Soundings,” and it ran through what Schumacher described as a “vox populi of policymakers” on the subject of Turkmenistan, gleaned from interviews conducted by him and his colleagues in preparing for the meeting with The Maldon Group. Now is “Turkmenistan’s most important moment since independence,” read one quote, attributed to an unnamed foundation fellow. “No one is looking for perfection on democracy and human rights reforms,” read a second sounding, this one from an administration official. I wagged my head, encouraged by this welcome news.

“This really is an opportunity to define the new government of Turkmenistan,” Schumacher said, and at this point Jones took over. After speaking with her former colleagues at the State Department, she said, she had concluded that the Bush Administration was hoping to improve relations with the Berdymukhamedov government. Her contacts at State weren’t expecting “miracles” in terms of political reform; even a few small steps, like the new Internet cafés, would provide some “good hooks” APCO could use to promote the regime.

“People like Beth can call up these policymakers,” Schumacher said with a shake of the head, as if he himself were in awe of Jones’s access. “Getting information like that with a couple of phone calls is priceless.” Schumacher said he had made calls of his own and had learned from a staff director at “a key committee” that hearings on the topic of energy security were coming up. “Turkmenistan has a role to play here and [that] helps us talk about it in a positive way,” he said. “It’s another hook.”

In addition to the core team around the table, Schumacher stressed, APCO had on hand a number of other heavies who could be called upon to assist the Turkmenistan campaign. These included former Senator Don Riegle, who, Schumacher said, was tight with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid; and former Congressman Don Bonker, who had close ties with Tom Lantos, the new Democratic chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. But what about the Republican side? I asked with concern. Schumacher assured me that the firm had access to people in both parties, “not because we’ve contributed money” (though APCO employees, I subsequently discovered, had contributed more than $100,000 during the last three election cycles) but because of the high esteem in which the firm’s stable of former officials was generally held. And, he added with a grin, Dyck had such strong ties to the G.O.P. that she alone was “worth six” of APCO’s Democratic lobbyists.

“What can I say?” Dyck crowed, throwing her arms out.

Turning to media strategy, Schumacher presented APCO’s broad review of the coverage. The bad news: almost all mentions of Turkmenistan were negative. On the upside, there wasn’t very much coverage to speak of. Now was the time to strike. Wasn’t he worried, I asked, that the Turkmen regime would be held to impossibly high human-rights standards? Schumacher sought to put my mind at ease. With any P.R. campaign there were bound to be “isolated incidents that look bad, and it’s up to the communications company to figure out a way to be honest about them, to react and to put them in proper perspective, to make sure they don’t derail the campaign.” On the other hand, he allowed that something “really terrible”—the words dangled in the air—would be hard to overcome.

There was also the nagging question of public disclosure. Yes, Schumacher said, APCO would have to register and The Maldon Group would need to provide some additional information at that time, but there was no need to lose sleep about that. “We live up to the spirit and letter of the law, but we would provide minimal information,” he said. “[We’d] say we’re working for The Maldon Group on behalf of the government and would file semiannual reports. And that’s it.”

But what if we get calls from journalists? I asked.

“If they call you,” Jones said with a big smile, “refer them to us.”
* * *

Later in the presentation, a slide revealed the proposed budget for APCO’s Turkmenistan operation: $40,000 per month, plus expenses (estimated at about 10 percent of fees), and more for any travel outside of Washington. Paid advertising and special events would cost extra, and Schumacher proposed that we set up a new website for the Turkmen Embassy in Washington, which would cost The Maldon Group another $35,000.44. This, admittedly, would be money well spent. The “Latest News” on the embassy’s current website dates to September 18, 2000, and includes one item about a phone conversation between the Turkmenbashi and the president of Uzbekistan and another that reads, “On virgin lands cotton is harvested with machines.” In total, getting out our message about a new and improved Turkmenistan would require about $600,000 over the first year.

What would we get for our money? APCO’s strategy was laid out on a slide entitled “Elements of a Communications Program,” of which there were four. The first was “policy maker outreach,” and thanks to its political contacts, APCO would have no problem here. “Anyone who tells you they can get a congressman to do what you want ought not to be believed, but we can get in the door and make the case,” Schumacher said.

APCO would easily be able to arrange meetings between Turkmen officials and key members of Congress, and might be able to organize a fact-finding trip to the country as well. Given the recent scandal surrounding the lobbyist Jack Abramoff, it would be difficult and even unwise for The Maldon Group to sponsor a congressional trip directly, Schumacher said, but there would surely be official delegations traveling to the region, and “we have the contacts to urge them to stop there.”

Downen stepped in here, suggesting it was premature to rule out the possibility of organizing a private junket to Turkmenistan for a crew from Congress. True, The Maldon Group shouldn’t organize it directly, but he’d had personal experience with academic groups sponsoring trips. “Maybe Turkmenistan has a think tank or university,” he offered. “Under the old rules, any bona fide academic institution could sponsor [travel]. Under the new rules I’m not sure, but I can check.”55. Indeed, such a trip can be arranged under the rules passed by Congress earlier this year. These rules say that lobbying firms cannot pay for or arrange for congressional travel—with three exceptions: one-day trips, travel paid for by nonprofit groups, and travel paid for by universities. So The Maldon Group’s very own congressional delegation to Turkmenistan would essentially be ready for boarding as soon as APCO found a Turkmen university willing to officially sponsor it.

The second element of the strategy was a “media campaign.” In a slide entitled “Core Media Relations Activities,” APCO promised to “create news items and news outflow,” organize media events, and identify and work with “key reporters.” As this was her field of expertise, Dyck presented this slide. The media would be receptive to stories about Turkmenistan with the change of government, she said, plus “energy security is an additional hook. We can also bring things like Internet cafés to their attention.”

In addition to influencing news reports, Downen added, the firm could drum up positive op-eds in newspapers. “We can utilize some of the think-tank experts who would say, ‘On the one hand this and the other hand that,’ and we place it as a guest editorial.” Indeed, Schumacher said, APCO had someone on staff who “does nothing but that” and had succeeded in placing thousands of opinion pieces.

Discussion about the strategy’s third item—building “coalition support,” which meant developing seemingly independent and therefore more credible allies to offer favorable views about Turkmenistan—was brief. As a slide on the topic put it, we would need to start small, given that the “closed nature of country has inhibited investment and exchanges.” For now, the best coalition partners would be current and potential corporate investors in Turkmenistan, as well as “think tank experts and academics.”

How could we use think tanks and academics? I wondered. “I’m glad you asked,” Schumacher said with a chuckle. He flipped to the next slide, which discussed the fourth element of the campaign: “events.” One possibility, Downen said, would be to hold a forum on U.S.-Turkmen relations, preferably built around a visit to the United States by a Turkmen official. Possible hosts would include The Heritage Foundation, the Center for Strategic & International Studies, and the Council on Foreign Relations. “Last week I contacted a number of colleagues at think tanks,” Downen went on. “Some real experts could easily be engaged to sponsor or host a public forum or panel that would bring in congressional staff and journalists.” The only cost would be refreshments and room rental—Schumacher joked that APCO would bake the cookies to save The Maldon Group a little money—and could yield a tremendous payoff. “If we can get a paper published or a speech at a conference, we can get a friendly member of Congress to insert that in the Congressional Record and get that printed and send it out,” Schumacher said. “So you take one event and get it multiplied.”

Another option, he explained, would be to pay Roll Call and The Economist to host a Turkmenistan event. It would be costlier than the think-tank route, perhaps around $25,000, but in compensation we would have tighter control over the proceedings, plus gain “the imprimatur of a respected third party.” In order that the event not seem like paid advertising, the title for the event should be “bigger than your theme,” Schumacher explained, even as it would be put together in a way “that you get your message across.”

So we wouldn’t call it “Turkmenistan Day”? I asked.

No, Schumacher replied. “Energy Security” would be a better theme.

“Or ‘Caspian Basin Pipelines,’” Jones added.

“That’s how you do it,” Schumacher said. The Maldon Group wouldn’t have its own speaker on the dais, but APCO would line up a few people—possibilities included an administration official or an executive from an American firm involved in Turkmenistan—to speak for us. While promising reform was important, we would probably want to focus on matters like energy and regional security. “In a world where the administration wants some realism, there may be ways to get positive messages out,” Schumacher said. A concluding slide laid out the broad benefits that The Maldon Group could expect to see for our $600,000. These included raising Turkmenistan’s profile “as a nation important to the United States,” building a “broader base of support” for the country, and improving media coverage. After a series of firm handshakes, I promised I would be back in touch as soon as I had consulted with my superiors in London.
* * *

The following morning, Ricardo and I headed to the offices of Cassidy & Associates, perhaps the most prominent of all the Washington lobby shops.66. I had phone and email exchanges with two other firms: the Carmen Group, which attracted my interest because of its work for Kazakhstan, and The Livingston Group, which is headed by retired Congressman Bob Livingston of Louisiana and has represented Azerbaijan and Turkey. Livingston’s work for the latter country has included general public relations, advocating for Ankara’s right to purchase advanced American weaponry, and keeping Congress from declaring as genocide the Turkish massacre of Armenians during the early twentieth century. Both firms expressed interest in working for The Maldon Group and offered to sign confidentiality agreements, but they also made efforts, albeit modest, toward due diligence by asking for additional information about my firm, and so I canceled my meetings with them. If The Maldon Group actually existed, though, I have little doubt that both firms would ultimately have been willing to handle the account. It was founded thirty-two years ago by Gerald Cassidy, a former staffer for George McGovern, and for much of its existence was known as a strongly Democratic firm. Cassidy pioneered the practice of lobbying for earmarks—the polite term for pork—but also represents Fortune 500 corporations as well as foreign countries and businesses. Its current clients include Teodoro Obiang, who has ruled the small African nation of Equatorial Guinea since 1979, when he executed his uncle. Between 1998 and 2006, Cassidy was paid more than $235 million in lobbying fees, more than any other firm in Washington.

Cassidy’s headquarters are just a block away from APCO’s but are far more elegant. The firm occupies the entire fourth floor of its building, so that one enters the offices upon exiting the elevator. A receptionist walked Ricardo and me into a large conference room with a beautiful wood table polished to a bright sheen. There were about twenty seats around the table, and eight settings had been laid out with a glass, each set atop a paper coaster embossed with the firm’s name. The table held an assortment of canned soft drinks, a pitcher of ice water with lemon slices, a cup of sharpened pencils, and a pile of yellow legal pads.

A phalanx of six Cassidy officials soon entered the conference room, all dressed in elegant business attire of varying shades of black, gray, and navy blue. There was Chuck Dolan, a former senior P.R. consultant for the Kerry-Edwards campaign; Gordon Speed, the firm’s pudgy, baby-faced director of business development; tall, thin Gerald Warburg, a former Hill staffer and company vice president; Christy Moran, who during the meeting told me she had previously worked for Saudi Arabia and helped boost its image with an “allies program” that sent visitors to the country; and David Bartlett, another P.R. specialist whose firm biography said he had helped corporate CEOs “face the nation’s toughest journalists.”

The sixth member of the Cassidy team, and its clear leader, was firm vice chairman Gregg Hartley, who with his crew cut and serious manner initially reminded me of a drill sergeant; but soon he loosened up and proved to possess a certain folksy appeal. Until 2003 he had been a top aide to then House Majority Whip Roy Blunt, and he maintains close ties to top Republicans in Congress. When Hartley quit his Hill job and decided to become a lobbyist, a “bidding war for his services ensued,” the Washington Post later reported. “Cassidy . . . won it with an offer of just under $1 million a year,” plus a “substantial percentage” of the lobbying fees Hartley generated. Hartley’s hiring marked a key moment in Cassidy & Associates’ transformation during the past decade into a lobbying enterprise that is increasingly identified with the Republican Party.

As was the case with APCO, Cassidy had immediately offered to meet with me. In an initial phone conversation with Speed, Hartley, and Dolan, the three had asked only a few softball questions about The Maldon Group (and, like APCO, offered to sign a confidentiality agreement) before they began their sales pitch. Hartley pointed out that Cassidy’s work for Equatorial Guinea was “a very similar sort of representation to what you’re talking about” with Turkmenistan. The Obiang regime had received a bit of bad publicity—he mentioned here a banking scandal involving the government—and Cassidy’s first job had been “to identify inaccurate or biased stories and try to correct them.”77. I found this amusing, because he almost certainly was thinking of me: in 2003, while working at the Los Angeles Times, I had broken the story of the hundreds of millions of dollars of Equatorial Guinea’s oil revenues that were deposited at Riggs Bank in Washington, under Obiang’s effective control. A Senate investigation not only confirmed what I had reported but uncovered even more dirt, such as the fact that Obiang and family members had stashed millions of dollars in offshore accounts. Hartley also boasted about Cassidy’s political contacts, saying, “We strongly believe in a bipartisan [approach] and mirroring the power structure. . . . You have to find champions on both sides.”

Hartley returned to that theme during the meeting at Cassidy’s office. His firm, he said after passing Ricardo and me copies of a corporate brochure, 88. The brochure said that Cassidy offered “A Tradition of Ethics and Integrity that goes to the core of our beliefs” and made the claim, a brazenly cynical one even by the standards of Washington, that Gerald Cassidy had founded the firm “to ensure that Americans have access and the ability to exercise their First Amendment right to petition their government.” had “strong personal relationships” with policymakers, and not just to a committee chairman here and there, as was the case with some of its competitors. Cassidy had ties across the board—at the staff level, the committee level, the Republican and Democratic leadership, and the administration.

“We know you’re talking to other firms,” Hartley said pointedly. “You’re going to have a hard time matching . . . [the] types of successes” his firm had racked up. For example, thanks to Cassidy’s aggressive media strategy and trips it had organized to Equatorial Guinea for congressional staffers, things were now looking up for the government there. The proof: three years ago, Hartley said, Parade Magazine had ranked Obiang as “the world’s sixth worst dictator,” grimacing as he stated that last word. “He’s still not a great guy,” he went on, “but he’s not in the top ten anymore, and we can take some credit for helping them figure out how to work down that list. Is he going to win the U.N. humanitarian award next year? No, he’s not, but we’re making progress.”99. When I checked later, the progress seemed pretty modest. Obiang is indeed out of Parade’s top ten list for 2007; now he’s number eleven. In a brief summary, Parade noted that in 2003, “state radio announced that Obiang ‘is in permanent contact with The Almighty’ and that he ‘can decide to kill without anyone calling him to account and without going to Hell.’”

Now Warburg took over the meeting. He talked with some passion about two “remarkable lobbying campaigns” that the firm had been involved with, both of which had succeeded in getting the U.S. government to move “against its express will.” The first was eliminating a longtime trade embargo against Vietnam, which the firm had achieved over the opposition of the families of POWs and MIAs. The key to success was assembling an outside pressure group called the Multinational Business Development Coalition, which was made up of major American corporations seeking business in Vietnam. “The U.S. had no relations,” Warburg said. “We changed that policy, ended the embargo, and opened Vietnam up to U.S. economic exchange.”

The second campaign, Warburg said, involved winning permission in 1995 for President Lee Teng-hui of Taiwan to make a private visit to the United States “over the express opposition of the executive branch.” At the time, Taiwan’s embassy wasn’t even allowed to lobby in Washington without permission from the State Department. Evading that obstacle was simple: since the government couldn’t retain Cassidy, a Taiwanese think tank fronting for it did. President Bill Clinton had said he wouldn’t allow Lee to come to the United States, so Cassidy, Warburg recounted, began a campaign to lobby Congress. After both chambers passed resolutions in support of a visit by Lee, the White House caved. “The president of the United States reversed policy,” said Warburg. The campaign had been so brilliant, in fact, that graduate students had written theses on it.

Warburg also mentioned his past work for Merhav, an Israeli firm with major interests in Turkmenistan, for which Cassidy had obtained Export-Import Bank financing for a trans-Caspian pipeline. Unlike the case with other lobbying firms The Maldon Group might hire, “We really know Turkmenistan. It wouldn’t be on-the-job training for us.”

When Warburg had represented Merhav, he met a number of Turkmen officials. “Unfortunately, the previous government had a history of shuffling ministers,” he said. “I won’t pursue the metaphor.” To which Hartley added, “We won’t ask where all of them were shuffled!” There was general merriment, which seemed inappropriate, given that sixteen ministers were jailed or sent into internal exile last year, one of whom is believed to have died in prison.

Hartley announced that he and his colleagues had a few questions about The Maldon Group. I would be as helpful as I could, I replied, but discretion was our firm’s lifeblood; while it pained me “to look like I’m being evasive,” there wasn’t much I could say.

“We’re going to ask questions, and you may have to throw the wall up,” Hartley said. “Don’t mention names if you can’t mention names.”

The questions were quite easy to handle: I did little more than toss out the same scraps of information I had given them before. We were a small group of British, Middle Eastern, and Eastern European investors; we had a close relationship to the government, but there were no Turkmen officials involved in The Maldon Group. I reiterated my concerns about public-disclosure requirements, and Hartley assured me I could rest easy. “We have to disclose who we represent, but there doesn’t have to be great detail,” he said. “The way we would handle this, there’d be very little about you and virtually none about your investors.”
* * *

When it was time for the hard sell, Warburg began by giving me a piece of intelligence he had picked up—something, he said, for me to share “with your friends and investors back in England.” The previous week, he claimed, there had been a meeting on Turkmenistan at the highest level of the U.S. government. “We’d like to make sure you’re on the agenda for the next such meeting,” he said pointedly. “We’d like to be involved in prepping the individuals before such a meeting, and we’d like to be involved in interpreting the outcome to your investors, and through you to the government in a way that really empowers you in that market.” Hartley, too, sought to emphasize how interested Cassidy was in winning the contract. “This is the sort of thing we do extremely well,” he said at one point. “It’s the kind of stuff that gets our juices flowing.”

Of course, there was the question of money, specifically how much of it The Maldon Group would need to hire Cassidy. For Turkmenistan, Hartley said, there could be no quick, easy solutions; hence, he proposed a three-year effort at from $1.2 million to $1.5 million annually—and that could run higher, he warned, if a do-gooder organization like a human-rights group targeted the regime, necessitating intensified spin control by the firm’s lobbyists. “You’ve looked at our bios,” he said. “Look at our track record and what we’ve charged for other representations . . . and you’ll see you’re not being gouged.”

While insisting that I didn’t write the checks, I said the figure seemed reasonable to me. “Others will do it for less, but you won’t get people with our experience, our knowledge of Turkmenistan, our ties to [the] State [Department], National Security Council, and some parts of the intelligence community,” Warburg said.

Cassidy saw its strategy as having two central prongs, one targeting policymakers and the other targeting the media. Among the questions I’d asked had been whether it was advisable to arrange a trip to Turkmenistan for members of Congress. Hartley said that it was, but it would be critical to pick “the right members of Congress,” which he defined as those with “a leaning that will be instrumental in us making progress on our representation.” As at APCO, the Cassidy team said that the post-Abramoff climate would make it harder to arrange a private trip for members of Congress—“but not impossible,” in Hartley’s words. In the meantime, a less visible trip for Hill staffers could be more easily accomplished.

Bringing Turkmen officials to Washington was also a must, though we needed to be realistic. If The Maldon Group said it wanted Berdymukhamedov to address a joint session of Congress, Cassidy would tell you that’s not possible, Warburg said. On the other hand, might Cassidy be able to arrange “a coffee in the Senate Foreign Relations hearing room of the U.S. Capitol where the foreign minister is warmly received?” Yes, it very well might.

Also, The Maldon Group should not underestimate the value of arranging a trip to Turkmenistan for journalists and think-tank analysts, which was something Dolan said he had done for the Valdai International Discussion Club, a group funded by Russian interests that offers all-expenses-paid trips to Russia. Amid the general pampering, the Western academics and reporters who attend are granted audiences with senior Russian political figures. During the meeting, Dolan simply described it as a way to give people “firsthand information” and mentioned that past attendees had included Ariel Cohen of The Heritage Foundation, Marshall Goldman of Harvard, and Jim Hoagland of the Washington Post. A similar program might work for Turkmenistan, he suggested.

Two weeks after the meeting, Cassidy laid out more of its strategic thinking in a twelve-page proposal that it sent to me by email. The firm’s lobbyists would educate senior government officials and opinion makers “on positive developments taking place in Turkmenistan,” and would sell the country on the basis of its “strategic importance in Central Asia” and the “critical role” it could play in American energy security. Cassidy’s preliminary research already had determined that there was “accelerated interest” in Turkmenistan “at the highest levels of the U.S. government.” This was a great opportunity, since it would make it easier to reach out to government officials as well as the media, but it also presented a challenge, as “greater attention can bring greater scrutiny.”

Of course, “attention” and “scrutiny” are essentially synonymous; the only reason that more of it posed a challenge to Cassidy’s proposed lobbying campaign was that in the case of Turkmenistan, the truth was almost never good. Cassidy had, in fact, already uncovered troubling news: “We have become aware,” the proposal said ominously, “of U.S. determination to aggressively push an agenda of human rights and democratic reforms in exchange for greater engagement with Ashgabat.” (This supposed discovery was surely a scare tactic. The Bush Administration has openly prioritized trade and business promotion, not human rights, with other major Caspian energy producers. According to a well-placed source, State Department officials have made it very clear that the Bush Administration’s major policy goal in Turkmenistan is opening the country to investment by U.S. energy firms.) To deal with the threat of scrutiny, Cassidy would seek to drive “the story being told about Turkmenistan by the media, rather than merely reacting to it. By engaging with correspondents, we will coordinate a global message about political, social and economic progress.”

As part of this initiative, the firm would plant pro-Turkmenistan op-eds from friendly authors it recruited. Cassidy would also put together “a list of potential vulnerabilities, such as humanitarian issues, social conditions and otherwise. . . . With these issues in mind, we will conduct ‘worst-case’ scenario planning and response development by anticipating crises, preparing spokespeople, [and] drafting statements.” In other words, Cassidy would have an emergency-response network in place should, for example, opposition members happen to be mowed down by government guns. “We will be your eyes and ears in Washington, D.C.,” the proposal said.
* * *

In the weeks after my meetings, both APCO and Cassidy contacted me, eager to carry out the Turkmen campaign. I replied with notes of regret, explaining that The Maldon Group was unsure about how to proceed but that for the time being, at least, their services would not be required. Still, it was hard not to daydream about what might have been accomplished for the “newly elected government of Turkmenistan” if I’d actually had the few million dollars to spare. In May, I attended “Angola Day,” an all-day conference that had been organized on behalf of the regime of President José Eduardo Dos Santos, which, while not equaling the Turkmen rulers in flair, is nevertheless one of the most crooked and predatory in the world. Angola Day’s sponsors included the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, which hosted the event at its downtown headquarters, the Angolan government, and the U.S.-Angola Chamber of Commerce, which receives financial support from American oil companies.

It was impossible to say whether a lobbying firm was directly involved in orchestrating the event. But other than its unfortunate title—had APCO been running the show, it would have been something like “Africa and American Energy Security: Partners in Prosperity”—Angola Day was straight out of the playbooks laid out for Turkmenistan: it had the imprimatur of a respected third party (the Wilson Center), a coalition of corporate allies, and a smattering of pliant academics and officials who seemed more than willing to pen a friendly op-ed if need be. The keynote speaker was Joaquim David, Angola’s elegantly tailored industry minister, and as I watched him deliver his address, it was hard not to think of a Turkmen official on that same dais, giving voice to the same empty slogans and catchwords, speaking (as David did) of his government’s commitment to sustainable development, environmental protection, and social justice—despite the fact that Dos Santos has done absolutely nothing to demonstrate these commitments. I was especially wistful during the coffee break, when I could see the real business of the conference being conducted. Here was Witney Schneidman, a former State Department official and member of the U.S.-Angola Chamber, approaching every Angolan official he saw with an unctuous ear-to-ear grin on his face; Hank Cohen, a former assistant secretary of state and former lobbyist for Angola, chatting up the diamond magnate Maurice Tempelsman; a Chevron executive and an official from the U.S. Agency for International Development, greeting each other like long-lost friends.

It was a vision of just how regimes like Angola and Azerbaijan, Nigeria and Equatorial Guinea, the serial abrogators of “human dignity,” can make and keep their wealthy American friends. Someday soon, perhaps, the same will happen for Turkmenistan—God and lobbyists willing.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/07/0081591

[Mariner*]

The Bushites Have Outsourced Our Government to Their Pals

By Jim Hightower, Hightower Lowdown.

The sprawling $43 billion homeland security department is known for being in charge of America's color-coded terrorist-threat alarm system, a sham that obscures HSD's real mission: to serve as a giant federal cookie jar for corporate America.

http://www.alternet.org/story/54623/

[Mariner*]

Bush's Mafia Whacks the Republic

By Robert Parry
June 20, 2007

In years to come, historians may look back on U.S. press coverage of George W. Bush’s presidency and wonder why there was not a single front-page story announcing one of the most monumental events of mankind’s modern era – the death of the American Republic and the elimination of the “unalienable rights” pledged to “posterity” by the Founders.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/062007.html

[BullNBear52]

Sad.

[BullNBear52]

Your last hope on the Supreme Court to insure all your civil rights don't vanish.

[StephanieVanbryce]

Justice John Paul Stevens

[The Original dpb5!]

Who is John Paul Stevens?