Obama & others: Congress won’t risk a vote on TPP before elections

By The Truth Hound–Mark Anderson

As the many free-traders in Congress and in the executive branch contemplate when to try and pass the treacherous Trans Pacific Partnership, President Obama visited Germany and said on April 24 that he believes Congress will give final approval to the TPP trade treaty once the heated climate of this year’s elections cools.

According to Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D), no member of Congress who supports the TPP would dare vote for it prior to being assured of re-election.

A slight difference, however, is that Stabenow said that Congress would likely wait until after the November general elections to hold a TPP vote. But Obama suggested that once just the primary election hurdle is cleared, a vote could happen. Thus, a TPP vote prior to November cannot be ruled out.

“I think after the primary season is over the politics settle down a little bit in Congress, and we’ll be in a position to start moving forward,” Obama explained during a press conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel April 24, as quoted by Breitbart News, which added: “Obama reminded reporters that a majority of Congress already passed the authorities for his administration to negotiate the complex deal with 11 [other] countries, and it was only a matter of political nervousness.”

Such “authorities” are a reference to Congress foolishly giving Obama the keys to the kingdom, in economic terms, by last year approving Trade Promotion Authority—a grant of power under which the White House was enabled to solely supervise the final TPP negotiations, in tandem with the other 11 TPP nations. That authority also means that Congress, when it finally casts what will be a highly contentious TPP vote, can only vote up or down with absolutely no amendments allowed.

That’s why Congress must be repeatedly urged in the strongest and clearest terms possible that the only acceptable TPP is no TPP—and that it’s not a matter of “improving” the pact in any manner.

A little good news is that some political candidates have backed off from supporting the TPP, although the sincerity of such statements can never be fully confirmed, since many a presidential and congressional candidate—too often eager to support something many in the public do not support—will tell the weary public what they want to hear.

Reports that Hillary Clinton, who helped prepare the TPP groundwork as Obama’s secretary of state, has “unexpectedly” turned “against the TPP” as a Democratic presidential candidate, are the work of simpleton reporters. Hillary’s internationalist pedigree as a fake friend of the working class, which carries with it unbreakable support for the TPP and other trade pacts, simply cannot be refuted.

“Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) voted against giving President Obama authority to negotiate the deal, after voicing support for the legislation,” Breitbart News also noted, even while Obama, in his press conference with Merkel, acknowledged that people across the world view trade deals suspiciously.

Obama, although he admitted that people see factories close and jobs depart under such trade deals and declare the deals defective, claimed that the people overlook other trade benefits. On that basis, he argued that it was important for the U.S. to open markets in foreign lands so that America’s businesses could be more competitive.

“Ninety-five percent of the world’s markets are outside of our borders, and if we’re not there . . . we’re going to have problems,” he said—clearly ignorant of the fact that under a system where money is born as debt, consumers and businesses in each nation, who’ve already been harmed by the trade pacts currently in force, get most of their money by taking out new loans to pay off previous loans in an endless, merciless cycle, with “interest drain” depleting the money supply faster than it enters the economy.

Therefore, each nation’s consumer buying power can only lag behind the totality of goods for sale. So, it follows that each nation must exploit foreign markets to make up for what their domestic economies lack in purchasing power. The core solution is monetary reform, not free trade. For great options read about the broad, ongoing program of the fine chaps at www.ukcolumn.org to “bring back the Bradbury Pound” and see economic-democracy particulars explained at www.socred.org.

One other bit of good news that is that TPP has come under fire in the TPP nations of New Zealand, Malaysia, Japan, Australia, Mexico and Canada, where several protests have been held. Plus, apparent GOP presidential nominee Donald J. Trump, like Democratic contender Bernie Sanders, has called the TPP a bad deal.

The Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA), a public advocacy group, added, “To add more fuel to the fire, key Congresspersons . . . stood up against the ‘status quo’ long before it was ‘cool’ to be against the TPP. Rep. Tom Reed (R-N.Y.), who sits on a Ways and Means subcommittee, declared his position against the TPP.”  Moreover, Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), who’s a former U.S. Trade Representative, opposes TPP. Ditto for Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Rep. Bruce Poliquin (R-Maine) and others.

And notably, Vice President Joe Biden will be visiting all Democratic congressional offices to push for a yes vote on TPP. While many Democrats are reluctant to face Biden and tell him “no,” maybe they could consult the voters. What a novelty.

“A recent poll showed that out of 10,000 registered voters, 34 percent of Republican voters oppose the TPP compared to 24 percent who support it. 75 percent of Democratic voters are against it. And 30 percent of independents oppose it in comparison to 22 percent who support it,” CPA added.

Yet, amid all the TPP uproar, Obama’s European visit also included remarks in favor of the U.S.-EU equivalent of the TPP—the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). During Obama’s stay, though, protests erupted against the TTIP, the passage of which is a major goal of the secretive world planners in the Bilderberg Group and its corporate kin, the Trilateral Commission.

Now’d be a good time to contact Congress and raise your voice against these trade and banker-protection schemes—coming as they do from motley mountebanks who scream about the pitfalls of protectionism if some commoner dares to utter the word “tariff,” but they’re just fine with protecting every iota of their economic realm against even the faintest whiff of populism.

By The Truth Hound–Mark Anderson

WASHINGTON, D.C.— The often touchy military question of whether women should fight on the front lines was addressed March 23, 2016 at the Rayburn House Office Building in Washington, where Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) and a distinguished panel hit the issue head on — concluding that such a fundamental shift in military policy is a bad idea. This writer covered the discussion for American Free Press.

As Hunter and the panel announced, however, Defense Secretary Ash Carter through an executive action already had decided the matter—having decreed in December that women entering the armed forces, regardless of their military-career choices and related job placements, can be summoned to drop what they’re doing and be transported to “the front” to fight alongside men.

The Pentagon on Dec. 3 stated, “Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced . . . that beginning in January 2016, all military occupations and positions will be open to women, without exception. For the first time in U.S. military history, as long as they qualify and meet specific standards, the secretary said women will be able to contribute to the Defense Department mission with no barriers at all in their way.”

Carter also was quoted as saying, “They’ll be allowed to drive tanks, fire mortars and lead infantry soldiers into combat. They’ll be able to serve as Army Rangers and Green Berets, Navy SEALs, Marine Corps infantry, Air Force para-jumpers, and everything else that was previously open only to men.”

Hunter and the panelists, including retired Marine gunnery Sgt. Jessie “Jane” Duff and former Army helicopter pilot Amber Smith, concurred that, as women, they still sharply disagree with imposing gender quotas on the armed forces. They rapped a legislative proposal by Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.) that “calls for a 20% increase in gender-based quotas at the military service academies,” according to the Center for Military Readiness.

A CMR news release added, “The missions of Army and Marine infantry, armor, artillery, and Special Operations Forces have not changed, and all of them require superior physical strength.  Congresswoman Sanchez continues to push for women to be assigned to these units, even though more than 30 years of research and tests have not produced empirical evidence that women are interchangeable with men in the combat arms.”

Ms. Smith is a senior fellow of the Independent Women’s Forum (IWF), while Ms. Duff is a senior fellow with the London Center for Policy Research (LCPR). Both women stated their opposition to such quotas because strict basic-training standards would have to be lowered so more women would make the grade.

That, they added, would erode the training standards for the male soldiers and hurt overall combat readiness. The former lady soldiers said that’s unacceptable and maintained that women should remain in auxiliary positions and not enter front-line infantry units.

Furthermore, two other LCPR senior fellows—Army Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer (ret.) and Air Force Major Gen. Bob Newman Jr. (ret.)—noted that men’s natural protectiveness toward women inevitably would creep into the theater of battle and create problems.

“It’s in our DNA,” Newman said, about men protecting women. Others asked whether women are prepared to go all the way with “equality” and be required to register for the Selective Service and possibly face being drafted someday. Hunter invoked scenarios of fighting the Russians, not just Islamic factions, and asked if women in our politically correct society really understand the stakes.

Accordingly, Hunter, himself a former soldier who saw action in Afghanistan, described in gory detail that the infantry is the tip of the spear, whose grim task is to destroy the enemy by “ripping their throats out” in brutal, sometimes up-close combat.

Newman and the other panelists allowed for the fact that some women manage to meet current male-level training standards, at times. Yet Ms. Smith, who has taken part in combat, said the objective is “a mission standard, not a gender standard,” adding, “I don’t believe in lowering the standard to make sure women remain in the ranks.”

Clear differences in women’s and men’s psychological and physiological makeups, muscle mass and strength, endurance etc. were also pointed out, while Ms. Duff added that, in the current war against all-male Middle Eastern fighters, the enemy “will fight harder to kill us” because, due to their manly pride, they won’t want to be killed by U.S. “ladies.”

Thus, thousands of years of tradition, in which men fight to protect hearth and home, including women as nurturers, is being overturned, the panel acknowledged, while concluding that the military is no place for social experiments.

The nonpartisan Independent Women’s Forum, a 501 (c) (3) think tank, says its mission is “to improve the lives of Americans by increasing the number of women who value free markets and personal liberty” while also supporting “limited, constitutional government.”

The New York-based LCPR is a national security and energy research institution whose fellows include Lebanese-American Professor Waled Phares, who was just named to the foreign policy team for Donald J. Trump’s GOP presidential campaign. Phares has been an advisor to the House of Representatives Caucus on Counter Terrorism since 2007.

Hunter was asked by this AFP writer why Sec. Carter made this decision when Hunter himself said during the panel discussion that Congress should decide the matter. To which Hunter replied, “Because no one told Carter that he couldn’t,” to which this reporter added, “Meaning he did it because he ‘can’ . . . like the act of a tyrant?”

While caught off guard by the word “tyrant,” Hunter concluded that it’s much harder to roll back an executive decision once it’s a done deal.

Overview from Mark Anderson — THE TRUTH HOUND

ROUGEMONT, Quebec—Social credit, best described as economic democracy, is seen by a growing number of people as the particular kind of economic reform that can rework the world toward equity and prosperity and cancel the deep-seated dynamics that produce the warfare state, because it’s based on reality and not on speculative market mechanisms and bogus free trade pacts.

Discovered by the late Scottish engineer Major Clifford H. Douglas in the early 20^th Century, social credit is a philosophy derived from the natural order which calls for specific economic policies. At its core, it pertains to the mutual trust we have in each other (real credit) to freely produce what’s needed for the common and individual good of all.

Ontario resident Oliver Heydorn, Ph.D., author of the book “Social Credit Economics,” noted on page 497 of the book that social credit exists within the realm of “economic functionalism” because under a social credit system, the economy at all levels would finally function normally—largely because today’s weak consumer purchasing power would be restored to a proper functional level so that this purchasing power is aligned with productive output.

AN OBJECTIVE OPTION

Heydorn added that under the dominant “monopoly of credit,” or “creditism,” the people are given the false options of Marxist socialism on the left, a mixed economy in the middle, and “free-market” capitalism on the right. However, social credit stands outside that entire misleading model.

Social credit, therefore, is not socialism, nor is it monopoly capitalism. Dr. Heydorn wrote that while socialists are correct in pointing out modern capitalism’s flaws, socialist-style solutions, such as they are, involve the radical centralization of economic ownership under the state and a depletion of individual freedom—while social credit opposes that and calls for “radical decentralization of economic power and wealth, which means economic independence and freedom for the individual,” as Heydorn noted.

In other words, reflecting the late Christian writer G.K. Chesterton’s observation that there aren’t enough capitalists, most people, under social credit by way of genuine free enterprise, could realize the economic upward mobility that the current rigged capitalist order reserves for the privileged few.

Currently, the paltry purchasing power among Americans, Brits, Canadians, Europeans and those from the other industrialized nations falls far short of the quantity of available products and services. Or put another way, the total prices of all available goods and services far exceed our collective ability to buy all that output and liquidate the prices so the “economic wheel” can turn naturally. As a consequence, everyone has to mortgage the future (i.e. use credit cards, refinance their homes, etc.) to pay for things in the present.

Furthermore, the totality of debts at all levels, public and private, far exceeds the amount of money in existence with which to pay those debts.

As Douglas noted, and as Heydorn explains in his books and at his website Socred.org, social credit would increase everyone’s purchasing power mainly through a citizen dividend comprised of newly created interest-free money issued through a publicly controlled National Credit Office, to supplement existing wages and salaries. Other tools help not only to keep prices stable but to lower them. Leisure would be increased since citizen dividends would be issued based on the value of production with regular labor but also with automated machinery. Under social credit, the idea is to radically reduce the prevalence of the “work state” that consigns most people to lives of excessive, obligatory labor, often not of their choosing.

TO END THE ‘WORK STATE’

As Douglas recognized, the “work state” ideology, which is itself a form of government, postulates that income can only come from human labor. But that unduly regiments society and keeps people in formation so that their fear of losing employment overrides higher moral imperatives. This is seen as a major reason why most people won’t challenge “the system” and why there are plenty of people willing to work in jobs that extend the dominance of some segments of the population over other segments. Simply put, if you pay people well enough to enforce a police state as state agents in various agencies, they’ll do it since their survival instincts are heightened. And the severe defects in the current economic order guarantee fresh crops of “criminals” that justify that very same police state.

Social credit would not be means-tested welfare for some. Rather, it would be a basic “floor” for all, regardless of class, in order to provide a solid measure of security against poverty, so everyone could stop toiling for mere survival and pursue their higher calling by realizing their true potential in the career, or personal pursuits, including spiritual endeavors, of their choice. And the increase in the money supply under social credit would be on equal par with production (in concert with other cost-control mechanisms that would serve to reduce prices) to prevent price inflation.

MIND ‘THE GAP’

Price inflation can happen when too much money chases too-few goods, but that would not be the case under social credit. Indeed, social credit helps fill “the gap” between weak purchasing power and mountains of goods (full stores, empty wallets).

That gap testifies to a deflationary spiral, in which “interest drain,” amid a money supply consisting almost completely of bank loans, siphons money out the economy as fast, or faster, than money enters the economy. This state of affairs enables the banks to commandeer society by keeping everyone on a labor-and-debt treadmill.

UPCOMING MEETINGS

The Pilgrims of St. Michael, a Catholic order which since the 1930s has operated out of Rougemont, Quebec, just east of Montreal, has carried on Douglas’s insights through its magazine, The Michael Journal, for decades (www.MichaelJournal.org).

The Pilgrims also have reprinted and collected numerous books and pamphlets to call attention to the economic liberation inherent in democratizing the monetary system in order to get all peoples and the business community off the treadmill created when virtually all money enters the economy as interest-bearing loans.

Important 2016 dates of meetings of the Pilgrims of St. Michael are as follows:

• July 21st to June 29th: Week of Study, at the Pilgrim’s House of the Immaculate, Rougemont.
• July 30th, 31st & Aug. 1st: Annual International Congress, same location.
• Aug. 21st to 28th:  Week of Study in English only, same location.
• To reach the Pilgrims, call 450-469-2209 in Canada or 888-858-2163 in the U.S., or email mail@MichaelJournal.org The address is: 1101 Principale St., Rougemont QC, Canada, J0L 1M0.

By JOHN DEVINE, Associate Editor, The Awakening quarterly, Ontario, Canada

www.AwakeningNews.ca

Fish farms are one of the first factory farms in the development of farming techniques. We also have created factory farms for beef, poultry, pork, etc. to meet our food demand.

Webster’s Dictionary defines a farm as “an area of land used for cultivation or animal breeding under individual or collective management,” as well as “a tract of water for cultivating fish.”  Most people likely don’t realize that a large share of fish farms in North America, specifically fish hatcheries, are owned and operated by governments, be they Provincial, State or Federal.

THE INTENT of these government factory farms is to assist in providing fish to the hunters of fish, be they commercial or recreational fishermen.  Webster’s defines hunting like this: “To pursue (game) with the intention of capturing and killing.” Be it the shooting of a deer, or catching a fish with a hook and line, or netting fish with massive ocean trawlers, all these participants can be defined as hunters.

Attention has been brought to factory farms regarding their serious environmental impact (e.g. run-off of sewage from the factory farms, such as from beef farms, that leaks into aquifers). Yet fish farms are “under the radar” even as environmental concerns increase about factory farms in general.

WHAT’S UNKNOWN about fish hatcheries is their huge consumption of clean groundwater for raising just one pound of farmed fish, as well as the pollution caused from their discharge. Those involved in farming should ask our respective governments to confirm how many gallons of clean groundwater are needed to raise a pound of farmed fish, and the current average polluting per hatchery.

According to Ontario’s fish-culture section, each government-operated fish hatchery has a big impact, with a polluting factor of 20,000 people.   This is troubling when you consider that there are over 500 government-operated fish hatcheries in North America. Moreover, we have yet to ascertain how many corporate and individually-owned fish hatcheries now operate in North America.

THE HEADS of the government fish farms, be they Governors or Premiers, could be given the title “CEO” of a public company, with the shareholders of these public companies being the taxpayers. Thus these particular CEOs would be the brethren to all other farmers in the greater farming community.    That community should find out why their brethren, the government fish farmers, are not using the proven closed system (see AwakeningNews.ca) which recycles and cleans the hatchery water, thereby saving multi-billions of gallons of clean groundwater and dramatically reducing the pollution now flowing from the government’s  old  fl ow-through hatcheries.

EXPERTS BELIEVE the “huge” Ogallala Aquifer underneath eight U.S. states could run dry in 40 years. Let’s look NOW at the proven closed fish-hatchery system (intellectual property from Ontario’s University of Guelph), as the Ogallala is needlessly losing 60 million gallons a day to operate fish hatcheries, supply irrigation and meet other broad demands.   What’s less obvious is that water helps form the basis of assets for farmers’ bank credit. So, we must ask the key question: “How low will the wells go, before the bankers say NO”?

Preface from THE TRUTH HOUND–Hear Ye! Hear Ye! The dominant media-meisters act as if the mere mention of other political parties beyond “Democrats and Republicans” will cause their privates to fall off or their goldfish to die. Indeed, the big media are all about ABSOLUTE POLITICAL EXCLUSION, which is all the more galling when you consider their constant prattling about the precious “inclusion” of members of the LGBT community, etc. Why is there no mention of the other parties and their presidential candidates–the Constitution, Libertarian, Green, American Eagle, Natural Law and Socialist parties, just to name some–even as these party’s candidates are denied nationally televised debate time? THE REAL VOTE FRAUD starts here, long before the people cast their votes. Read on below about the Constitution Party, in the first of a series of TRUTH HOUND articles on other parties (and non-affiliated candidates)

By THE TRUTH HOUND — Mark Anderson

The big media’s constant misrepresentation of what constitutes a “conservative” political philosophy has given people the impression that “conservatism” can only mean the support of unrestrained militarism, toward a U.S.-led world imperium. But that false labeling peels off easily when you hear the views of Constitution Party (CP) presidential candidate Darrell Castle.

This article represents The Truth Hound’s established practice, in association with American Free Press, of reporting on most “other” political parties and their candidates, as well as on non-affiliated candidates, in order to bring some diversity to a “media-sphere” that, so far, has exhibited a worse-than-ever fixation on the pathetic “two” parties that animate the political circus known as the presidential election.

Castle, while accepting his party’s nomination at its recent national convention in Salt Lake City, Utah, inferred that the current regime in Washington is so constitutionally out of bounds that, in the final analysis, it’s illegitimate.

Speaking in support of the original American republic, he described the matter as follows: “The legitimate government was created by the sovereign states for a specific purpose—to protect our God-given rights.” Zeroing in on the crux of the matter, he added, “This purpose has been surrendered to a new government—a new global order that has enveloped us.”

And while reminding the audience that the Constitution was devised to delegate just 17 powers to the federal government, he noted that, today, there are so many government actions and programs outside constitutional boundaries that the current regime is nearly 100% illegal, constitutionally speaking.

And while noting that the states are at fault for allowing federal power to outgrow the Constitution, Castle then listed several “principles,” or planks, being espoused by the new global order’s promoters, as follows: world money, world taxation, world government, a cashless society (and related robbery and surveillance through negative interest rates and high-tech tracking of personal income and spending); and debt monetization.

By the time Castle shared more unwavering views—he’d also get the U.S. out of the United Nations, depart from NATO and end the Federal Reserve system—it became all-too apparent, comparatively speaking, that the policy positions of Republicans Donald J. Trump and Ted Cruz and Democratic contenders Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are rather flimsy and open to broad interpretation—save perhaps for Trump’s seemingly firm conviction to build a U.S. border wall and Sanders’ animus toward Wall Street’s predatory economic ethos.

“There’d be no more begging for an ‘audit’ of this bank,” Castle added, about the Federal Reserve. “We need a different money system.”

Touching on the major-party presidential candidates—who are granted a media monopoly to the direct detriment of the CP, the other “minority” parties and the voting public—Castle noted that Sanders is a socialist but the Constitution is not a socialist document; and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is too close to the world-consolidation crowd in the Council on Foreign Relations and in the meddlesome investment bank Goldman Sachs which pads various establishment candidates’ campaign war chests (due to Cruz’s wife’s connections to both groups).

Castle added that Trump skirts the idea of a firm constitutional rule of law and makes policy statements off the cuff, based on “what he thinks is right.”; and Hillary, he noted, once said “unborn persons have no constitutional rights,” even though the Constitution is dead-silent on abortion but has two references that no one can be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

Castle was joined by CP vice presidential nominee Scott Bradley. To learn more about the Constitution Party, go to www.ConstitutionParty.com. The party’s state affiliates sometimes have different names, such as the U.S. Taxpayers Party of Michigan. (For complete information see http://www.ConstitutionParty.com)

Bio snippets of Constitution Party team:

• CP presidential candidate Darrell Castle, 68, grew up in northeastern Tennessee. He became a commissioned officer in the U.S. Marine Corps, serving for four years and attaining the rank of first lieutenant. He cites his military service as fostering his belief that war should not be entered into capriciously nor without congressional approval. A lawyer by trade with a strong Christian ethic, he has opened firms in Michigan, Wisconsin and Missouri, focusing on consumer bankruptcy and personal injury while also representing Social Security/disability and workers’ compensation clients. He was the CP’s 2008 vice presidential nominee.
• His 2016 running mate, Scott Bradley, 64, is a university administrator from Utah who holds a bachelor of arts from Westminster College, a masters of public administration from Brigham Young University and a Ph.D. in constitutional law from George Wythe University. Bradley twice ran for U.S. Senate (2006, 2010). In 2010, he received 5.67% of the vote—the second highest percentage for a CP candidate for Senate against both a Democrat and Republican.

By THE TRUTH HOUND

Whatever one may think of race-mixing, we can all champion free speech. This interview by the BBC of the late world-champion black boxer, Muhammad Ali (who just passed away) reveals that this sports legend cherished and exercised free speech–something the big media claim to do, but we all know, deep down, that’s not true, since the kind of discourse exercised in this video of Ali’s BBC interview is exceedingly rare, save to the extent that the media report the often edgy but candid comments from Republican presidential leader Donald J. Trump. Without honest and complete discourse from ALL sides (instead of the fake debates big media foist on everyone) actually solving problems and constructively addressing issues will never happen. Watch this video, stop whining, get some thick skin, and decide for yourself.

But keep in mind Bilderberg is part of a network of like-minded outfits, though in most respects it’s the most secretive among such elite organizations

By THE TRUTH HOUND

As Bilderberg 2016 convenes, taking place June 9-12 in Dresden, Germany at the heavily barricaded Hotel Taschenbergpalais Kempinski, it’s important to note that— as this AFP writer learned at a 2013 Brookings Institution meeting, just before that year’s Bilderberg-UK meeting—a European Union (EU) army for a “United States of Europe” has been on the menu of the world planners in Bilderberg and associated organizations.

Notably, the Bilderbergers’ media outlet, whose operators never reveal their names or affiliations, released on or a little before June 6th–in their usual brief, last-minute fashion— the list of Bilderberg 2016 attendees. Their press release, which also includes a shorter-than-usual list of “discussion” topics, along with those confirmed participants, can be accessed here. There has never been any guarantee that the list is complete and names all the participants.

But for the record, their ten stated 2016 topics, some of which are amusingly vague and generic, are:

1. Current events
2. China
3. Europe: migration, growth, reform, vision, unity
4. Middle East
5. Russia
6. U.S. political landscape, economy: growth, debt, reform
7. Cyber security
8. Geo-politics of energy and commodity prices
9. Precariat and middle class
10. Technological innovation

Meanwhile, however, accounts of joint military exercises involving British and French soldiers this spring in south England represent the most recent evidence yet that the development of an EU military force has come off of the drawing board and is emerging as a reality.

The Franco-UK exercises, dubbed Exercise Griffin Strike, took place in April. They involved the swapping of officers wherein French commanders directed British troops and vice versa, according to Brian Gerrish, who served 20 years in the Royal Navy and co-produces the online investigative news and commentary site, www.UKcolumn.org.

The broader issue here is that the upcoming vote in Britain on exiting the EU, or Brexit, as it is called, will be rendered moot, since a pending EU army—with requirements for British soldiers to take part in that army—undercuts a successful UK vote to separate from the EU.

Brexit, of course, is philosophically opposed by the Bilderberg group’s core leadership and their brethren at the Brookings Institution, in the Council on Foreign Relations, at the CFR-related Chicago Council on Global Affairs and scores of similar think tanks in the U.S. and abroad—and in the G7 and G20.

Brookings—whose scholars regularly attend the highly secretive Bilderberg meetings that bring together bought-off editors, various ministers, royalty, bankers, energy barons, high-tech gurus and others—also reported in 2013 that a “fiscal union” to centralize the EU’s taxing, budgeting, and spending, is a goal.

The G7’s just-concluded 2016 meeting in Japan provides yet another glimpse into Bilderberg’s outlook, as the American Free Press (AFP) late Bilderberg hound James P. Tucker Jr. often said.

Right on cue, a G7 declaration issued immediately thereafter calls for worldwide taxation. In so doing, the G7 ministers referred to the G20, which, as AFP reported, recently met in Washington and warmly welcomed a report calling for a world-taxation grid, from which no one can hide. The G7 declaration comes in the wake of this AFP writer’s (Truth Hound’s)  report on Bilderberg’s linkage to the Panama Papers in a gambit to exploit the tax-evasion revelations to fool the public into supporting a new world-wide taxation system.

The G7 officially stated: “To restore public trust in tax systems by enhancing transparency of tax information, we reaffirm G20’s call on all relevant countries, including all financial centers and jurisdictions, to implement the standard on automatic exchange of information by [the] committed deadline and to sign the Multilateral Convention, as well as the request to the [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development] to establish . . . ‘objective criteria to identify non-cooperative jurisdictions with respect to tax transparency.’ ”

The G7-Bilderberg conduit, while opposing Brexit (according to the G7’s post-Japan declaration), is sparing no expense to “reaffirm our commitment to keep our markets open and to fight all forms of protectionism [tariffs and other helpful sovereign tools]. . . . We encourage trade liberalization . . . through regional trade agreements including the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the Japan-EU Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA), the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA).”

Whatever topics for discussion might pop up on Bilderberg’s so-called official agenda released to the press this year—many of which are suspect—the broader topics named here represent the long-term transnational integration scheme that’s always “on the agenda” and needs to be exposed and defeated, especially when the Trans-Pacific and Transatlantic trade traps come up for approval in Congress.

BILDERBERG BACKGROUND

The Bilderberg group is a highly secretive organization of European and North American elites from big business, big media, politics, banking, and other sectors.

The Bilderberg Meetings, which were started in 1954, occur annually at only the most posh hotels or resorts in Europe or North America. The entire resort is closed to the public and real reporters. A large contingent of armed private security and police represent a show of force to ward off and if necessary shoot any “un-invitees” who try to enter. Deploringly, select members of the press who are invited have pledged not to report on the conferences.

Around 130-140 elites take part in the meetings. Usually, about one-third of the participants come from politics and government. American public office holders who meet like this behind closed doors with foreign policymakers (where no meeting records are kept, according to Bilderberg itself) are committing a felony, according to U.S. laws—mainly the Logan Act.

According to British professor Richard Aldrich, the CIA helped organize and fund the first meeting in 1954 (with some Ford Foundation help). From there, Bilderberg has maintained a strong hand in European consolidation and other internationalist schemes. AFP’s late publisher Willis Carto often said Bilderberg represents hard proof that elites, including elected officials, undemocratically gather and conspire to plan, formulate or influence policy, directly and/or indirectly.

The Truth Hound is Mark Anderson, AmericanFreePress.net Bilderberg reporter, carrying on the pioneering work of late-great Bilderberg hound James. P. Tucker Jr. May Jim always rest in peace in that great newsroom in the sky. I miss you, my friend.

By THE TRUTH HOUND / Mark Anderson

The June 5 Swiss ballot proposal to introduce a guaranteed basic income—an unconditional allowance for everyone in that neutral Alpine nation—was defeated largely on the basis of the Swiss government’s claim that the idea would “cost too much.”

Reuters added: “Swiss voters rejected by a wide margin . . .  a proposal to introduce a guaranteed basic income for everyone living in the wealthy country after an uneasy debate about the future of work at a time of increasing automation. (Emphasis added).”

Yet, the plutocratic Financial Times acknowledged, “The Swiss may have just voted to reject a proposal for a guaranteed minimum income  . . . but that hardly means the idea is dead. Pilot projects and feasibility studies are in the works across the developed world, from the Netherlands [and Finland] to California. In Canada, the federal Liberals, along with governments in Ontario, Quebec and Alberta have expressed interest in the concept.”

However, the nearly universal misunderstanding of money is a major obstacle. For too long we’ve allowed a small coterie of bankers and “court economists” to hold the secrets and “tutor” us. So, it’s time for total openness.

First, regarding the claim that the Swiss proposal would’ve been too costly, what’s entirely omitted from the discussion is that the proposal (and similar proposals elsewhere) appear to call for re-distribution of existing money—taking money from certain sectors through taxation and re-allocating it to the people at-large.

The implication is that the money supply is basically static and that re-distributing limited funds would require tough budget decisions—sparking tax hikes and associated spending increases in several areas; hence the claim “costs too much.”

But a successful basic-income plan can and must be based on the creation of new money, or “distributism,” not on reshuffling existing money, which is “re-distributism.” That’s the “state secret” that no one wants to touch.

The issuance of new money needs to happen to overcome the huge “gap” between today’s paltry purchasing power and the massive mountain of debt and the towering totality of prices on all available goods and services. We have full stores and empty wallets. (Ideally and importantly, governments should reclaim their interest-free money-creation rights and forbid private central banks from creating money any longer).

Given such matters, the social credit movement—rarely mentioned in basic-income circles—took root in the early 20^th Century via Scottish engineer-author C.H. Douglas and American academic-author Gorham Munson, among others. As it became widely evident that a basic income to supplement employment earnings was (and still is) needed, social credit proponents were quick to explain their concept of introducing new money to bridge that gap and provide a universal allowance with new money.

The amount of money would be equated with production data so empowered consumers could boost overall demand and liquidate inventories, which keep factory orders flowing properly. Yet the amount would not exceed the quantity of available goods, thereby avoiding a type of price inflation.

Our price increases mainly come from the cost-push process, where excessive taxes, interest charges and operational costs are pushed on to the end consumer—meaning that “printing too much money” is not the inflation-causing bogeyman that so many fright artists claim it is.

This is especially important to point out, given that the world largely operates on an all-borrowed money supply, wherein new loans are constantly taken out to pay off old ones, public and private—a vicious cycle which stacks debts ever higher and depletes purchasing power via “interest drain.” Price increases and money shortages have become institutionalized.

As for the automation paradox, social creditors and other visionaries for years have spoken of the “wage of the machine,” meaning that we must cancel the rule that income can only come from jobs via human labor.

Instead, under social credit, a basic income would come in the form of a regular dividend paid to the population at-large calculated, as noted above, on production output—regardless of whether that production required human labor or whether it was largely or completely automated. That critical distinction means increased leisure time along with better income, which makes automation a friend, not a foe.

Other social credit components would stabilize and lower prices. Thus, increased leisure, much more spending power and lower prices are all within reach, which could foster a renaissance in human thought and action because the unforgiving yoke of the obligatory “work state” would be lifted off our backs. See www.Socred.org

Put another way: We were born to do more than just go to work, pay bills and die.

By The Truth Hound

While attendance at Bilderberg by sitting members of Congress has become rather rare in recent years, leave it to super hawkish neo-conservative Sen. Lindsay Olin Graham (R-S.C.) to be the only current U.S. legislator officially listed as a participant at the exclusive annual confab this year in Dresden, Germany.

This American Free Press writer (who took over for late Bilderberg hound Jim Tucker to cover the group for AFP), when tracking Graham’s whereabouts through the Senate’s Periodical Press staff, found that Graham didn’t depart on the overnight flight to Germany until Friday afternoon on June 10, meaning he was only able to attend the last two days of Bilderberg—June 11-12.

He cast floor votes on June 8 and June 9, the latter of which was Bilderberg’s first day of the four-day meeting. At first, there was some question as to whether Graham would actually jet to Germany at all, given the Senate’s busy sessions June 10, as well as on Monday, June 13.

Yet, on the day he left, he was all pumped up about increasing defense spending, breathlessly proclaiming to the press, “I’m making defense spending push ‘my No. 1 reason to live.’”

And while that’s certainly notable—given the cutting-edge defense technology company people and current and former military figures who attend Bilderberg and may want to brainstorm defense plans with the Graham—there is also a widespread belief that Graham ventured to the 64^th Bilderberg meeting to brainstorm on defeating the GOP candidacy of Donald J. Trump.

But perhaps most significantly, thanks to Graham’s wanderlust, the mainstream Kansas City Star (KCS) played a significant role in breaking the stony Bilderberg silence that the U.S. press usually practices by posting a grabby headline and respectable story online, specifically about Graham’s “excellent adventure” in Germany.

Meanwhile, however, the key Capitol Hill newspapers that claim to watch every move of U.S. lawmakers (The Hill, Politico, and Roll Call), as of the afternoon of Friday, June 10, apparently hadn’t run a word on Graham’s trip. AFP reached out to them to see what their reporting plans may be regarding Graham’s trip, if they’ll be civil enough to respond to the inquiries.

In stark contrast, the KCS blared the above-noted headline accompanied by three sub-headlines in its June 9 online edition, which could have been written by AFP. The main headline was worded: “Lindsey Graham to join global elite at the world’s most secretive annual meeting,” followed by “Graham will join European, North American political and business leaders in Germany,” “Topics will include US election and Britain’s referendum on leaving European Union” and “The senator’s outspoken criticism of Donald Trump echoes many Europeans’ worries.”

That comports with one of the 10 official topics announced by Bilderberg this year: “U.S. political landscape.”

In a June 10 podcast audio interview, hosted by AFP webmaster Dave Gahary, this writer and the host compared notes and determined that even Time magazine online this year had unexpectedly broken the traditional American mainstream-media silence regarding Bilderberg. And overseas media, whose heavier coverage of Bilderberg had started to fade in recent year, made some house. Those outlets, most of which tend to criticize Bilderberg’s critics more than Bilderberg itself, included the British Telegraph and the UK Daily Mail.

Meanwhile, thankfully, the Charleston (S.C.) Post and Courier in Graham’s home state, where viable opponents have tried with no avail so far to unseat the illustrious lawmaker, chimed in rather loudly on Graham’s junket to team up with the trans-national “consolidationists” skulking into Dresden to plan, and wheel and deal, “off the grid.”

Perhaps coincidentally and perhaps not, the Post and Courier’s June 10 story appeared online three hours after this writer sent that newspaper the news tip that Graham was headed to Bilderberg.

“Graham, who ran for president [for the 2016 GOP nomination race] last year, gained national exposure for being the only Republican contender to slam President Barack Obama’s Iraq war strategy while actually offering his own alternative. Since dropping out of the race at the end of 2015, he has been something of a voice of conscience for the Republican Party struggling to reconcile with its unconventional presidential nominee, Donald Trump,” Post and Courier reporter Emma Dumain wrote.

The online version of the Miami Herald on June 9 noted, “Lindsey Graham’s relentless, vocal criticism of Donald Trump has scored him an invite to meet . . . with global leaders behind closed doors at one of the world’s most secretive annual gatherings.”

As of this writing June 13, the three above-noted Washington papers evidently ignored Graham’s trip, inundated as they were with legislative “he said, she said” about the reported Orlando shooting.

Nevertheless, it could be said that Graham succeeded in “stinking up” the posh Dresden hotel where he met with Bilderberg, by bringing a boatload of unusual and unwelcome press coverage with him, however unwittingly. This could help make Bilderberg more of a household word and perhaps make it easier to demand that the internationalist cabal be dissolved someday.

It remains to be seen if other major media in Sen. Graham’s home state of South Carolina, besides the Charleston paper, will report much, if at all, on their “golden boy’s” trip.

It’d indeed be interesting to see Graham get “dressed down” the way that former Bilderberg Steering Committee member—British MP Kenneth Clarke—was taken to task for his Bilderberg collusion by feisty late Labour Party MP Michael Meacher on the House of Commons floor, just as Bilderberg-2013 in the UK was starting.

Interestingly, Clarke resigned from the Steering Committee on or around the very day Meacher hammered him, the 5^th of June 2013.

With his characteristic messianic 10-mile gaze, Graham’s nonstop bellicose speeches and stances for the never-ending “war on terror,” and his flippant, casual attitude about civil liberties and constitutional integrity, make him an especially deserving recipient of a similarly serious tongue-lashing on the Senate floor for attending Bilderberg. While the odds seem slim at this writing for such a delightful dose of justice, we’ll see what may happen.

By M. Samuel Anderson

[Updated around 2:30 p.m. Eastern, Tues., June 14]

www.TheTruthHound.com

ORLANDO, Fla. — The story was practically over as it began. And now the many outlets of the orthodox press speak with one voice about assumed Orlando shooter Omar Mateen.

Mateen, as we’ve been told over and over and over and over and over, in the early-morning hours of June 12, allegedly opened fire, killed about 50 people in the largely gay “Pulse” nightclub, wounded another “53,” was “shot dead” by police at the scene, and was declared guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt post-mortem. By June 14, the “fatal” figure had slipped to 49.

Considerable inconsistencies in the overall story still were evident as of this writing. One timeline says Mateen entered the nightclub around 2:02 a.m. with a pistol and the customary AR-15 rifle, carrying plenty of ammo, and opened fire. But police reportedly didn’t initiate force until 5 a.m.—after dealing with a claimed “hostage” situation. There are other scenarios and variables.

But one thing is not inconsistent: The media’s total acceptance of the government narrative.

This spectacle of big media being in lockstep with the government started on the afternoon of Sunday, June 12 several hours after the nightclub incident–an alliance that was in place from the very beginning of the Orlando coverage. The very idea that the press is a watchdog over the state has been written off all the way in this case.

Even the initial news reports, when all the facts could not possibly have been known, were way beyond a rush to judgment. Indeed, all the reporting via mainstream outlets is an ultra-intense embrace of the narrative that Islam is a mortal, eternal enemy and that all aspects of homosexuality are beyond reproach by anyone.

As you read this, President Obama for the 15^th time had delivered an emotional speech after a domestic “random” shooting, in this case in the immediate wake of this alleged multiple shooting at the Orlando nightclub—“the worse mass shooting murder in American history,” as described by law enforcement “expert” Jim Cavanaugh on NBC News around 2 p.m. Sunday (June 12).

“Hate is a motive; internationally inspired terrorism is a motive,” Cavanaugh speculated, while acting as if he possessed all the facts—like an all-knowing prosecutor making opening trial remarks to the “American jury” in TV land.

Really, Jim? Try 76 dead, including men, women, children and infants, at the 1993 Waco, Texas massacre. Or don’t government-enacted killings make the grade? Oh, I see, government guns–good; private guns–bad. Nice try, tough guy.

Not once did the NBC News crew on that Sunday practice proper journalism and describe shooting suspect Omar Mateen as the “alleged shooter.” Nor indeed did the word “suspect” see the light of day. The press had already bought the story from Orlando police and the federal government. The reason the national broadcast media and “the state” performed as one and the same entity is because, for all intents and purposes, they are. The revolving doors work well, as NBC reporter Pete Williams used to be a press spokesman for the Pentagon, for example.

The three media-declared enemies of the state became clear: Anti-gay people of any stripe, along with Muslims, and, of course, guns. Hate is permeating the air, the media repeated. And their close ally, the state, was there to help wipe tears and soothe fears at home, and keep prosecuting unwinnable wars abroad.

This writer has long considered the possibility that the string of 15 domestic shootings referred to by Obama are a large terrorism operation broken into small pieces to make them appear like random, separate events. But if they’re connected—and many of the events share several characteristics—then they may be what I call “micro-terrorism,” a word that describes seemingly separate “small” events that constitute a larger hidden plan.

Delving into the possibility that the Orlando shooting was a false-flag operation, “State of the Nation” online noted, “In any event the only questions that ever really matter when trying to solve such a transparent false flag shooting event is WHO really did it and WHY did they do it. It ought to be quite obvious by now that Obama was put into the White House by his masters to accomplish five primary goals: (1) Enact Obamacare (2) Restart the Cold War with Russia (3) Crash the Economy (4) Promote Gay Marriage and (5) Nullify the 2nd Amendment.” He’s 4 for 5 and State of Nation expects more shootings to justify more gun control in the Obama regime’s final few months.

For the record, gay skeptics such as myself don’t make a huge issue of homosexuality per se, although that “lifestyle choice” is fraught with known health risks and profound social implications. The problem is when radical, organized gay groups push their views on impressionable children and things of that nature while always demanding inordinate media favoritism—far beyond “balanced” treatment.

The “hate” element, of course, was invoked because Mateen (for a time called “Marteen” by NBC after the network initially spelled it “Mateen.”) reportedly was a reader of ISIS’s online postings. And ISIS was described by Cavanagh and others on the June 12 NBC News broadcast as “violently anti-gay.”

And, allegedly, according to NBC News, ISIS officially believes that homosexuality deserves the death penalty under Islamic Sharia law. Therefore, Mateen, who is said to have professed fealty to ISIS on more than one occasion, “must” be of the same stripe. Someone had heard that he and his son saw gay men kissing and Mateen was outraged—so outraged he would supposedly carry out a killing.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the country, a heavily armed man, who at first was said to be Islamic in extraction, happened to be stopped by police and arrested when he allegedly was headed to a planned “gay pride” parade the same day in Los Angeles, according to NBC, also on June 12.

Enter token angry white male: Turns out that, according to the Associated Press, the arrestee was a 20-year-old white man all the way from Jeffersonville, Indiana. Police claim that, in his car, he had “three assault rifles,” “high-capacity magazines” and “a five-gallon bucket with chemicals which could be used to make an explosive device.” (Unlike the orthodox press, the man’s name will not be shown here, since the information on him, which only comes from police, is simply hearsay).

“Around the country there are lots of gay pride events planned for this time of year,” NBC’s Pete Williams said.

“We’ve reached no definitive judgment on the precise motives of the killer,” Obama said in his brief press conference, while adding: “What is clear is that he was a person filled with hatred. . . .This could have been any one of our communities.”

Obama noted that the “Pulse” nightclub, as it’s named, has become a place of “solidarity” and “civil rights” for the gay community and that this is an especially dark time for them. Obama went on to say that an attack on the LGBT community or anyone else for their ethnicity, race or sexuality “is an attack on all of us.”

Making sure that America’s collective psyche is sufficiently thrown into a sense of widespread fear and uncertainty, Obama also noted that from schools, to movie theaters, to churches and now to nightclubs—gun-based horror can erupt at any moment, at any place, at any time and that this specter of fear is now a permanent fixture in the U.S.

For the first time ever, the president called this shooting both “an act of terror and an act of hate,” NBC News also strongly stressed.

“Fifty lives we’re talking about; the largest massacre in America,” said a gay newspaper editor interviewed on the same NBC broadcast, around 2:30 p.m. Eastern Time Sunday, just before a brand-new cell-phone video was broadcast that allegedly showed, from a considerable distance, the very same Orlando shooting.

While viewing the video, this writer took careful notes. The apparent sound of shots could be heard and the viewer could see police-car lights flashing, showing police were already on the scene. NBC even speculated that the popping sounds were at least partly from the SWAT team that reportedly hurried to the scene, yet not fast enough to interrupt the Mateen’s mission much, if at all.

“What we do know is that ISIS has carried out gay attacks throughout the world,” NBC’s host reporter-anchor claimed—something that this attentive writer (your host, the Truth Hound) had never heard before this Orlando incident. Nor does this writer recall ISIS being convincingly linked to a hatred of homosexuality in terms of the terrorist group’s official system of beliefs.

“ISIS absolutely wants to claim credit for this,” regardless of whether Mateen was simply “ISIS-inspired” or “ISIS-directed,” said another commentator on NBC News.

Furthermore, Mateen supposedly commented on the brothers who were framed in the Boston Marathon bombing—a story riddled with umpteen contradictions and inconsistencies in terms of the accepted news narrative. “That’s all in the 9-11 call, we’ve been told by authorities,” Pete Williams added, meaning that Mateen allegedly made such a comment in a 9-11 call to law enforcement several years ago around the time of the Boston incident, so as to knowingly be recorded in spouting his “hate.”

Then at 2:45 p.m. Sunday, June 12, U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) showed up in Orlando, claiming that the Islamic State actually has a “news” agency and that that agency claimed ISIS is “responsible” for the Orlando shooting. But seconds later Nelson turned around and said that the ISIS-news item is unconfirmed and that Mateen could very well have been a “lone wolf.”

“He saw two men kissing and was offended by it,” former SWAT man Shawn Henry presumptively proclaimed on the NBC newscast, in order to drive home the “lone-nut” conviction of Mateen.

Taking a different angle based on the supposition that Mateen was involved in the shooting, Zero Hedge online noted that Mateen, according to preliminary reports, “had been on a terrorist watchlist” but “still managed to obtain weapons thanks to his various licenses and permits” acquired from being “employed by one of the world’s largest security companies, where he may have had extensive clearances well above his pay grade, not to mention access to sophisticated military weapons and equipment.”

All told, this narrative has it all. Domestic-born Mateen (29, reportedly  born in N.Y.) has an international aspect to him via his ISIS-based affiliation or sympathy, which brings the “distant” ISIS threat home to U.S. soil (like in the San Bernardino shooting). Mateen has just the right weapon, an AR-15, to vilify. And a minority, in this case gays, are said to be the intended victim (Mateen was shot dead so he cannot clarify or testify). Therefore, those who happen to believe in straight living and the Second Amendment are painted as the domestic “outcast” by implication, in a nation that claims to represent everyone equally. The “lone nut” shooter, a uniquely American invention, is again presented as immovable fact.

Here are other points this writer took into account:

• While watching the NBC News coverage, my lovely wife added (right when media-anointed Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton issued an anti-gun statement in the wake of the Orlando event) that ISIS—if it’s really the existential threat to America the government and media paint it to be—would love nothing more than seeing more Americans disarmed.
• The media could not omit defaming Donald Trump by saying he tweeted that he “appreciated the ‘congrats’” on the Orlando shooting (answering his followers whose remarks vindicated his professed tough stance against Islamic terrorism). But the media downplayed Trump saying in the very same Twitter message that he didn’t want praise. What the GOP presidential nominee clearly meant was that while he’s grateful that people support his tough stance, he was not seeking compliments.
• Moreover, we must confront the hard reality that ISIS grew out of the rich soil of U.S. intelligence-backed insurgents in al Qaeda, the Free Syrian Army and other mysterious outfits that coalesced into ISIS. Evidence of Mossad backing ISIS is there, too, along with MI6 connivance.
• Only Russia was able to push ISIS on its heels militarily early this spring, but the U.S. went berserk, got Russia to retreat, and sent more American forces into Iraq to “take on” ISIS quite recently, which, if ISIS is ever proven to have been involved in Orlando, could very well have triggered that Florida event—provided the media is the telling the nation the truth in the first place about the Orlando incident. At this point, the mainstream media’s veracity is sketchy, at best.
• Jerry Demmings of Orlando PD didn’t waste nano-second to speak in the vacuum created by Mateen’s death at the age of 29. “This indeed was an attack on our nation,” he said on NBC, which is pure speculation.
• And if I heard him correctly, Ron Hopper of the FBI claimed that on the very morning of the apparent shooting at the Pulse nightclub, Mateen supposedly made a 9-11 call to pledge allegiance to ISIS. How convenient.
• “We don’t have a second suspect that we are actively looking for,” Hopper also told reporters. Of course, you don’t, Ron.
• CORRECTION PLEASE: The actual worst killings on U.S. soil included the North’s War of Aggression against the South and the U.S. Army’s massacre of the Sioux at Wounded Knee, S.D. Deluded Americans must stop differentiating between the abuse of deadly force by “official” shooters in military or police uniforms for deceptive or hidden political goals, and so-called “domestic, civilian” shooters. Killing is killing. Not to mention the obvious circumstance that the endless “war on terror” carried out by U.S. and other Western forces has invited blowback against America for the almost total destruction of Iraq, Libya and parts of Afghanistan, Yemen and elsewhere.

By The TRUTH HOUND

If anything good has come out of the reported Orlando shooting incident, it’s that the media’s mind-bending malpractices which have cursed us for way too long are becoming quite obvious. It’s simply a question of when the big media and its ally, the central state, will overplay their hand.

Yet, some news outlets deserve special attention. When it comes to the nightly reports and commentaries of Bill O’Reilly of Fox News, and the output of Fox News in general, clarification is badly needed. There is a major deception going on here.

Case in point: O’Reilly’s regular “memo” report on the evening of June 14. See link here:  https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/bill-oreilly-takes-stunning-stance-154449244.html

That link carries a written report and footage of one of the most misleading pieces of “journalism” in recent memory. In the report, which is being widely referenced as a key turning point in the gun debate, “conservative” anchor Bill O’Reilly nearly does a “180” and embraces some notable measure of gun control, mainly regarding AR-15 rifles like the one reportedly used by alleged Orlando nightclub shooter Omar Mateen.

(Editor’s note: Mateen, recall, was shot dead by police and cannot testify but the corporate media rushed to declare him guilty before he was even cold, in a total breach of basic journalistic precautions. Innocence until guilt is proven has been thrown overboard, along with a key journalistic tenet – “never assume.” Taking police reports, especially verbal ones, at face value does not wash.)

Yet this O’Reilly gun report, apart from the specifics which I’ll examine in a moment, follows the basic Fox News protocol on representing “conservatism” in media and commenting from that angle regarding government and society.  As a preface to examining O’Reilly’s smug, patronizing, highly misleading lecture, here below are key points that must be digested in order to understand where the Fox News enterprise is coming from ideologically:

• First of all, Fox is a leading voice in peddling the fantasy that conservatism and patriotism can only mean unwavering support for the military. That is categorically untrue.
• An entire conservative worldview that was long practiced by widely respected true conservatives, like late paleo-conservative writers Joe Sobran and Samuel Francis, has been erased by the Fox crowd and other conservative poseurs such as those at the Weekly Standard. That almost forgotten worldview, which was represented by “Mr. Conservative,” the estimable late lawmaker Robert Taft of Ohio, recognizes that truly conservative patriotism calls for state power to be limited in ALL areas, which naturally includes putting limits on military spending, and especially limits on military missions. To not limit military power is to increase the surveillance over citizens at home, and to give a blank check to secret courts, black budgets, massive CIA abuses and needless deaths and injuries to U.S. troops and innocent foreign non-combatants.
• Which leads me to the next point. O’Reilly said that only Democrats, leftists and liberals oppose the USA Patriot Act, while saying that this spy-state law need not be watered down, and in fact should be bolstered, so “we” can go after the “ISIS savages” that are said to be lurking under every manhole. O’Reilly ignores the fact that genuine constitutional-conservatism sees a strong need to firmly push back against spy laws like the Patriot Act, or even dissolve such laws, since any “war on terror” that destroys our liberties is a lost war anyway.
• Terrorists throughout history have confessed that their main goal is not bloodshed in and of itself. It’s to use real or threatened bloodshed to destroy the culture and liberties of the target country. In other words, the action is in the reaction. So if Americans adopt more gun control, that’s just fine from the point of view of America’s real foes, such as they are. Anyway, how can our troops “defend” our domestic freedoms if the O’Reillys of the world who believe in nonstop wars also push for dissolving those very same freedoms? You cannot have a warfare state without a growing, massive surveillance state at home. The two cannot be separated. Don’t even attempt to tell me otherwise.
• The ongoing war on terror, for which winning cannot be defined much less achieved, is the perfect way to invite endless attacks against the U.S.—something that true conservatives who fought against U.S. interventionism labored to point out before the false neo-conservative movement, which includes Fox News, took over the conservative movement through William F. Buckley’s “National Review” and through the “Rockefeller Republicans.” This new vanguard of counterfeit conservatism, starting in the latter 1950s, overcame Barry Goldwater. And, having hijacked the “conservative” mantle, this vanguard redirected Republicans down the path of globalism, “world order” and war, erasing the worldview of America First and the non-interventionism called for by George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, among other founders.
• Now I’ll specify that, with the context of conservatism clarified, O’Reilly’s call for limits on AR-15 rifle availability makes far less sense. On the one hand, he wants to blow ISIS off the face of the earth, without mentioning that when Russia stepped in and started doing just that, the U.S. made Russia back off and sent in more U.S. troops, which is saying nothing about the evidence of ISIS being created by Western Intelligence to justify a continuing war on terror that’s highly profitable for defense industries, among many other intrigues.
• As O’Reilly remarked in his homily about guns: “There is too much gun crime in the USA, and high-powered weaponry is too easy to get,” he said. “That’s the fact. So let’s deal with it. We all have the right to bear arms, but we don’t have the right to buy and maintain mortars. Even if you feel threatened by gangsters or a New World Order. No bazookas, no Sherman tanks, no hand grenades.” Note the use of hyperbole here, which means exaggerating a concept to make a point. Owning an AR-15 is NOTHING like obtaining a tank, mortars, grenades or a bazooka.
• NO ONE EVER SAID THAT AMERICANS WHO SUPPORT THE SECOND AMENDMENT SEEK TO OWN SUCH EXTRA-DEADLY MILITARY ITEMS! REPEAT — No one ever said it. This is what I call “the fallacy of the non-argument,” which means raising an issue that nobody raised and knocking it down, as if you’re fighting a real opposing view when, in reality, the opposing view was simply manufactured out of thin air.  That makes O’Reilly a pure propagandist.
• So, let’s be clear, Bill. The more astute among us know when our chain is being yanked by the fake friends of conservatism such as yourself. Fox is an utter fraud. “That’s the fact,” Bill.

• Watch out for the ‘Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act’

By The Truth Hound

As U.S. House members rant and rave about the supposed need for more civilian gun control—while lacking the will to silence the deadly guns of the U.S. military in its killing of innocent civilians in the arbitrary “world war on terror”—a bill quietly brewing in Congress would create an official “Ministry of Truth” in the federal government.

That’s what critics are saying about H.R. 5181—officially named The Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act of 2016. Given the U.S. government’s already dim view of Russia, this bill appears to signal a return to the propaganda wars of the “good old days” of the U.S. Cold War with Russia.

Co-sponsor Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) noted, “As Russia continues to spew its disinformation and false narratives, they undermine the United States and its interests in places like Ukraine.” Kinzinger, who’s working with co-sponsor Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) on this bill, helped introduce it because, “the U.S. has a role in countering these destabilizing acts of propaganda.”

But, if passed, the risk is that this legislation will allow American propaganda to even further infiltrate cable, online, and mainstream news outlets whenever the U.S. government deems necessary. Ironically, CIA news–infiltration already has been happening for decades under Operation Mockingbird and in other unofficial capacities. Congress’s new bill, should it become law, would only legitimize it.

Besides, big media toe the government line most of the time anyway, especially when it comes to upholding the rationale for the unconstitutional practice of worldwide policing and intervention by the military in what the government calls the “war on terror,” which, itself, is an especially corrosive species of deceit masquerading as truth.

PROPAGANDA OF TERROR WAR

“Terror” is a state of panic or dread, or a syndrome of fear resulting from, for example, violence. One cannot wage a war against the “fear” emanating from acts or expected acts of terrorism. Yes, one can battle “terrorists,” since they are living beings who carry out heinous acts. But their identity can be constantly in question, with one alleged terrorist group sometimes carrying out false-flag attacks in order to frame a different group or individual.

That goads the “heroic” West into attacking the wrong people and killing scores of innocents along the way, assuming the West isn’t behind some of the terrorists in terms of funding and supplies, and, of course, for propaganda purposes. When the first Cold War ended and the West needed a new enemy, the faceless terrorist, who’s usually a non-state actor without a uniform, was a good fit for the long haul.

Moreover, fighting “terror,” due to the above factors and other perplexing factors, by definition  means fighting forever. Who can ever say we’ve fought terror long and well enough? Who can ever say the war has been “won”? All of this makes this “war” the perfect vehicle for war profiteering by soldiers of fortune within mercenary corporations, for weapons manufacturers, and on and on. Thus, war is on autopilot. And our various freedoms (news & information, speech, bearing arms and others) that we think our militaries “defend” have never been more at-risk of being dissolved.

FUTILE BILL

All told, pushing a bill to create an official truth ministry would simply cement and intensify the disinformation that’s already flowing in the U.S. To hear Kinzinger (an Air Force veteran) tell it in his May 11 news release, the U.S. is the citadel of truth amid oceans of deceit: “At a time when countries like Russia and China are engaging in hybrid warfare campaigns, the United States has a unique opportunity to respond to foreign manipulation by encouraging the free flow of truthful information. This can further prevent conflict and ensure future stability.”

His news release added, “The United States needs the proper tools to defend its interests against this type of foreign manipulation and effectively defeat these new and emerging threats, while also utilizing on-the-ground communities who are targeted by these disinformation campaigns.” The bipartisan House bill is a companion to S.2692 introduced by Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Christopher Murphy (D-Conn.). In April of 2014, Murphy, accompanied by war hawk Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), spoke at a forum put on by the Atlantic Council praising the trans-Atlantic agenda being developed by Bilderberg, the Trilateral Commission, and the Atlantic Council itself—the main hubs for promoting world governance.

And this push for one-world rule carries with it the “war on terror,” which is used to justify constant war carried out by Western powers in the Middle East in order to topple Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad and any others who may present an obstacle to Western hegemony. 

H.R. 5181 assigns the State Department, of all agencies, to coordinate the bill’s provisions with the director of national intelligence and the rather obscure federal Broadcasting Board of Governors to set up a “Center for Information Analysis and Response”—eerily reminiscent of the truth ministry from George Orwell’s novel 1984. (One has to wonder if Orwell had a time machine; his predictions of the future have been so uncannily accurate.).

Americans must also ask whether this country needs yet another costly bureaucracy, especially when the government has plenty of existing agencies and resources to counter those relatively rare real threats that sometimes emerge. Moreover, such a ministry would run the risk of further distorting the already untrustworthy reporting that often flows from most U.S. media.

Only well-informed populace can enable Brexit ‘divorce’ to become final

By THE TRUTH HOUND

Yours Truly has learned that while, on June 23, the overall UK did vote 51.9% to 48.9% to leave the European Union in the much-anticipated “Brexit” referendum, there is considerable fragility and uncertainty surrounding the whole matter.

As reported elsewhere on this blog, two days after the UK filed for divorce from the EU, RT news claimed that “over 2 million Brits” signed an online petition calling for a second vote, as many feel “dissatisfied” with the referendum’s outcome. That number supposedly was quickly increasing as this article was posted.

And given the plutocratic plans already in motion regarding the transatlantic trade treaty, the European Union military’s formation and the advancement of the global cities-global mayoral movement that represents phony local control, a meaningful, complete British exit from the EU may be painfully slow, and may never happen.

Notably, the apparent difference with the EU army structure is that the UK—which remains a part of the EU military apparatus regardless of Brexit’s approval—will have even less say-so over its military assets and policies under the EU than under NATO.

In other words, the UK’s sovereignty, seemingly boosted by Brexit’s approval, is being diminished militarily—and also economically, since, as this writer has already reported, British Prime Minister David Cameron, whose government has sent representatives to the Bilderberg meetings to fine-tune the global “consensus,” has been visiting several European leaders to “renegotiate” Britain’s relationship with the EU.

That produced a report whose essence is “the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is at the heart of British trade policy,” said UKcolumn.org co-editor Mike Robinson. His careful assessment of Brexit’s outcome differs greatly from that of the manipulative mainstream media.

So, that leaves the question of British political autonomy open. Notably, Brexit’s approval is dependent on the Lisbon Treaty’s Article 50 process. The Truth Hound checked Article 50 and found that leaving the EU will take at least two years and may take longer. And the exit is largely at the mercy of the EU apparatus.

EuroNews.com, in its own Article 50 overview, found the same thing: “It will take about two years to officially ‘leave’ the EU, however, most experts predict a longer period. During this negotiation process, EU laws will still apply to the UK—it will continue to participate in other EU business but will not participate in internal EU discussions or decisions on its own withdrawal.”

And, as many expected, Cameron resigned upon Brexit’s approval, while calling for a “period of stability”—seen by some as a delaying tactic—while commenting, “It should be up to the next Prime Minister to decide when to activate Article 50.”

Former London Mayor Boris Johnson, who’s been playing the role of an anti-Brexit “populist,” is suspected of having been a fake friend of the UK’s referendum to depart the EU. Astute observers believe the deck has been stacked so Johnson will be named the next Prime Minister.

Texas A&M-educated economist Dick Eastman sees Johnson as a Zionist-leaning friend of the Rothschild clique who has been tasked to lead an “exit” with such “fine-print” rules that, in the end, being “out” of the EU will function much like being in it. Supporters of real change could be crowded out and shouted down by the media-government alliance, especially the BBC.

Brexit nevertheless is a positive first step to build upon, but media efforts to complicate Brexit’s implementation will likely foster frustration, leading to uprisings and mayhem so as to “spoil the spirit” of Brexit and make people beg to reverse it. But, according to UK Column co-producer Brian Gerrish, if those who supported Brexit can be aided in understanding the effects of the ruling establishment’s “hidden hand,” Brexit would have a chance at real success.

Yet, amid all this, there’s also a deceptive power “devolution” happening that ties into the global cities movement that Bilderberg and other entities in the supranational governance network have been molding.

Some of it sounds good on the surface, as devolution could mean more authority for national assemblies within the UK.

However, that devolution extends down to the city level, where realignments are being made through various entities touting the “global cities” mantra. (See related story in this edition—Ed.). The Global Parliament of Mayors is central in this vanguard toward a seamless, forcible one-world society from the bottom up—while the EU army and TTIP work from the top down, resembling a pincer strategy.

Thus, while the UK people’s voice was expressed in an historical vote, the embedded powers have their own plans. Yet, the answer always ultimately lies in exiting the usurious, debt-based money system that gives leverage to groupings like the EU and its backers, and makes the world a prison without bars. In other words, we need “Monexit,” leading to economic democracy.

NOTE FROM THE TRUTH HOUND: If you want to see the TV drama “House of Cards” for real, check out this report from economics forecaster Martin Armstrong. He ably outlines the fact that Attorney Gen. Loretta Lynch is part of a lynch mob to strangle the truth. She has simply worked with the Clintons and the Democratic regime to be able to say that she won’t recuse herself from being in a position to indict apparent Democratic presidential nominee and career criminal Hillary Clinton. Yet, because she said she’d passively wait for direction in this matter from the FBI and career prosecutors, that means nothing will happen, even while she’s acting as if she stood her ground to make it appear she’s ready to pursue an indictment. The FBI report either won’t be forthcoming, or it will be tame and inconclusive. Hillary will remain untouched no matter what, unless a miracle happens. And Lynch’s “shocking” meeting with former President Bill Clinton was a setup to make this whole charade happen , in the opinion of The Truth Hound. Stay tuned. In the meantime, read on below by clicking this link to Armstrong’s July 2, 2016 report.

NOTE FROM YOUR HOST, THE TRUTH HOUND: You need to read the following insightful and highly important piece by sociology professor James Petras on the reality of Hillary Clinton’s use of her private computer server for government business during her days as Secretary of State under President Obama. This matter far exceeds mere blunders, unwise or ill-advised procedures, ethical or moral failures, or even a straightforward “abuse” of a government job and government information. Indeed, what Petras is saying here points not only to treason apparently being carried out by Hillary–but what amounts to Hillary carrying out treason in the form of espionage. Read on and you be the judge. Click on the link below.  Share this matter widely.

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/clintonspy.html

ANNOUNCEMENT FROM THE TRUTH HOUND: Dear Viewers & Listeners: This audio report I put together, first aired on KSDZ “The Twister” radio in western Nebraska on July 6th, cuts to the core of Hillary’s mischief during her heady days as President Obama’s Secretary of State—when she clearly sent sensitive information on her private computer server via emails, and then deleted more than 30,000 of those emails. Beyond what was on her server and what she did with it, a basic question is, why did she use her private server for public business in the first place? Click on the link below for the MP3 file of the radio report, which is just over 3 minutes long.

160705_004

BRIEF COMMENT FROM YOUR HOST, THE TRUTH HOUND: This article below makes very salient, objective points in a world that teaches revenge, retribution and violence. All of that, take note, is completely contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ–whose admonition to “turn the other cheek” means ending the retribution-violence mentality and breaking the violence cycle so humanity can heal and rise to a new level of love. One other note: While Mr. Swanson’s article is certainly a worthy read, it’s all based on the premise that we’re getting accurate reports from the news media. So far, the evidence of extreme media malpractice is overwhelming. We must keep that in mind whenever we read or hear reports on the most recent “shooting.” We cannot take anything at face value anymore.

—

David Swanson is an author, activist, journalist, and radio host. He is director of WorldBeyondWar.org and campaign coordinator for RootsAction.org. Swanson’s books include War Is A Lie. He blogs at DavidSwanson.org and WarIsACrime.org. He hosts Talk Nation Radio. He is a 2015 and 2016 Nobel Peace Prize Nominee.

By THE TRUTH HOUND

In a climate of media-inspired fear and uncertainty in the wake of the reported shootings in Dallas and elsewhere—we need to stay focused on what Congress is doing regarding fraudulent free trade. Nationhood itself is at stake. [See radio report in link-icon above, which first appeared on KSDZ FM Radio, “The Twister,” run by Jim Lambley out of Gordon, Nebraska, covering a large area in Nebraska’s panhandle and parts of South Dakota.]

The Trans Pacific Partnership looms ever-larger and we need to work extra-hard now—not closer to November—to prevent a vote before, or just after, the November elections on that deceptive, massive trade and investment pact. Whatever happens with the TPP must be delayed until a new president and Congress are seated in January 2017.

It cannot be overstressed that all members of Congress lately have been subjected to heavy corporate lobbying, in a full-court press to get them to vote for the TPP during the lame-duck session.

The lame duck session, of course, is that notoriously risky gap of time right after a new president has been selected but not seated. This year, that gap gives pro-TPP President Barack Obama a nothing-to-lose mentality. Given that mindset, he’ll press harder than ever for TPP’s final passage—via an already required up-or-down vote with no amendments allowed.

Despite the media’s frenzied fixation on street violence and the alleged urgency for more civilian gun controls, the TPP situation is more urgent than it appears, especially since the Republican Party, in spelling out its national platform in the run-up to the GOP national convention in Cleveland, has again succumbed to corporatism.

The media took a brief break from its nonstop anti-Second Amendment crusade and gave the TPP honorable mention—but in a manner that suggests the TPP’s passage is inevitable.

The pro-TPP Washington Post reported, “The Republican Party was set to approve new, critical language about trade agreements in its platform, including opposition to a vote on the Trans-Pacific Partnership for the rest of President Obama’s term. But at the party’s platform meeting in Cleveland on Monday (July 11] that language was struck.”

The Washington journal Politico noted: “The platform initially urged the Republican-led Congress to reject efforts to ‘rush’ passage of the TPP, particularly during a lame-duck session of Congress, but now simply suggests that ‘significant’ trade decisions shouldn’t be rushed.”

Meanwhile, the pro-middle class organization Economy in Crisis complained that the Democratic National Convention’s full Platform Committee voted down amendments to the party’s platform to explicitly oppose the TPP trade deal.

Clearly, the press, the parties and their plutocratic handlers are trying to seal the job-killing, sovereignty-depleting TPP deal behind a media smokescreen—which serves to stoke the flames of racial tension. This media propaganda also prattles endlessly about the “ISIS” and general “terror” threat on the one hand, and the supposed need for civilian disarmament on the other.

Thus, the powers-that-be want to finalize the TPP during a time of year when House and Senate members who weren’t reelected need not fear serious repercussions if they vote for finalizing the TPP—especially if they follow a common pattern and plan to work in higher-paying positions in the corporate world upon leaving Congress.

‘New World Order’ called out in July 23 speech

By THE TRUTH HOUND

HOLT, Mich.—Many of us have heard of electronic voting machines, used in a large majority of U.S. precincts, being rigged to sway elections. But another form of vote fraud occurs long before voters go to the polls, by way of big media omitting any real discussion of alternative parties, save for rare mention of the Libertarian and Green parties.

Let’s face it. To be denied the complete “menu” of candidates is to be deceived. Then polls are used to add a sense of pre-destination to the mix, with media-meisters and pollsters telling you who the apparent “winners” are before Election Day arrives.

Moreover, Americans are inundated with often putrid pundit-chatter and nonstop “stirring” speeches at those beloved spectacles known as the Republican and Democrat national conventions, which serve to deepen the impression that no political options outside the two parties are even contemplated let alone permitted to flourish in our “free” society.

Amid this whirlwind of disinformation, Bill Mohr, who heads the U.S. Taxpayers Party of Michigan (USTPM), spoke on the “new world order” (NWO) July 23 at his party’s state convention in Holt, Mich.

This speech, covered here in an exclusive by Yours Truly, highlighted the little known fact that the USTPM, the state affiliate of the national Constitution Party, is the only alternative party that explicitly expounds on the NWO–which is code for the concept of a nation being ruled from “behind the throne” by those who create and manage the money supply, in concert with their deputies and errand-runners in the big media and other corporate entities. That includes the two dominant political parties.

“There’s enough wealth and power promised [to the mainstream-party candidates] that it will overcome any differences or resistance these candidates may have with the NWO backers,” Mohr said in his Holt speech, referring to a part of the NWO power network known as the Trilateral Commission, which was founded in 1973 by two veteran powerbrokers: banker David Rockefeller and longtime strategist and former U.S. official Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Quoting from 1964 Presidential Candidate Barry Goldwater’s maverick autobiography, “With No Apologies,” Mohr said: “What the ‘Trilateralists’ truly intend is the creation of a worldwide economic power superior to the political governments of the nation-states involved . . . . As managers and creators of the system they will rule the future.”

Mohr added, “The [NWO] operators . . . are currently realizing they must overcome all obstacles at this point in order to secure self-interest based on the following quote by farmer William Manning, in an article he wrote to the Boston Chronicle in 1798:

In a free government, the few, finding their schemes and views of interest borne down by the many, to gain the power they cannot constitutionally obtain, always endeavor to get it by cunning and corruption, conscious at the same time that usurpation, when once begun, the safety of the usurper consists only in grasping the whole.

Pondering whether Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton can resist the NWO, Mohr concluded, “Absolutely not.” And as far as Republican nominee Donald J. Trump is concerned, Mohr—doubtful that Trump’s independent wealth alone can shield him from entrenched power brokers—simply asked convention attendees: “If he was promised the world, can we trust him to reject it?”

The Constitution Party in April nominated Tennessee attorney Darrell Castle as its presidential candidate, with Scott Bradley as his running mate. Castle spoke July 21 near Grand Rapids, Mich. at a dinner meeting exclusively covered by Yours Truly, the Truth Hound. Stay tuned.

Ohio candidate, activist at forefront of planned radio blitz

By THE TRUTH HOUND

Ohio activist and Congressional candidate Jim Condit Jr., a longtime friend and ally of the late populist congressional powerhouse James P. Traficant, contacted Yours Truly urgently to announce he is carrying out a full-court press to warn Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump that the 2016 election could be stolen from him by those who control how votes are counted and reported.

This concern is based on the well-known adage stated by the late Soviet tyrant Josef Stalin: “Those who cast the votes decide nothing; those who count the votes decide everything.”

Specifically, Condit has been running 60-second radio ads on two Ohio stations to highlight this issue. Since cost is always a factor, he’s open to receiving donations in order to keep the ads going.

The late Collier brothers (James and Kenneth), whose legacy is the book “Votescam,” did yeoman’s work in exposing election fraud in America. Condit, having collaborated with them, is keenly aware of how elections can be stolen via computerized voting machines—which are used in all but a handful of the tens of thousands of U.S. voting precincts (within the nation’s nearly 3,200 counties).

On his website www.OpenLetterToDonaldTrump.com Condit has spelled out the problem posed by the deceptive corporate media and the three companies whose computerized machines are used in most precincts. Those companies are: Hart InterCivic, ES&S, and Dominion (which bought Diebold and Sequoia).

“We’ve got three companies that 99% of our counties have hired who run elections with their machines, using secret source code,” Condit told The Truth Hound July 26.

Some have theorized that Trump, despite his populist rhetoric, is an accepted and perhaps loyal member of the ruling establishment. But Condit and The Truth Hound concurred that it’s more likely that the plutocratic powers-that-be would prefer Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. From this perspective, “they” would not want an ascendant, well-heeled populist who’s built such a huge following and has plenty of his own money.

Hillary, far from being a genuine working-class Democrat, is a deeply embedded operative of the neo-conservative, internationalist establishment, proven in part by her frequent speeches to the Council on Foreign Relations—one of the chief think tanks that labors to funnel its personnel and policy directives into the government apparatus in pursuit of centralized world-government.

For another perspective, Constitution Party presidential nominee Darrell Castle, notably, told a Michigan audience July 21 that he doubts Trump can resist the temptations and rewards that the ruling establishment can shower on him if he’s elected. Simply put, Castle feels that the new-world-order backers have enough thorns and raspberries with which to punish or reward Trump, in a manner that overcomes the mere fact that he’s independently wealthy.

Still, given the distinct possibility that Trump might very well side with the people over the plutocracy, Condit wants the real estate mogul to be aware of election fraud and not allow it to catapult Hillary into the Oval Office. Accordingly, Condit has run some radio ads, for example, in Ohio on WKRC (550 am) and WLW (700 am) and has plans to add stations as far away as Nebraska. Notably, the ES&S voting machine company is based in Omaha, Neb.

In all, Condit says there are “12 election night gatekeepers.” He added: “These three mega-corporations [the voting-machine manufacturers] do not break into the system. These companies are hired by each county,” but neither the citizens nor election officials are permitted to access the computer code. They’re simply instructed on operating the machines.

In other words, “don’t look under the hood.”

But, as Condit has found, looking behind the proverbial curtain reveals that, besides the three above-noted machine-makers, the remaining gatekeepers who control election news and manage the counting/reporting process include the two dominant political parties and six news organizations: ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, AP Wire, and FOX.

The 12th element—the most important of all—is the rather infamous National Election Pool (formerly the Voter News Service) which, said Condit, is a company jointly owned by the same media networks. “All [election] announcements are made to the public by the big TV networks and AP after they get the word from NEP, their jointly owned private company,” Condit said.

Other researchers, including Bev Harris of Black Box Voting, and Vickie Karp of Vote Rescue, among others, have corroborated the existence of this vast political machine and its subtle but far-reaching process of controlling and altering elections.

Condit can be reached at 513-741-2095. His email: LetFreedomRing247@gmail.com