Glenn Beck never speaks of the neo con agenda to create a New World Order though similar I don't think is in line with George Soros's Open Society but both have huge influence here in the United States not just in politics but in how we think!
Sunday, January 31, 2016
Saturday, January 30, 2016
Thursday, January 28, 2016
Wednesday, January 27, 2016
United states Banks and Corporations funded and structured a great part of the Rise of The Soviet Union and Hitler's Nazi's
the original artical link below
uthoritarian leadership, Marxism, Soviet UnionZbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages, Part 12 – East-West scientific cooperation, political implications of technology, cybernetics, technocracy, social control, East German example →
Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages, Part 11 – Antony Sutton, Andre Sakharov, convergence theory, merger of Soviet and American systems
December 28, 2012 | Filed under: Agenda 21, Books, Education, Globalism, Marxism/Communism, New World Order, Planners, Propaganda, Technocracy and tagged with: Andre Sakharov, Antony C. Sutton, Between Two Ages, Charlotte Iserbyt, Convergence, Technetronic, Zbigniew Brzezinski
Commentary on Between Two Ages by Zbigniew Brzezinski
(From Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era, 1971, Viking Press, New York)
Series Contents
Continued from Part 10
The Soviet Union Received Western Assistance – Brzezinski Cites Antony C. Sutton
I think it’s significant that Brzezinski cites Antony C. Sutton’s research showing that the Soviet Union received Western aid. This represents some level of Establishment validation of Antony C. Sutton’s books.
In a passage where he speculates about how Russia might have turned out if it had been a non-communist power, as an aside Brzezinski mentions how “economic investment in states that subsequently became political enemies was characteristic of the capitalist era” (135). In the footnote to back up this statement, he backs up Antony C. Sutton’s work:
“For impressive evidence of Western participation in the early phase of Soviet economic growth, see Antony C. Sutton’s Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, 1917-1930(Stanford, Calif., 1968), which argues that “Soviet economic development for 1917-1930 was essentially dependent on Western technological aid” (p. 283), and that “at least 95 per cent of the industrial structure received this assistance” (p. 348).” (fn. 135)
People who are serious about understanding the system need to read Antony C. Sutton for themselves. The media and education system will never tell you the truth about anything. In fact, it’s all lies 24-7, especially now with “they dumped his body in the ocean”.
Also, it seems that Marxists have been living in a reality of their own all these years and most of the rest of us have been left out:
Theory of Convergence
Brzezinski says that Soviet scholars rejected the “theory of “convergence” of the Soviet and Western, particularly American, systems.” Western thinkers promoted “Western theories of convergence” (144).
This sounds like the same basic idea – from a different angle – that Norman Dodd gave an account of concerning the eventual merger of the Soviet and American systems being carried out by the big foundations. In that case, he was talking about a deliberate project that required effort and planning and not something that was supposed to happen on its own.
“In the Soviet view, both the Marxist revisionists and Western theorists of ideological evolution, erosion, or deideologization of Soviet Marxism have essentially been engaged in a political stratagem designed to undermine the ideological foundations of Soviet power. The present author [Brzezinski] was particularly singled out for criticism in this connection.”
He quotes Professor E. Modrzhinskaya’s “Anti-Communism Disguised as Evolutionism”, in which she lists what she saw as attacks on Socialism, including various theories, including:
“the convergence doctrine, and – the capstone of them all – the theory of evolution, which has been elaborated in greatest detail by Zbigniew Brzezinski, Director of the Research Institute on Communist Affairs at Columbia University…” (fn. 144)
Andre Sakharov
Brzezinski describes the political manifesto of Soviet nuclear physicist Andre Sakharov (162). Sakharov asserts “any preaching of the incompatibility of world ideologies and nations is a madness and a crime.” He condemns restraints on intellectual freedom (162, 163). Sakharov refers to social inequality in the Soviet Union:
“the 5 per cent of the Soviet population that belongs to the managerial group is as privileged as its counterpart in the United States” (fn. 163).
His thesis is
“that our age requires and compels increasing international cooperation – both to avoid a nuclear war and to overcome the dangers to mankind posed by hunger, overpopulation, and pollution – and this cooperation will eventually come from the increasing convergence of the currently distinctive political and social systems.” (163)
Please note also that one of the stages Sakharov predicted was
“the transformation of the United States and other “capitalist” countries by reformers who will effect internal changes …” (164)
He’s talking about internal changes in Western countries like the United States. Charlotte Iserbyt has referred to “change agents”. For more information on the merger between the U.S. and Soviet Union in terms of education, see this interview with Charlotte Iserbyt.
So these anti-Soviet Marxists and dissidents were promoting ideas about merger and convergence (or “evolution”) that anticipated the collapse of the Soviet Union, the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the New World Order announced by George H. W. Bush, a defining part of which is Agenda 21, which is rule by NGOs or councils under the cloak of environmentalism.
uthoritarian leadership, Marxism, Soviet UnionZbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages, Part 12 – East-West scientific cooperation, political implications of technology, cybernetics, technocracy, social control, East German example →
Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages, Part 11 – Antony Sutton, Andre Sakharov, convergence theory, merger of Soviet and American systems
December 28, 2012 | Filed under: Agenda 21, Books, Education, Globalism, Marxism/Communism, New World Order, Planners, Propaganda, Technocracy and tagged with: Andre Sakharov, Antony C. Sutton, Between Two Ages, Charlotte Iserbyt, Convergence, Technetronic, Zbigniew Brzezinski
Commentary on Between Two Ages by Zbigniew Brzezinski
(From Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era, 1971, Viking Press, New York)
Series Contents
Continued from Part 10
The Soviet Union Received Western Assistance – Brzezinski Cites Antony C. Sutton
I think it’s significant that Brzezinski cites Antony C. Sutton’s research showing that the Soviet Union received Western aid. This represents some level of Establishment validation of Antony C. Sutton’s books.
In a passage where he speculates about how Russia might have turned out if it had been a non-communist power, as an aside Brzezinski mentions how “economic investment in states that subsequently became political enemies was characteristic of the capitalist era” (135). In the footnote to back up this statement, he backs up Antony C. Sutton’s work:
“For impressive evidence of Western participation in the early phase of Soviet economic growth, see Antony C. Sutton’s Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, 1917-1930(Stanford, Calif., 1968), which argues that “Soviet economic development for 1917-1930 was essentially dependent on Western technological aid” (p. 283), and that “at least 95 per cent of the industrial structure received this assistance” (p. 348).” (fn. 135)
People who are serious about understanding the system need to read Antony C. Sutton for themselves. The media and education system will never tell you the truth about anything. In fact, it’s all lies 24-7, especially now with “they dumped his body in the ocean”.
Also, it seems that Marxists have been living in a reality of their own all these years and most of the rest of us have been left out:
Theory of Convergence
Brzezinski says that Soviet scholars rejected the “theory of “convergence” of the Soviet and Western, particularly American, systems.” Western thinkers promoted “Western theories of convergence” (144).
This sounds like the same basic idea – from a different angle – that Norman Dodd gave an account of concerning the eventual merger of the Soviet and American systems being carried out by the big foundations. In that case, he was talking about a deliberate project that required effort and planning and not something that was supposed to happen on its own.
“In the Soviet view, both the Marxist revisionists and Western theorists of ideological evolution, erosion, or deideologization of Soviet Marxism have essentially been engaged in a political stratagem designed to undermine the ideological foundations of Soviet power. The present author [Brzezinski] was particularly singled out for criticism in this connection.”
He quotes Professor E. Modrzhinskaya’s “Anti-Communism Disguised as Evolutionism”, in which she lists what she saw as attacks on Socialism, including various theories, including:
“the convergence doctrine, and – the capstone of them all – the theory of evolution, which has been elaborated in greatest detail by Zbigniew Brzezinski, Director of the Research Institute on Communist Affairs at Columbia University…” (fn. 144)
Andre Sakharov
Brzezinski describes the political manifesto of Soviet nuclear physicist Andre Sakharov (162). Sakharov asserts “any preaching of the incompatibility of world ideologies and nations is a madness and a crime.” He condemns restraints on intellectual freedom (162, 163). Sakharov refers to social inequality in the Soviet Union:
“the 5 per cent of the Soviet population that belongs to the managerial group is as privileged as its counterpart in the United States” (fn. 163).
His thesis is
“that our age requires and compels increasing international cooperation – both to avoid a nuclear war and to overcome the dangers to mankind posed by hunger, overpopulation, and pollution – and this cooperation will eventually come from the increasing convergence of the currently distinctive political and social systems.” (163)
Please note also that one of the stages Sakharov predicted was
“the transformation of the United States and other “capitalist” countries by reformers who will effect internal changes …” (164)
He’s talking about internal changes in Western countries like the United States. Charlotte Iserbyt has referred to “change agents”. For more information on the merger between the U.S. and Soviet Union in terms of education, see this interview with Charlotte Iserbyt.
So these anti-Soviet Marxists and dissidents were promoting ideas about merger and convergence (or “evolution”) that anticipated the collapse of the Soviet Union, the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the New World Order announced by George H. W. Bush, a defining part of which is Agenda 21, which is rule by NGOs or councils under the cloak of environmentalism.
Monday, January 25, 2016
New World Order - Full Circle
lately i have done alot of research to figure out what the new world order is or is going to be and from what i can tell it seems to be a shift from Pax Americana to something else. It seems from what I can tell so far it maybe a mystery to exactly how it will play out, it was suppose to be Chinese lead it seems but as you can see the chinese economy is on the verge of collapse global political awareness has become a huge obstacle to overcome to further this order! it necessitates the eradication of the "Archaic" Nation state to create a global order anyone with Nationalist views are considered terrorists! It is very clear that these mass migrations are just one step to dilute the voice of nationalists and overcome the democratic hurdle of plitical awareness! I believe the most crucial step to unite people toward a new internationalist order will be economic collapse and a third world war! wether there is a conspiracy of sorts to do this I cannot say it would be very risky for everyone to drive the world to such insanity, but Maurice strong recently deceased author quoted
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
– Maurice Strong, founder of the UN
other quotes
“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.”
– Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies
“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”
-Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!
“A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells, the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions.”
– Prof. Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb
“A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible.”
– United Nations, Global Biodiversity Assessment
“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
– Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor
“… the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion.”
– Club of Rome, Goals for Mankind
“One America burdens the earth much more than twenty Bangladeshes. This is a terrible thing to say in order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it.”
– Jacques Cousteau, UNESCO Courier
“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
– Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, patron of the World Wildlife Fund
Saturday, January 23, 2016
Friday, January 22, 2016
Thursday, January 21, 2016
Wednesday, January 20, 2016
Tuesday, January 19, 2016
Pax Americana
This article is about the historical concept. For the documentary film, see Pax Americana and the Weaponization of Space.
Pax Americana[1][2][3] (Latin for "American Peace", modeled after Pax Britannica and Pax Romana) is a term applied to the concept of relative peace in the Western Hemisphere and later the world as a result of the preponderance of power enjoyed by the United States beginning around the middle of the 20th century and continuing to this day. Although the term finds its primary utility in the latter half of the 20th century, it has been used with different meanings and eras, such as the post-Civil War era in North America,[4] and regionally in the Americas at the start of the 20th century.
Pax Americana is primarily used in its modern connotations to refer to the peace among great powers established after the end of World War II in 1945, also called the Long Peace. In this modern sense, it has come to indicate the military and economic position of the United States in relation to other nations. For example, the Marshall Plan, which spent $13 billion to rebuild the economy of Western Europe, has been seen as "the launching of the pax americana."[5]
The Latin term derives from Pax Romana of the Roman Empire. The term is most notably associated with Pax Britannica under the British Empire, which served as the global hegemony and constabulary from the late 18th century until the early 20th century. [6]
Contents [hide]
1 Early period
2 Interwar period
3 Modern period
3.1 Pax Britannica heritage
3.2 Late 20th century
3.3 Contemporary power
4 American imperialism
5 See also
6 References
7 Further reading
8 External links
Early period[edit]
Main article: Gilded Age
The first articulation of a Pax Americana occurred after the end of the American Civil War with reference to the peaceful nature of the North American geographical region, and was abeyant at the commencement of the First World War. Its emergence was concurrent with the development of the idea of American exceptionalism. This view holds that the U.S. occupies a special niche among developed nations[7] in terms of its national credo, historical evolution, political and religious institutions, and unique origins. The concept originates from Alexis de Tocqueville,[8] who asserted that the then-50-year-old United States held a special place among nations because it was a country of immigrants and the first modern democracy. From the establishment of the United States after the American Revolution until the Spanish–American War, the foreign policy of the United States had a regional, instead of global, focus. The Pax Americana, which the Union enforced upon the states of central North America, was a factor in the United States' national prosperity. The larger states were surrounded by smaller states, but these had no anxieties: no standing armies to require taxes and hinder labor; no wars or rumors of wars that would interrupt trade; there is not only peace, but security, for the Pax Americana of the Union covered all the states within the federal constitutional republic.[4] According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the first time the phrase appeared in print was in the August 1894 issue of Forum: "The true cause for exultation is the universal outburst of patriotism in support of the prompt and courageous action of President Cleveland in maintaining the supremacy of law throughout the length and breadth of the land, in establishing the pax Americana."[9]
1898 political cartoon: "Ten Thousand Miles From Tip to Tip" meaning the extension of U.S. domination (symbolized by a bald eagle) from Puerto Rico to the Philippines.
Political cartoon depicting Theodore Roosevelt using the Monroe Doctrine to keep European powers out of the Dominican Republic.
With the rise of the New Imperialism in the Western hemisphere at the end of the 19th century, debates arose between imperialist and isolationist factions in the U.S. Here, Pax Americana was used to connote the peace across the United States and, more widely, as a Pan-American peace under the aegis of the Monroe Doctrine. Those who favored traditional policies of avoiding foreign entanglements included labor leader Samuel Gompers and steel tycoon Andrew Carnegie. American politicians such as Henry Cabot Lodge, William McKinley, and Theodore Roosevelt advocated an aggressive foreign policy, but the administration of President Grover Cleveland was unwilling to pursue such actions. On January 16, 1893, U.S. diplomatic and military personnel conspired with a small group of individuals to overthrow the constitutional government of the Kingdom of Hawaii and establish a Provisional Government and then a republic. On February 15, they presented a treaty for annexation of the Hawaiian Islands to the U.S. Senate, but opposition to annexation stalled its passage. The United States finally opted to annex Hawaii by way of the Newlands Resolution in July 1898.
After its victory in the Spanish–American War of 1898 and the subsequent acquisition of Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and Guam, the United States had gained a colonial empire. By ejecting Spain from the Americas, the United States shifted its position to an uncontested regional power, and extended its influence into Southeast Asia and Oceania. Although U.S. capital investments within the Philippines and Puerto Rico were relatively small, these colonies were strategic outposts for expanding trade with Latin America and Asia, particularly China. In the Caribbean area, the United States established a sphere of influence in line with the Monroe Doctrine, not explicitly defined as such, but recognized in effect by other governments and accepted by at least some of the republics in that area.[10] The events around the start of the 20th century demonstrated that the United States undertook an obligation, usual in such cases, of imposing a "Pax Americana".[10] As in similar instances elsewhere, this Pax Americana was not quite clearly marked in its geographical limit, nor was it guided by any theoretical consistency, but rather by the merits of the case and the test of immediate expediency in each instance.[10] Thus, whereas the United States enforced a peace in much of the lands southward from the Nation and undertook measures to maintain internal tranquility in such areas, the United States on the other hand withdrew from interposition in Mexico.[10]
European powers largely regarded these matters as the concern of the United States. Indeed, the nascent Pax Americana was, in essence, abetted by the policy of the United Kingdom, and the preponderance of global sea power which the British Empire enjoyed by virtue of the strength of the Royal Navy.[11] Preserving the freedom of the seas and ensuring naval dominance had been the policy of the British since victory in the Napoleonic Wars. As it was not in the interests of the United Kingdom to permit any European power to interfere in Americas, the Monroe Doctrine was indirectly aided by the Royal Navy. British commercial interests in South America, which comprised a valuable component of the Informal Empire that accompanied Britain's imperial possessions, and the economic importance of the United States as a trading partner, ensured that intervention by Britain's rival European powers could not engage with the Americas.
The United States lost its Pacific and regionally bounded nature towards the end of the 19th century. The government adopted protectionism after the Spanish–American War and built up the navy, the "Great White Fleet", to expand the reach of U.S. power. When Theodore Roosevelt became President in 1901, he accelerated a foreign policy shift away from isolationism towards foreign intervention which had begun under his predecessor, William McKinley. The Philippine–American War arose from the ongoing Philippine Revolution against imperialism.[12] Interventionism found its formal articulation in the 1904 Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, proclaiming the right of the United States to intervene in the affairs of weak states in the Americas in order to stabilize them, a moment that underlined the emergent U.S. regional hegemony.
See also: History of the United States (1865–1918), Territorial changes of the United States and Overseas expansion of the United States
Interwar period[edit]
Main article: Interwar period
The United States had been criticized for not taking up the hegemonic mantle following the disintegration of Pax Britannica before the First World War and during the interwar period due to the absence of established political structures, such as the World Bank or United Nations which would be created after World War II, and various internal policies, such as protectionism.[2][13][14][15] Though, the United States participated in the Great War, according to Woodrow Wilson, to:
[...] to vindicate the principles of peace and justice in the life of the world as against selfish and autocratic power and to set up amongst the really free and self-governed peoples of the world such a concert of purpose and of action as will henceforth insure the observance of those principles.
[...] for democracy, for the right of those who submit to authority to have a voice in their own government, for the rights and liberties of small nations, for a universal dominion of right by such a concert of free peoples as shall bring peace and safety to all nations and make the world itself at last free.[2]
The Gap in the Bridge. Cartoon about the absence of the U.S. from the League of Nations, depicted as the missing keystone of the arch.
The United States' entry into the Great War marked the abandonment of the traditional American policy of isolation and independence of world politics. Not at the close of the Civil War, not as the result of the Spanish War, but in the Interwar period did the United States become a part of the international system.[2] With this global reorganization from the Great War, there were those in the American populace that advocated an activist role in international politics and international affairs by the United States.[2] Activities that were initiated did not fall into political-military traps and, instead, focused on economic-ideological approaches that would increase the American Empire and general worldwide stability.[16] Following the prior path, a precursor to the United Nations and a league to enforce peace, the League of Nations, was proposed by Woodrow Wilson.[2] This was rejected by the American Government in favor of more economic-ideological approaches and the United States did not join the League. Additionally, there were even proposals of extending the Monroe Doctrine to Great Britain put forth to prevent a second conflagration on the European theater.[17] Ultimately, the United States' proposals and actions did not stop the factors of European nationalism spawned by the previous war, the repercussions of Germany's defeat, and the failures of the Treaty of Versailles from plunging the globe into a Second World War.[18]
Between World War I and World War II, America also sought to continue to preserve Pax America as a corollary to the Monroe Doctrine.[17] Some sought the peaceful and orderly evolution of existing conditions in the western hemisphere and nothing by immediate changes.[17] Before 1917, the position of the United States government and the feelings of the nation in respect to the "Great War" initially had properly been one of neutrality.[17] Its interests remained untouched, and nothing occurred of a nature to affect those interests.[17]
The average American's sympathies, on the other hand, if the feelings of the vast majority of the nation had been correctly interpreted, was with the Allied (Entente) Powers.[17] The population of the United States was revolted at the ruthlessness of the Prussian doctrine of war, and German designs to shift the burden of aggression encountered skeptical derision.[17] The American populace saw themselves safeguarding liberal peace in the Western World. To this end, the American writer Roland Hugins stated:[19]
The truth is that the United States is the only high-minded Power left in the world. It is the only strong nation that has not entered on a career of imperial conquest, and does not want to enter on it. [...] There is in America little of that spirit of selfish aggression which lies at the heart of militarism. Here alone exists a broad basis for "a new passionate sense of brotherhood, and a new scale of human values." We have a deep abhorrence of war for war's sake; we are not enamored of glamour or glory. We have a strong faith in the principle of self-government. We do not care to dominate alien peoples, white or colored; we do not aspire to be the Romans of tomorrow or the "masters of the world." The idealism of Americans centers in the future of America, wherein we hope to work out those principles of liberty and democracy to which we are committed This political idealism, this strain of pacifism, this abstinence from aggression and desire to be left alone to work out our own destiny, has been manifest from the birth of the republic. We have not always followed our light, but we have never been utterly faithless to it.[2]
It was observed during this time that the initial defeat of Germany opened a moral recasting of the world.[17] The battles between Germans and Allies were seen as far less battles between different nations than they represent the contrast between Liberalism and reaction, between the aspirations of democracy and the Wilhelminism gospel of iron.[17][20]
Modern period[edit]
A world map of 1945. The United States (blue), the Soviet Union (red), and the British Empire (teal) were superpowers.
The modern Pax Americana era is cited by both supporters and critics of U.S. foreign policy after World War II. However, from 1946 to 1992 Pax americana is considered a partial international order, as it applied only to capitalist block countries, being preferable for some authors to speak about a Pax americana et sovietica.[21] Many commentators and critics focus on American policies from 1992 to the present, and as such, it carries different connotations depending on the context. For example, it appears three times in the 90 page document, Rebuilding America's Defenses,[22] by the Project for the New American Century, but is also used by critics to characterize American dominance and hyperpower as imperialist in function and basis. From about the mid-1940s until 1991, U.S. foreign policy was dominated by the Cold War, and characterized by its significant international military presence and greater diplomatic involvement. Seeking an alternative to the isolationist policies pursued after World War I, the United States defined a new policy called containment to oppose the spread of communism.
The modern Pax Americana may be seen as similar to the period of peace in Rome, Pax Romana. In both situations, the period of peace was 'relative peace'. During both Pax Romana and Pax Americana wars continued to occur, but it was still a prosperous time for both Western and Roman civilizations. It is important to note that during these periods, and most other times of relative tranquility, the peace that is referred to does not mean complete peace. Rather, it simply means that the civilization prospered in their military, agriculture, trade, and manufacturing.
Pax Britannica heritage[edit]
Main article: Pax Britannica
From the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815 until World War I in 1914, the United Kingdom played the role of offshore-balancer in Europe, where the balance of power was the main aim. It was also in this time that the British Empire became the largest empire of all time.[23] The global superiority of British military and commerce was guaranteed by dominance of a Europe lacking in strong nation-states, and the presence of the Royal Navy on all of the world's oceans and seas. In 1905, the Royal Navy was superior to any two navies combined in the world. It provided services such as suppression of piracy and slavery. In this era of peace, though, there were several wars between the major powers: the Crimean War, the Franco-Austrian War, the Austro-Prussian War, the Franco-Prussian War, and the Russo-Japanese War, as well as numerous other wars.
During the British hegemony, America developed close ties with Britain, evolving into what has become known as a "special relationship" between the two. The many commonalities shared with the two nations (such as language and history) drew them together as allies. Under the managed transition of the British Empire to the Commonwealth of Nations, members of the British government, such as Harold Macmillan, liked to think of Britain's relationship with America as similar to that of a progenitor Greece to America's Rome.[24] Throughout the years, both have been active in North American, Middle Eastern, and Asian countries.
Late 20th century[edit]
Main article: American Century
After the Second World War, no armed conflict emerged among major Western nations themselves, and no nuclear weapons were used in open conflict. The United Nations was also soon developed after World War II to help keep peaceful relations between nations and establishing the veto power for the permanent members of the UN Security Council, which included the United States.
In the second half of the 20th century, the USSR and USA superpowers were engaged in the Cold War, which can be seen as a struggle between hegemonies for global dominance. After 1945, the United States enjoyed an advantageous position with respect to the rest of the industrialized world. In the Post–World War II economic expansion, the US was responsible for half of global industrial output, held 80 percent of the world's gold reserves, and was the world's sole nuclear power. The catastrophic destruction of life, infrastructure, and capital during the Second World War had exhausted the imperialism of the Old World, victor and vanquished alike. The largest economy in the world at the time, the United States recognized that it had come out of the war with its domestic infrastructure virtually unscathed and its military forces at unprecedented strength. Military officials recognized the fact that Pax Americana had been reliant on the effective United States air power, just as the instrument of Pax Britannica a century earlier was its sea power.[25] In addition, a unipolar moment was seen to have occurred following the collapse of the Soviet Union.[26]
The term Pax Americana was explicitly used by John F. Kennedy in the 1960s, who advocated against the idea, arguing that the Soviet bloc was composed of human beings with the same individual goals as Americans and that such a peace based on "American weapons of war" was undesirable:
I have, therefore, chosen this time and place to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth too rarely perceived. And that is the most important topic on earth: peace. What kind of peace do I mean and what kind of a peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, and the kind that enables men and nations to grow, and to hope, and build a better life for their children -- not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women, not merely peace in our time but peace in all time.[27]
Beginning around the Vietnam War, the 'Pax Americana' term had started to be used by the critics of American Imperialism. Here in the late 20th century conflict between the Soviet Union and the United States, the charge of Neocolonialism was often aimed at Western involvement in the affairs of the Third World and other developing nations.[28][29][30][31][32]
See also: History of the United States (1964–1980) and History of the United States (1945–1964)
Contemporary power[edit]
Main articles: Great power and Superpower
Currently, the Pax Americana is based on the military preponderance beyond challenge by any combination of powers and projection of power throughout the world's commons—neutral sea, air and space. This projection is coordinated by the Unified Command Plan which divides the world on regional branches controlled by a single command. Integrated with it are global network of military alliances (the Rio Pact, NATO, ANZUS and bilateral alliances with Japan and several other states) coordinated by Washington in a hub-and-spokes system and world-wide network of several hundreds of military bases and installations. Former Security Advisor, Zbignew Brzezinski, drew an expressive summary of the military foundation of Pax Americana shortly after the unipolar moment:
In contrast [to the earlier empires], the scope and pervasiveness of American global power today are unique. Not only does the United States control all the world's oceans, its military legions are firmly perched on the western and eastern extremities of Eurasia... American vassals and tributaries, some yearning to be embraced by even more formal ties to Washington, dot the entire Eurasian continent... American global supremacy is...buttered by an elaborate system of alliances and coalitions that literally span the globe. [33]
Besides the military foundation, there are significant non-military international institutions backed by American financing and diplomacy (like the United Nations and WTO). The United States invested heavily in programs such as the Marshall Plan and in the reconstruction of Japan, economically cementing defense ties that owed increasingly to the establishment of the Iron Curtain/Eastern Bloc and the widening of the Cold War.
Street art in Caracas, depicting Uncle Sam and accusing the American government of imperialism
Being in the best position to take advantage of free trade, culturally indisposed to traditional empires, and alarmed by the rise of communism in China and the detonation of the first Soviet atom bomb, the historically non-interventionist U.S. also took a keen interest in developing multilateral institutions which would maintain a favorable world order among them. The International Monetary Fund and International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World Bank), part of the Bretton Woods system of international financial management was developed and, until the early 1970s, the existence of a fixed exchange rate to the US dollar. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was developed and consists of a protocol for normalization and reduction of trade tariffs.
With the fall of the Iron Curtain, the demise of the notion of a Pax Sovietica, and the end of the Cold War, the U.S. maintained significant contingents of armed forces in Europe and East Asia. The institutions behind the Pax Americana and the rise of the United States unipolar power have persisted into the early 21st century. The ability of the United States to act as "the world's policeman" has been constrained by its own citizens' historic aversion to foreign wars.[34] Though there has been calls for the continuation of military leadership, as stated in "Rebuilding America's Defenses":
The American peace has proven itself peaceful, stable, and durable. It has, over the past decade, provided the geopolitical framework for widespread economic growth and the spread of American principles of liberty and democracy. Yet no moment in international politics can be frozen in time; even a global Pax Americana will not preserve itself. [... What is required is] a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States’ global responsibilities.[35]
This is reflected in the research of American exceptionalism, which shows that "there is some indication for [being a leader of an "American peace"] among the [U.S.] public, but very little evidence of unilateral attitudes".[8] It should be noted that resentments have arisen at a country's' dependence on American military protection, due to disagreements with United States foreign policy or the presence of American military forces. In the post-communism world of the 21st-century, the French Socialist politician and former Foreign Minister Hubert Védrine describes the USA as a hegemonic hyperpower, while the U.S. political scientists John Mearsheimer and Joseph Nye counter that the USA is not a “true” hegemony, because it does not have the resources to impose a proper, formal, global rule; despite its political and military strength, the USA is economically equal to Europe, thus, cannot rule the international stage.[36] Several other countries are either emerging or re-emerging as powers, such as China, Russia, India, and the European Union.
Joseph Nye discredited the United States as not a "true" hegemony but his 2002 article he titled "The New Rome Meets the New Barbarians."[37] In fact, there are striking parallels with the early Pax Romana (especially between 189 BC when the supremacy over the Mediterranean was won and the first annexation in 168 BC). Under that Pax Romana other states remained formally independent and very seldom were called "clients." The latter term became widely used only in the late medieval period. Usually, other states were called "friends and allies"—a popular expression under the Pax Americana.
Regular taxation of other states was not introduced under the early Pax Romana. Other states offered irregular military and economic contributions on occasions of the Roman military operations—another feature common in the Pax Americana.
A treaty of peace with the defeated power—Carthage—from 201 BC prohibited the Carthaginians to wage any war without the consent of Rome (Appian 8:8:54; Dio Cassius, 17:82). This is the essence of the post-1945 American-drafted constitution of Japan.
Historian Max Ostrovsky noted a major difference between Pax Romana and Pax Americana: under the former states were allowed to expand outward—in directions avoiding other client states. Under the Pax Americana there is no such permission, since this Pax is global and in the global system there is no "outward" direction. Modern states are not allowed to expand anywhere. In this sense, the Pax Americana is more complete. [38] The above-mentioned author of the term hyperpower, Hubert Vedrine, confirmed:
America today is much more than the British Empire and closer to what the Roman Empire was compared to the rest of the world in that era... And even so, at the borders of the Roman Empire there were barbarians... and other powers beyond the limes, like the Parthians and Chinese. But even this is not the case today. American globalism today dominates everything everywhere. [39]
Despite the benefits of the Pax Romana, Rome was hated: "Words cannot express how bitterly we are hated among foreign nations" (Cicero, 56:22-66; also Lucan, 7:482). Roman Historian Frank William Walbank stated the fact of "a general hostility towards the dominant power, perhaps comparable to the anti-American feelings today."[40]
In two campaigns in 200 and 190 BC, the Romans liberated Greece from the Macedonian and Seleucid Empires respectively and, leaving only legions for security, made it whole, free and at peace to the great excitement of the local population (Valerius Maximus, 4:8:5; Livy, 33:33; Florus, 1:23:14-15; Appian, 9:9:1-3). Soon, however, the Greeks pronounced the Romans uncivilized and uneducated. Despite this, Senators "cared little whether or not Athenian orators pronounced them uncivilized..."[41] The Pax Romana equaled the American exceptionalism in its tolerance and liberty. Rome participated as an equal member in the Greek concert of powers, entering alliances and coalitions on equal terms. Later, the Roman envoy, Valerius Maximus, was sent to Greece to establish a constitution. He had been instructed for the mission by Pliny the Younger. The instruction he received is today relevant for the American officials sent with diplomatic missions to Europe:
Respect... their ancient glory and their very age... Pay regard to their antiquity, their heroic deeds, and the legends of their past. Do not detract from anyone's dignity, independence or even pride, but always bear in mind that this is the land which provided us with justice and gave us laws... that it is Athens you go to and Sparta you rule, and to rob them of the name and shadow of freedom, which is all that now remains to them, would be an act of cruelty, ignorance and barbarism... Remember what each city once was, but without looking down on it for being so no longer.[42]
Hitler used to assure: "They will never become Rome. America will never be the Rome of the future."[43] History seems to prove him wrong on the occasion.[44] Pentagon's strategist Edward Luttwak opened The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire with the main implication of the book:
We, like the Romans, face the prospect not of decisive conflict, but of a permanent state of war, albeit limited. We, like the Romans, must actively protect an advanced society against a variety of threats rather than concentrate on destroying the forces of our enemies in battle.[45]
In 1992, a US strategic draft for the post-Cold War period was leaked to the press. The responsible for the confusion, former Assistant Secretary of State, Paul Wolfowitz, confessed seven years later: "In 1992 a draft memo prepared by my office at the Pentagon ... leaked to the press and sparked a major controversy." The draft's strategy aimed "to prevent any hostile power from dominating" a Eurasian region "whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power." He added: "Senator Joseph Biden ridiculed the proposed strategy as 'literally a Pax Americana... It won't work...' Just seven years later, many of these same critics seem quite comfortable with the idea of a Pax Americana."[46]
See also: History of the United States (1991-present) and History of the United States (1980–1991)
American imperialism[edit]
Main article: American imperialism
Spheres of influence during the Cold War. The US and USSR are shown in dark green and orange respectively, and their spheres of influence in light green and orange.
American imperialism or "American exceptionalism" is a term referring to outcomes or ideological elements of United States foreign policy. Since the start of the cold war, the United States has economically and/or diplomatically supported friendly foreign governments, including many that overtly violated the civil and human rights of their own citizens and residents. American imperialism concepts were initially a product of capitalism critiques and, later, of theorists opposed to what they take to be aggressive United States policies and doctrines. Although there are various views of the imperialist nature of the United States, which describe many of the same policies and institutions as evidence of imperialism, explanations for imperialism vary widely. In spite of such literature, the historians Archibald Paton Thorton and Stuart Creighton Miller argue against the very coherence of the concept. Miller argues that the overuse and abuse of the term "imperialism" makes it nearly meaningless as an analytical concept.[47]
More specifically, critics of American influence contend that the Bush Doctrine of advancing democracy throughout all the world is all that is needed to justify the term "American Imperialism". On the other hand, advocates of American influence define imperialism as colonialism to some degree and claim protectionism, rather than imperialism, as the rationale for recent American international behavior. Such people emphasize that American history of returning governance back to indigenous people, supporting decolonization, and insisting on a rejection of previous isolationist policies, do not constitute the embrace of imperialism. The argument is made that unlike Britain in the previous century (during Pax Britannica) America does not directly rule subject peoples and practice closed trading policies.
Regardless, it is acknowledged that American isolationism subsided only after major shocks associated with the Spanish–American War and the two world wars. Critics such as Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky argue that the United States has sought, or has found itself forced into, a quasi-imperialist role by its status as the world's sole superpower.
As to the "isolationist" history of the United States, it mainly applies to the global stage; the United States has not been isolationist with respect to the Western Hemisphere, which fell within its sphere of influence, and pursued military interventions within this region of the world. Though relative peace existed in the Western world, the United States and its allies have been involved in various regional wars, such as the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, the Yugoslav wars, the Afghanistan War and the Iraq War. The United States also maintained espionage and covert operations in various other areas, such as Latin America in the 1980s.
Whether the correct term is the "American Empire" or the American hegemony, the statistical fact is that during the period of the Pax Americana the scale of warfare as defined by war casualties per year dropped, especially for international wars. International borders are seldom changed by force. In 1637, Jesuit Guldo Aldeni reported that he was often asked of Europe by his Chinese friends: "If there are so many kings, how can you avoid wars?" It was a good question in the middle of the dreadful Thirty Year War.[48] Eventually, Europe became whole, free and at peace but only after the world order had moved from the Westphalian model[49] towards the Chinese model.[50] Even the author of the hyperpower concept, Hubert Vedrine, perhaps the most anti-hegemonic of European foreign ministers, confessed: "And yet, no one can deny that the world would be an infinitely more dangerous and unstable place if it were not for the United States.[51] As cited above ("Late 20th century"), President John Kennedy associated the Pax Americana with the "peace of graveyard." Ostrovsky sketched concepts linking empire and peace in world history from the Bronze Age Egypt until the Gulf War in 2003. He concludes that the human nature eventually prefers the "peace of graveyard" over the very graveyard.[52]
See also[edit]
the New World Order is Here!
MONEY & MARKETS
CITI: The new world order has finally arrived
MYLES UDLAND TOMORROW AT 3:45 AM 12
FACEBOOK1
TWITTER
REDDIT
LINKEDIN11
GOOGLE+
It’s time to re-think everything we know about how the world is ordered.
Citi is out with a big new report on our current geopolitical order and maybe what happens next.
What the firm effectively argues is that the global order most of today’s adults have come to know as “true” probably isn’t so anymore.
At the heart of Citi’s report is the idea that “Pax Americana” — defined as the “post-World War II global order that relied, to a large extent, on American military, economic, and diplomatic power to guarantee relative political stability and economic development” — is over. Ot at least, ending.
But the problem is that there’s nothing coming up to replace Pax Americana.
Thus we’re facing what Citi calls a “Great Power Sclerosis.”
The particulars and catchphrases, however, are far less important than Citi’s broad message, which is that everything the people who basically run the world have come to know as true no longer is.
Here’s Citi (emphasis added):
[M]ost political and business leaders and investors today have largely “grown up’ in the post-1991 era, often described as the most peaceful and prosperous in human history and characterised by a host of pro-globalization developments and effective US hegemony. With this in mind, hopes for a reversion to the pre-global financial crisis mean, and with it, a return to some semblance of linear progress, may be misplaced […]
In our view, political and business leaders will need to be more attuned to the new shape of global political risk, a paradigm shift that means that previous policies will fail to keep pace and uncertainty will remain high, with the potential to interact in unexpected ways. Among the key implications of this more fragile and interconnected risk outlook is that so-called Black Swan events — in this case, geopolitical events producing instability spanning several orders of magnitude — may be both more likely and more difficult for leaders and global financial institutions to resolve.
So for investors the biggest takeaway is that all those charts showing pre-crisis economic growth, the resulting slow recovery path, and the so-called “output gap” are just illusions. Or maybe delusions.
Fredgraph (5)
FRED
Citi is pretty sure the whole ‘potential’ thing has changed. Significantly.
There isn’t, under this framework outlined by Citi, seemingly anything other than just a sort of hope that things will go back to the way they were: when the US was the world’s police and Western-style capitalism brought peace and prosperity to all the world’s people. (Of course, this was never really the case. But, you know, memory and all that.)
Citi roughly argues that the arc of history is — and has been — turning away from this Pax Americana state of affairs and towards, well, something else.
What else is the whole point of the exercise.
But as for the major things worth keeping in mind right now and going forward, here’s Citi again, at length (emphasis ours):
The United States, through diplomatic activism backed up by unrivalled military power, kept many regional conflicts under control (or pacified them), such as between Pakistan and India, North and South Korea, Israel and its neighbours, and the states of the former Yugoslavia. It did not dominate world affairs in a hegemonic way (which would have been impossible even for the US), but it served as the arbiter of last resort and the world’s reserve power. After 1989, most nations buying into the post-Cold-War surge of economic globalization consumed US stability services around the world, even those who openly or clandestinely opposed America’s relative dominance.
But this fortunate power structure has changed significantly over at least the last decade. The US position in global affairs has weakened. Other powers have gotten stronger. Some military interventions, such as the Iraq war, have eroded both US credibility and resources, an outcome supported by a host of global public opinion data. Less political capital is available in Washington to underpin America’s global role, leading to a “leadership from behind” culture that is considered to be ineffective and widely perceived as US weakness. Inward-looking, isolationist leanings have gained political traction in America’s political mainstream. The threshold of what constitutes US national interest has narrowed markedly in comparison to previous decades.
As a consequence, the international system is suffering from power sclerosis, compounded by absence of a replacement. The “Great Power Sclerosis” describes a situation in which Pax Americana has not been effectively supplanted by another system of global order, but in which its ability to resolve crisis, foster compromise, discipline rogue players, and defuse regional and local conflict is greatly diminished. In a situation of power sclerosis, the institutional framework of Pax Americana is still in place, but the effectiveness of these institutions has either been reduced, is being challenged, or is in doubt […]
No global or regional power has emerged yet that is willing or capable to responsibly (or, thankfully, irresponsibly) fill the gap that America’s relative decline has created. Europeans are currently too inwardly-focused and too disunited to tap their full potential, both at home, and globally. China, the only other potential step-in, limits itself, for the time being, to a mostly regional role. It is generally interested in global stability as it is one of the biggest beneficiaries of integrated markets, but its political agenda, especially in its immediate neighbourhood, does not fully overlap with that of the US or the wider West […]
As a net result of all of these trends and developments, local and regional crises around the world play out stronger and more intensively than they used to. Weaker cohesion and diminished disciplining power make escalations of small conflicts more likely and encourage rogue states and opponents of liberal order to assert themselves more self-confidently. Stability in the overall system is weakened and likely to further deteriorate incrementally. The assessment of political risk in and around Europe, and around the world, needs to be made against this backdrop.
https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=4724112835061195521#allposts
CITI: The new world order has finally arrived
MYLES UDLAND TOMORROW AT 3:45 AM 12
FACEBOOK1
LINKEDIN11
GOOGLE+
It’s time to re-think everything we know about how the world is ordered.
Citi is out with a big new report on our current geopolitical order and maybe what happens next.
What the firm effectively argues is that the global order most of today’s adults have come to know as “true” probably isn’t so anymore.
At the heart of Citi’s report is the idea that “Pax Americana” — defined as the “post-World War II global order that relied, to a large extent, on American military, economic, and diplomatic power to guarantee relative political stability and economic development” — is over. Ot at least, ending.
But the problem is that there’s nothing coming up to replace Pax Americana.
Thus we’re facing what Citi calls a “Great Power Sclerosis.”
The particulars and catchphrases, however, are far less important than Citi’s broad message, which is that everything the people who basically run the world have come to know as true no longer is.
Here’s Citi (emphasis added):
[M]ost political and business leaders and investors today have largely “grown up’ in the post-1991 era, often described as the most peaceful and prosperous in human history and characterised by a host of pro-globalization developments and effective US hegemony. With this in mind, hopes for a reversion to the pre-global financial crisis mean, and with it, a return to some semblance of linear progress, may be misplaced […]
In our view, political and business leaders will need to be more attuned to the new shape of global political risk, a paradigm shift that means that previous policies will fail to keep pace and uncertainty will remain high, with the potential to interact in unexpected ways. Among the key implications of this more fragile and interconnected risk outlook is that so-called Black Swan events — in this case, geopolitical events producing instability spanning several orders of magnitude — may be both more likely and more difficult for leaders and global financial institutions to resolve.
So for investors the biggest takeaway is that all those charts showing pre-crisis economic growth, the resulting slow recovery path, and the so-called “output gap” are just illusions. Or maybe delusions.
Fredgraph (5)
FRED
Citi is pretty sure the whole ‘potential’ thing has changed. Significantly.
There isn’t, under this framework outlined by Citi, seemingly anything other than just a sort of hope that things will go back to the way they were: when the US was the world’s police and Western-style capitalism brought peace and prosperity to all the world’s people. (Of course, this was never really the case. But, you know, memory and all that.)
Citi roughly argues that the arc of history is — and has been — turning away from this Pax Americana state of affairs and towards, well, something else.
What else is the whole point of the exercise.
But as for the major things worth keeping in mind right now and going forward, here’s Citi again, at length (emphasis ours):
The United States, through diplomatic activism backed up by unrivalled military power, kept many regional conflicts under control (or pacified them), such as between Pakistan and India, North and South Korea, Israel and its neighbours, and the states of the former Yugoslavia. It did not dominate world affairs in a hegemonic way (which would have been impossible even for the US), but it served as the arbiter of last resort and the world’s reserve power. After 1989, most nations buying into the post-Cold-War surge of economic globalization consumed US stability services around the world, even those who openly or clandestinely opposed America’s relative dominance.
But this fortunate power structure has changed significantly over at least the last decade. The US position in global affairs has weakened. Other powers have gotten stronger. Some military interventions, such as the Iraq war, have eroded both US credibility and resources, an outcome supported by a host of global public opinion data. Less political capital is available in Washington to underpin America’s global role, leading to a “leadership from behind” culture that is considered to be ineffective and widely perceived as US weakness. Inward-looking, isolationist leanings have gained political traction in America’s political mainstream. The threshold of what constitutes US national interest has narrowed markedly in comparison to previous decades.
As a consequence, the international system is suffering from power sclerosis, compounded by absence of a replacement. The “Great Power Sclerosis” describes a situation in which Pax Americana has not been effectively supplanted by another system of global order, but in which its ability to resolve crisis, foster compromise, discipline rogue players, and defuse regional and local conflict is greatly diminished. In a situation of power sclerosis, the institutional framework of Pax Americana is still in place, but the effectiveness of these institutions has either been reduced, is being challenged, or is in doubt […]
No global or regional power has emerged yet that is willing or capable to responsibly (or, thankfully, irresponsibly) fill the gap that America’s relative decline has created. Europeans are currently too inwardly-focused and too disunited to tap their full potential, both at home, and globally. China, the only other potential step-in, limits itself, for the time being, to a mostly regional role. It is generally interested in global stability as it is one of the biggest beneficiaries of integrated markets, but its political agenda, especially in its immediate neighbourhood, does not fully overlap with that of the US or the wider West […]
As a net result of all of these trends and developments, local and regional crises around the world play out stronger and more intensively than they used to. Weaker cohesion and diminished disciplining power make escalations of small conflicts more likely and encourage rogue states and opponents of liberal order to assert themselves more self-confidently. Stability in the overall system is weakened and likely to further deteriorate incrementally. The assessment of political risk in and around Europe, and around the world, needs to be made against this backdrop.
https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=4724112835061195521#allposts
Sunday, January 17, 2016
Wednesday, January 13, 2016
Saturday, January 9, 2016
Thursday, January 7, 2016
Monday, January 4, 2016
Bill Clinton Rapes and other various scandals
Juanita isn't the only one: Bill Clinton's long history of sexual violence against women dates back some 30 years
(Editor's Note: The following story is an update of previously-published information and contains some new material.)
By Daniel J. Harris
& Teresa Hampton
Capitol Hill Blue
Women have been charging Bill Clinton with sexual assault since his days as a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford 30 years ago.
A continuing investigation into the President's questionable sexual history reveal incidents that go back as far as Clinton's college days, with more than a dozen women claiming his sexual appetites leave little room for the word ''no.''
Juanita Broaddrick, an Arkansas nursing home operator, told NBC's Lisa Myers five weeks ago she was raped by Clinton. NBC shelved the interview, saying they were confirming all parts of the story, but finally aired it Wednesday night.
Broaddrick finally took her story to The Wall Street Journal, which published her account of the brutal rape at the hands of the future President, followed by The Washington Post and some other publications.
But Capitol Hill Blue has confirmed that Broaddrick's story is only one account of many attempted and actual sexual assaults by Clinton that go back 30 years. Among the other incidents:
Eileen Wellstone, 19-year-old English woman who said Clinton sexually assaulted her after she met him at a pub near the Oxford where the future President was a student in 1969. A retired State Department employee, who asked not to be identified, confirmed that he spoke with the family of the girl and filed a report with his superiors. Clinton admitted having sex with the girl, but claimed it was consensual. The victim's family declined to pursue the case;
In 1972, a 22-year-old woman told campus police at Yale University that she was sexually assaulted by Clinton, a law student at the college. No charges were filed, but retired campus policemen contacted by Capitol Hill Blue confirmed the incident. The woman, tracked down by Capitol Hill Blue last week, confirmed the incident, but declined to discuss it further and would not give permission to use her name;
In 1974, a female student at the University of Arkansas complained that then-law school instructor Bill Clinton tried to prevent her from leaving his office during a conference. She said he groped her and forced his hand inside her blouse. She complained to her faculty advisor who confronted Clinton, but Clinton claimed the student ''came on'' to him. The student left the school shortly after the incident. Reached at her home in Texas, the former student confirmed the incident, but declined to go on the record with her account. Several former students at the University have confirmed the incident in confidential interviews and said there were other reports of Clinton attempting to force himself on female students;
Broaddrick, a volunteer in Clinton's gubernatorial campaign, said he raped her in 1978. Mrs. Broaddrick suffered a bruised and torn lip, which she said she suffered when Clinton bit her during the rape;
From 1978-1980, during Clinton's first term as governor of Arkansas, state troopers assigned to protect the governor were aware of at least seven complaints from women who said Clinton forced, or attempted to force, himself on them sexually. One retired state trooper said in an interview that the common joke among those assigned to protect Clinton was "who's next?". One former state trooper said other troopers would often escort women to the governor's hotel room after political events, often more than one an evening;
Carolyn Moffet, a legal secretary in Little Rock in 1979, said she met then-governor Clinton at a political fundraiser and shortly thereafter received an invitation to meet the governor in his hotel room. "I was escorted there by a state trooper. When I went in, he was sitting on a couch, wearing only an undershirt. He pointed at his penis and told me to suck it. I told him I didn't even do that for my boyfriend and he got mad, grabbed my head and shoved it into his lap. I pulled away from him and ran out of the room."
Elizabeth Ward, the Miss Arkansas who won the Miss America crown in 1982, told friends she was forced by Clinton to have sex with him shortly after she won her state crown. Last year, Ward, who is now married with the last name of Gracen (from her first marriage), told an interviewer she did have sex with Clinton but said it was consensual. Close friends of Ward, however, say she still maintains privately that Clinton forced himself on her.
Paula Corbin, an Arkansas state worker, filed a sexual harassment case against Clinton after an encounter in a Little Rock hotel room where the then-governor exposed himself and demanded oral sex. Clinton settled the case with Jones recently with an $850,000 cash payment.
Sandra Allen James, a former Washington, DC, political fundraiser says Presidential candidate-to-be Clinton invited her to his hotel room during a political trip to the nation's capital in 1991, pinned her against the wall and stuck his hand up her dress. She says she screamed loud enough for the Arkansas State Trooper stationed outside the hotel suite to bang on the door and ask if everything was all right, at which point Clinton released her and she fled the room. When she reported the incident to her boss, he advised her to keep her mouth shut if she wanted to keep working. Miss James has since married and left Washington. Reached at her home last week, the former Miss James said she later learned that other women suffered the same fate at Clinton's hands when he was in Washington during his Presidential run.
Christy Zercher, a flight attendant on Clinton's leased campaign plane in 1992, says Presidential candidate Clinton exposed himself to her, grabbed her breasts and made explicit remarks about oral sex. A video shot on board the plane by ABC News shows an obviously inebriated Clinton with his hand between another young flight attendant's legs. Zercher said later in an interview that White House attorney Bruce Lindsey tried to pressure her into not going public about the assault.
Kathleen Willey, a White House volunteer, reported that Clinton grabbed her, fondled her breast and pressed her hand against his genitals during an Oval Office meeting in November, 1993. Willey, who told her story in a 60 Minutes interview, became a target of a White House-directed smear campaign after she went public.
In an interview with Capitol Hill Blue, the retired State Department employee said he believed the story Miss Wellstone, the young English woman who said Clinton raped her in 1969.
''There was no doubt in my mind that this young woman had suffered severe emotional trauma,'' he said. ''But we were under tremendous pressure to avoid the embarrassment of having a Rhodes Scholar charged with rape. I filed a report with my superiors and that was the last I heard of it.''
Miss Wellstone, who is now married and lives near London, confirmed the incident when contacted this week, but refused to discuss the matter further. She said she would not go public with further details of the attack. Afterwards, she changed her phone number and hired a barrister who warned a reporter to stay away from his client.
In his book, Unlimited Access, former FBI agent Gary Aldrich reported that Clinton left Oxford University for a "European Tour" in 1969 and was told by University officials that he was no longer welcome there. Aldrich said Clinton's academic record at Oxford was lackluster. Clinton later accepted a scholarship for Yale Law School and did not complete his studies at Oxford.
The State Department official who investigated the incident said Clinton's interests appeared to be drinking, drugs and sex, not studies.
"I came away from the incident with the clear impression that this was a young man who was there to party, not study," he said.
Oxford officials refused comment. The State Department also refused to comment on the incident. A Freedom of Information request filed by Capitol Hill Blue failed to turn up any records of the incident.
Capitol Hill Blue also spoke with the former Miss James, the Washington fundraiser who confirmed the encounter with Clinton at the Four Seasons Hotel in Washington, but first said she would not appear publicly because anyone who does so is destroyed by the Clinton White House.
''My husband and children deserve better than that,'' she said when first contacted two weeks ago. After reading the Broaddrick story Friday, however, she called back and gave permission to use her maiden name, but said she had no intention of pursuing the matter.
"I wasn't raped, but I was trapped in a hotel room for a brief moment by a boorish man," she said. "I got away. He tried calling me several times after that, but I didn't take his phone calls. Then he stopped. I guess he moved on."
But Miss James also retreated from public view this week after other news organizations contacted her.
The former Miss Moffet, the legal secretary who says Clinton tried to force her into oral sex in 1979, has since married and left the state. She says that when she told her boyfriend, who was a lawyer and supporter of Clinton, about the incident, he told her to keep her mouth shut.
"He said that people who crossed the governor usually regretted it and that if I knew what was good for me I'd forget that it ever happened," she said. "I haven't forgotten it. You don't forget crude men like that."
Like two other women, the former Miss Moffet declined further interviews. A neighbor said she had received threatening phone calls.
The other encounters were confirmed with more than 30 interviews with retired Arkansas state employees, former state troopers and former Yale and University of Arkansas students. Like others, they refused to go public because of fears of retaliation from the Clinton White House.
Likewise, the mainstream media has shied away from the Broaddrick story. Initially, only The Drudge Report and other Internet news sites have actively pursued it. Since initial publication of this story, a few mainstream media outlets have expressed interest in interviewing the women.
The White House did not return calls for comment. White House attorney David Kendall has issued a public denial of the Broaddrick rape.
Copyright 1999. Capitol Web Publishing
http://www.albertpeia.com/oxfordassault.htm link to original article
1. Monica Lewinsky: Led to only the second president in American history to be impeached.
2. Benghazi: Four Americans killed, an entire system of weak diplomatic security uncloaked, and the credibility of a president and his secretary of state damaged.
Ads by Adblade
These female athletes are in phenomenal shape and not bashful about showing it off.
32 Child Stars Who Died Shockingly Young. (PHOTOS)
25 Athletes With Seriously Smokin' Wives
3. Asia fundraising scandal: More than four dozen convicted in a scandal that made the Lincoln bedroom, White House donor coffees and Buddhist monks infamous.
PHOTOS: The most consequential Clinton scandals — in order
4. Hillary’s private emails: Hundreds of national secrets already leaked through private email and the specter of a criminal probe looming large.
5. Whitewater: A large S&L failed and several people went to prison.
6. Travelgate: The firing of the career travel office was the very first crony capitalism scandal of the Clinton era.
7. Humagate: An aide’s sweetheart job arrangement.
8. Pardongate: The first time donations were ever connected as possible motives for presidential pardons.
9. Foundation favors: Revealing evidence that the Clinton Foundation was a pay-to-play back door to the State Department, and an open checkbook for foreigners to curry favor.
10. Mysterious files: The disappearance and re-discovery of Hillary’s Rose Law Firm records.
11. Filegate: The Clinton use of FBI files to dig for dirt on their enemies.
12. Hubble trouble: The resignation and imprisonment of Hillary law partner Web Hubbell.
13. The Waco tragedy: One of the most lethal exercises of police power in American history.
14. The Clinton’s Swedish slush fund: $26 million collected overseas with little accountability and lots of questions about whether contributors got a pass on Iran sanctions.
15. Troopergate: From the good old days, did Arkansas state troopers facilitate Bill Clinton’s philandering?
16. Gennifer Flowers: The tale that catapulted a supermarket tabloid into the big time.
17. Bill’s Golden Tongue: His and her speech fees shocked the American public.
18. Boeing Bucks: Boeing contributed big-time to Bill; Hillary helped the company obtain a profitable Russian contract.
19. Larry Lawrence: How did a fat cat donor get buried in Arlington National Cemetery without war experience?
20. The cattle futures: Hillary as commodity trader extraordinaire.
21. Chinagate: Nuclear secrets go to China on her husband’s watch.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/12/bill-clinton-hillary-clinton-scandals-ranked-from-/?page=all original article
(Editor's Note: The following story is an update of previously-published information and contains some new material.)
By Daniel J. Harris
& Teresa Hampton
Capitol Hill Blue
Women have been charging Bill Clinton with sexual assault since his days as a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford 30 years ago.
A continuing investigation into the President's questionable sexual history reveal incidents that go back as far as Clinton's college days, with more than a dozen women claiming his sexual appetites leave little room for the word ''no.''
Juanita Broaddrick, an Arkansas nursing home operator, told NBC's Lisa Myers five weeks ago she was raped by Clinton. NBC shelved the interview, saying they were confirming all parts of the story, but finally aired it Wednesday night.
Broaddrick finally took her story to The Wall Street Journal, which published her account of the brutal rape at the hands of the future President, followed by The Washington Post and some other publications.
But Capitol Hill Blue has confirmed that Broaddrick's story is only one account of many attempted and actual sexual assaults by Clinton that go back 30 years. Among the other incidents:
Eileen Wellstone, 19-year-old English woman who said Clinton sexually assaulted her after she met him at a pub near the Oxford where the future President was a student in 1969. A retired State Department employee, who asked not to be identified, confirmed that he spoke with the family of the girl and filed a report with his superiors. Clinton admitted having sex with the girl, but claimed it was consensual. The victim's family declined to pursue the case;
In 1972, a 22-year-old woman told campus police at Yale University that she was sexually assaulted by Clinton, a law student at the college. No charges were filed, but retired campus policemen contacted by Capitol Hill Blue confirmed the incident. The woman, tracked down by Capitol Hill Blue last week, confirmed the incident, but declined to discuss it further and would not give permission to use her name;
In 1974, a female student at the University of Arkansas complained that then-law school instructor Bill Clinton tried to prevent her from leaving his office during a conference. She said he groped her and forced his hand inside her blouse. She complained to her faculty advisor who confronted Clinton, but Clinton claimed the student ''came on'' to him. The student left the school shortly after the incident. Reached at her home in Texas, the former student confirmed the incident, but declined to go on the record with her account. Several former students at the University have confirmed the incident in confidential interviews and said there were other reports of Clinton attempting to force himself on female students;
Broaddrick, a volunteer in Clinton's gubernatorial campaign, said he raped her in 1978. Mrs. Broaddrick suffered a bruised and torn lip, which she said she suffered when Clinton bit her during the rape;
From 1978-1980, during Clinton's first term as governor of Arkansas, state troopers assigned to protect the governor were aware of at least seven complaints from women who said Clinton forced, or attempted to force, himself on them sexually. One retired state trooper said in an interview that the common joke among those assigned to protect Clinton was "who's next?". One former state trooper said other troopers would often escort women to the governor's hotel room after political events, often more than one an evening;
Carolyn Moffet, a legal secretary in Little Rock in 1979, said she met then-governor Clinton at a political fundraiser and shortly thereafter received an invitation to meet the governor in his hotel room. "I was escorted there by a state trooper. When I went in, he was sitting on a couch, wearing only an undershirt. He pointed at his penis and told me to suck it. I told him I didn't even do that for my boyfriend and he got mad, grabbed my head and shoved it into his lap. I pulled away from him and ran out of the room."
Elizabeth Ward, the Miss Arkansas who won the Miss America crown in 1982, told friends she was forced by Clinton to have sex with him shortly after she won her state crown. Last year, Ward, who is now married with the last name of Gracen (from her first marriage), told an interviewer she did have sex with Clinton but said it was consensual. Close friends of Ward, however, say she still maintains privately that Clinton forced himself on her.
Paula Corbin, an Arkansas state worker, filed a sexual harassment case against Clinton after an encounter in a Little Rock hotel room where the then-governor exposed himself and demanded oral sex. Clinton settled the case with Jones recently with an $850,000 cash payment.
Sandra Allen James, a former Washington, DC, political fundraiser says Presidential candidate-to-be Clinton invited her to his hotel room during a political trip to the nation's capital in 1991, pinned her against the wall and stuck his hand up her dress. She says she screamed loud enough for the Arkansas State Trooper stationed outside the hotel suite to bang on the door and ask if everything was all right, at which point Clinton released her and she fled the room. When she reported the incident to her boss, he advised her to keep her mouth shut if she wanted to keep working. Miss James has since married and left Washington. Reached at her home last week, the former Miss James said she later learned that other women suffered the same fate at Clinton's hands when he was in Washington during his Presidential run.
Christy Zercher, a flight attendant on Clinton's leased campaign plane in 1992, says Presidential candidate Clinton exposed himself to her, grabbed her breasts and made explicit remarks about oral sex. A video shot on board the plane by ABC News shows an obviously inebriated Clinton with his hand between another young flight attendant's legs. Zercher said later in an interview that White House attorney Bruce Lindsey tried to pressure her into not going public about the assault.
Kathleen Willey, a White House volunteer, reported that Clinton grabbed her, fondled her breast and pressed her hand against his genitals during an Oval Office meeting in November, 1993. Willey, who told her story in a 60 Minutes interview, became a target of a White House-directed smear campaign after she went public.
In an interview with Capitol Hill Blue, the retired State Department employee said he believed the story Miss Wellstone, the young English woman who said Clinton raped her in 1969.
''There was no doubt in my mind that this young woman had suffered severe emotional trauma,'' he said. ''But we were under tremendous pressure to avoid the embarrassment of having a Rhodes Scholar charged with rape. I filed a report with my superiors and that was the last I heard of it.''
Miss Wellstone, who is now married and lives near London, confirmed the incident when contacted this week, but refused to discuss the matter further. She said she would not go public with further details of the attack. Afterwards, she changed her phone number and hired a barrister who warned a reporter to stay away from his client.
In his book, Unlimited Access, former FBI agent Gary Aldrich reported that Clinton left Oxford University for a "European Tour" in 1969 and was told by University officials that he was no longer welcome there. Aldrich said Clinton's academic record at Oxford was lackluster. Clinton later accepted a scholarship for Yale Law School and did not complete his studies at Oxford.
The State Department official who investigated the incident said Clinton's interests appeared to be drinking, drugs and sex, not studies.
"I came away from the incident with the clear impression that this was a young man who was there to party, not study," he said.
Oxford officials refused comment. The State Department also refused to comment on the incident. A Freedom of Information request filed by Capitol Hill Blue failed to turn up any records of the incident.
Capitol Hill Blue also spoke with the former Miss James, the Washington fundraiser who confirmed the encounter with Clinton at the Four Seasons Hotel in Washington, but first said she would not appear publicly because anyone who does so is destroyed by the Clinton White House.
''My husband and children deserve better than that,'' she said when first contacted two weeks ago. After reading the Broaddrick story Friday, however, she called back and gave permission to use her maiden name, but said she had no intention of pursuing the matter.
"I wasn't raped, but I was trapped in a hotel room for a brief moment by a boorish man," she said. "I got away. He tried calling me several times after that, but I didn't take his phone calls. Then he stopped. I guess he moved on."
But Miss James also retreated from public view this week after other news organizations contacted her.
The former Miss Moffet, the legal secretary who says Clinton tried to force her into oral sex in 1979, has since married and left the state. She says that when she told her boyfriend, who was a lawyer and supporter of Clinton, about the incident, he told her to keep her mouth shut.
"He said that people who crossed the governor usually regretted it and that if I knew what was good for me I'd forget that it ever happened," she said. "I haven't forgotten it. You don't forget crude men like that."
Like two other women, the former Miss Moffet declined further interviews. A neighbor said she had received threatening phone calls.
The other encounters were confirmed with more than 30 interviews with retired Arkansas state employees, former state troopers and former Yale and University of Arkansas students. Like others, they refused to go public because of fears of retaliation from the Clinton White House.
Likewise, the mainstream media has shied away from the Broaddrick story. Initially, only The Drudge Report and other Internet news sites have actively pursued it. Since initial publication of this story, a few mainstream media outlets have expressed interest in interviewing the women.
The White House did not return calls for comment. White House attorney David Kendall has issued a public denial of the Broaddrick rape.
Copyright 1999. Capitol Web Publishing
http://www.albertpeia.com/oxfordassault.htm link to original article
1. Monica Lewinsky: Led to only the second president in American history to be impeached.
2. Benghazi: Four Americans killed, an entire system of weak diplomatic security uncloaked, and the credibility of a president and his secretary of state damaged.
Ads by Adblade
These female athletes are in phenomenal shape and not bashful about showing it off.
32 Child Stars Who Died Shockingly Young. (PHOTOS)
25 Athletes With Seriously Smokin' Wives
3. Asia fundraising scandal: More than four dozen convicted in a scandal that made the Lincoln bedroom, White House donor coffees and Buddhist monks infamous.
PHOTOS: The most consequential Clinton scandals — in order
4. Hillary’s private emails: Hundreds of national secrets already leaked through private email and the specter of a criminal probe looming large.
5. Whitewater: A large S&L failed and several people went to prison.
6. Travelgate: The firing of the career travel office was the very first crony capitalism scandal of the Clinton era.
7. Humagate: An aide’s sweetheart job arrangement.
8. Pardongate: The first time donations were ever connected as possible motives for presidential pardons.
9. Foundation favors: Revealing evidence that the Clinton Foundation was a pay-to-play back door to the State Department, and an open checkbook for foreigners to curry favor.
10. Mysterious files: The disappearance and re-discovery of Hillary’s Rose Law Firm records.
11. Filegate: The Clinton use of FBI files to dig for dirt on their enemies.
12. Hubble trouble: The resignation and imprisonment of Hillary law partner Web Hubbell.
13. The Waco tragedy: One of the most lethal exercises of police power in American history.
14. The Clinton’s Swedish slush fund: $26 million collected overseas with little accountability and lots of questions about whether contributors got a pass on Iran sanctions.
15. Troopergate: From the good old days, did Arkansas state troopers facilitate Bill Clinton’s philandering?
16. Gennifer Flowers: The tale that catapulted a supermarket tabloid into the big time.
17. Bill’s Golden Tongue: His and her speech fees shocked the American public.
18. Boeing Bucks: Boeing contributed big-time to Bill; Hillary helped the company obtain a profitable Russian contract.
19. Larry Lawrence: How did a fat cat donor get buried in Arlington National Cemetery without war experience?
20. The cattle futures: Hillary as commodity trader extraordinaire.
21. Chinagate: Nuclear secrets go to China on her husband’s watch.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/12/bill-clinton-hillary-clinton-scandals-ranked-from-/?page=all original article
Montel Williams calls for murder and disembowelment of BLM Protestors
Im not inine with all the facts in this matter but for what I know this is a legaly armed protest in the middle of no where against an over bearing federal government! to call for disembowlment of these people is no better than ISIS and that is the exact words of Montel Williams!
https://www.facebook.com/MontelWilliamsFan/
https://www.facebook.com/MontelWilliamsFan/
Armed militia takes over federal land and building in oregon
BURNS, Ore. (AP) — A protest in support of Oregon ranchers facing jail time for arson was followed by an occupation of a building at a national wildlife refuge led by members of a family previously involved in a showdown with the federal government.
Ammon Bundy — the son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who was involved in a standoff with the government over grazing rights — told The Oregonian on Saturday that he and two of his brothers were among a group of dozens of people occupying the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.
Ammon Bundy posted a video on his Facebook page asking for militia members to come help him. He said "this is not a time to stand down. It's a time to stand up and come to Harney County," where Burns is located. Below the video is this statement: "(asterisk)(asterisk)ALL PATRIOTS ITS TIME TO STAND UP NOT STAND DOWN!!! WE NEED YOUR HELP!!! COME PREPARED."
In an interview with reporters late Saturday night that was posted on Facebook, Bundy said he and others are occupying the building because "the people have been abused long enough."
"I feel we are in a situation where if we do not do something, if we do not take a hard stand, we'll be in a position where we'll be no longer able to do so," he said.
Bundy said the group planned to stay at the refuge indefinitely. "We're planning on staying here for years, absolutely," Ammon Bundy said. "This is not a decision we've made at the last minute."
Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward told people to stay away from the building as authorities work to defuse the situation, the Oregonian reported (http://is.gd/bK7d4E).
"A collective effort from multiple agencies is currently working on a solution. For the time being please stay away from that area. More information will be provided as it becomes available. Please maintain a peaceful and united front and allow us to work through this situation," Ward said in a statement.
An Idaho militia leader who helped organize the earlier march said he knew nothing about activities after a parade of militia members and local residents in Burns walked past the sheriff's office and the home of Dwight Hammond Jr. and his son Steven.
Beth Anne Steele, an FBI spokeswoman in Portland, told The Associated Press the agency was aware of the situation at the national wildlife refuge. She made no further comment.
Some local residents feared the Saturday rally would involve more than speeches, flags and marching. But the only real additions to that list seemed to be songs, flowers and pennies.
As marchers reached the courthouse, they tossed hundreds of pennies at the locked door. Their message: civilians were buying back their government. After the march passed, two girls swooped in to scavenge the pennies.
Ammon Bundy's father, Cliven Bundy, told Oregon Public Broadcasting on Saturday night that he had nothing to do with the takeover of the building.
Bundy said his son felt obligated to intervene on behalf of the Hammonds.
"That's not exactly what I thought should happen, but I didn't know what to do," he said. "You know, if the Hammonds wouldn't stand, if the sheriff didn't stand, then, you know, the people had to do something. And I guess this is what they did decide to do. I wasn't in on that."
His son Ammon told him they are committed to staying in the building, Cliven Bundy told Oregon Public Broadcasting.
"He told me that they were there for the long run. I guess they figured they're going to be there for whatever time it takes_and I don't know what that means," Cliven Bundy said. "I asked him, 'Well how long can ya, how long you going to stand out there?' He just told me it was for long term."
A few blocks away, Hammond and his wife, Susan, greeted marchers, who planted flower bouquets in the snow. They sang some songs, Hammond said a few words, and the protesters marched back to their cars.
Dwight Hammond has said he and his son plan to peacefully report to prison Jan. 4 as ordered by the judge.
Dwight Hammond, 73, and Steven Hammond, 46, said they lit the fires in 2001 and 2006 to reduce the growth of invasive plants and protect their property from wildfires.
The two were convicted of the arsons three years ago and served time — the father three months, the son one year. But a judge ruled their terms were too short under federal law and ordered them back to prison for about four years each.
The decision has generated controversy in a remote part of the state.
In particular, the Hammonds' new sentences touched a nerve with far right groups who repudiate federal authority.
Ammon Bundy and a handful of militiamen from other states arrived last month in Burns, some 60 miles from the Hammond ranch.
In an email to supporters, Ammon Bundy criticized the U.S. government for a failed legal process.
Ammon Bundy — the son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who was involved in a standoff with the government over grazing rights — told The Oregonian on Saturday that he and two of his brothers were among a group of dozens of people occupying the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.
Ammon Bundy posted a video on his Facebook page asking for militia members to come help him. He said "this is not a time to stand down. It's a time to stand up and come to Harney County," where Burns is located. Below the video is this statement: "(asterisk)(asterisk)ALL PATRIOTS ITS TIME TO STAND UP NOT STAND DOWN!!! WE NEED YOUR HELP!!! COME PREPARED."
In an interview with reporters late Saturday night that was posted on Facebook, Bundy said he and others are occupying the building because "the people have been abused long enough."
"I feel we are in a situation where if we do not do something, if we do not take a hard stand, we'll be in a position where we'll be no longer able to do so," he said.
Bundy said the group planned to stay at the refuge indefinitely. "We're planning on staying here for years, absolutely," Ammon Bundy said. "This is not a decision we've made at the last minute."
Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward told people to stay away from the building as authorities work to defuse the situation, the Oregonian reported (http://is.gd/bK7d4E).
"A collective effort from multiple agencies is currently working on a solution. For the time being please stay away from that area. More information will be provided as it becomes available. Please maintain a peaceful and united front and allow us to work through this situation," Ward said in a statement.
An Idaho militia leader who helped organize the earlier march said he knew nothing about activities after a parade of militia members and local residents in Burns walked past the sheriff's office and the home of Dwight Hammond Jr. and his son Steven.
Beth Anne Steele, an FBI spokeswoman in Portland, told The Associated Press the agency was aware of the situation at the national wildlife refuge. She made no further comment.
Some local residents feared the Saturday rally would involve more than speeches, flags and marching. But the only real additions to that list seemed to be songs, flowers and pennies.
As marchers reached the courthouse, they tossed hundreds of pennies at the locked door. Their message: civilians were buying back their government. After the march passed, two girls swooped in to scavenge the pennies.
Ammon Bundy's father, Cliven Bundy, told Oregon Public Broadcasting on Saturday night that he had nothing to do with the takeover of the building.
Bundy said his son felt obligated to intervene on behalf of the Hammonds.
"That's not exactly what I thought should happen, but I didn't know what to do," he said. "You know, if the Hammonds wouldn't stand, if the sheriff didn't stand, then, you know, the people had to do something. And I guess this is what they did decide to do. I wasn't in on that."
His son Ammon told him they are committed to staying in the building, Cliven Bundy told Oregon Public Broadcasting.
"He told me that they were there for the long run. I guess they figured they're going to be there for whatever time it takes_and I don't know what that means," Cliven Bundy said. "I asked him, 'Well how long can ya, how long you going to stand out there?' He just told me it was for long term."
A few blocks away, Hammond and his wife, Susan, greeted marchers, who planted flower bouquets in the snow. They sang some songs, Hammond said a few words, and the protesters marched back to their cars.
Dwight Hammond has said he and his son plan to peacefully report to prison Jan. 4 as ordered by the judge.
Dwight Hammond, 73, and Steven Hammond, 46, said they lit the fires in 2001 and 2006 to reduce the growth of invasive plants and protect their property from wildfires.
The two were convicted of the arsons three years ago and served time — the father three months, the son one year. But a judge ruled their terms were too short under federal law and ordered them back to prison for about four years each.
The decision has generated controversy in a remote part of the state.
In particular, the Hammonds' new sentences touched a nerve with far right groups who repudiate federal authority.
Ammon Bundy and a handful of militiamen from other states arrived last month in Burns, some 60 miles from the Hammond ranch.
In an email to supporters, Ammon Bundy criticized the U.S. government for a failed legal process.
Friday, January 1, 2016
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)