Being a CFR Member Makes Gen. Petraeus: Too Big to Jail

MORE ON THE PETRAEUS CRIMES AND COVERUP BELOW-

Exclusive: While lesser Americans face years in jail for leaking secrets – even to inform fellow citizens of government abuses – retired Gen. David Petraeus gets a misdemeanor wrist-slap for exposing covert officers and lying about it, says ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern, who was jailed just for trying to ask Petraeus a question.

By Ray McGovern

The leniency shown former CIA Director (and retired General) David Petraeus by the Justice Department in sparing him prison time for the serious crimes that he has committed puts him in the same preferential, immune-from-incarceration category as those running the financial institutions of Wall Street, where, incidentally, Petraeus now makes millions. By contrast, “lesser” folks – and particularly the brave men and women who disclose government crimes – get to serve time, even decades, in jail.

Gen. David Petraeus in a photo with his

biographer/mistress Paula Broadwell.

(U.S. government photo)

Petraeus is now a partner at KKR, a firm specializing in large leveraged buyouts, and his hand-slap guilty plea to a misdemeanor for mishandling government secrets should not interfere from his continued service at the firm. KKR’s founders originally worked at Bear Stearns, the institution that failed in early 2008 at the beginning of the meltdown of the investment banking industry later that year.

 

Despite manifestly corrupt practices like those of subprime mortgage lenders, none of those responsible went to jail after the 2008-09 financial collapse which cost millions of Americans their jobs and homes. The bailed-out banks were judged “too big to fail” and the bankers “too big to jail.”

Two years ago, in a highly revealing slip of the tongue, Attorney General Eric Holder explained to Congress that it can “become difficult” to prosecute major financial institutions because they are so large that a criminal charge could pose a threat to the economy – or perhaps what he meant was an even bigger threat to the economy.

Holder tried to walk back his unintended slip into honesty a year later, claiming, “There is no such thing as ‘too big to jail.’” And this bromide was dutifully echoed by Holder’s likely successor, Loretta Lynch, at her confirmation hearing in late January.

Words, though, are cheap. The proof is in the pudding. It remains true that not one of the crooked bankers or investment advisers who inflicted untold misery on ordinary people, gambling away much of their life savings, has been jailed. Not one.

And now Petraeus, who gave his biographer/mistress access to some of the nation’s most sensitive secrets and then lied about it to the FBI, has also been shown to be too big to jail. Perhaps Holder decided it would be a gentlemanly thing to do on his way out of office – to take this awkward issue off Lynch’s initial to-do list and spare her the embarrassment of demonstrating once again that equality under the law has become a mirage; that not only big banks, but also big shots like Petraeus – who was Official Washington’s most beloved general before becoming CIA director – are, in fact, too big to jail.

It strikes me, in a way, as fitting that even on his way out the door, Eric Holder would not miss the opportunity to demonstrate his propensity for giving hypocrisy a bad name.

A Slap on Wrist for Serious Crimes

The Justice Department let David Petraeus cop a plea after requiring him to admit that he had shared with his biographer/mistress eight black notebooks containing highly classified information and then lied about it to FBI investigators. Serious crimes? The following quotes are excerpted from “U.S. v. David Howell Petraeus: Factual Basis in support of the Plea Agreement” offered by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division:

“17. During his tenure as Commander of ISAF in Afghanistan, defendant DAVID HOWELL PETRAEUS maintained bound, five-by-eight-inch notebooks that contained his daily schedule and classified and unclassified notes he took during official meetings, conferences, and briefings. … A total of eight such books (hereinafter the “Black Books”) encompassed the period of defendant DAVID HOWELL PETRAEUS’S ISAF [Afghanistan] command and collectively contained classified information regarding the identities of covert officers, war strategy, intelligence capabilities and mechanisms, diplomatic discussions, quotes and deliberative discussions from high-level National Security Council meetings, and defendant DAVID HOWELL PETRAEUS’s discussions with the President of the United States of America. [emphasis added]

“18. The Black Books contained national defense information, including Top Secret//SCI and code word information.”

Despite the sensitivity of the notebooks and existing law and regulations, Petraeus did not surrender them to proper custody when he returned to the U.S. after being nominated to become the Director of the CIA. According to the Court’s “Factual Basis,” Petraeus’s biographer/mistress recorded a conversation of Aug. 4, 2011, in which she asks about the “Black Books.” The Court statement continues:

“ [Petraeus] ‘Umm, well, they’re really – I mean they are highly classified, some of them.  … I mean there’s code word stuff in there.’ … On or about August 27, 2011, defendant DAVID HOWELL PETRAEUS sent an email to his biographer in which he agreed to provide the Black Books to his biographer. … On or about August 28, 2011, defendant DAVID HOWEL PETRAEUS delivered the Black Books to a private residence in Washington, D.C. where his biographer was staying. … On or about September 1, 2011, defendant DAVID HOWELL PETRAEUS retrieved the Black Books from the D.C. private residence and returned them to his own Arlington, Virginia home.” [emphasis added]

I would think it a safe guess that Petraeus’s timing can be attributed to his awareness that his privacy and freedom of movement was about to be greatly diminished, once his CIA personal security detail started keeping close track of him from his first day on the job as CIA Director, Sept. 6, 2011.

“32. On or about October 26, 2012, defendant DAVID HOWELL PETRAEUS was interviewed by two FBI special agents. … [He] was advised that the special agents were conducting a criminal investigation. … PETRAEUS stated that (a) he had never provided any classified information to his biographer, and (b) he had never facilitated the provision of classified information to his biographer. These statements were false. Defendant DAVID HOWELL PETRAEUS then and there knew that he previously shared the Black Books with his biographer.” [emphasis added]

Lying to the FBI? No problem. As “Expose Facts” blogger Marcy Wheeler immediately commented: “For lying to the FBI – a crime that others go to prison for for months and years – Petraeus will just get a two point enhancement on his sentencing guidelines. The Department of Justice basically completely wiped out the crime of covering up his crime of leaking some of the country’s most sensitive secrets to his mistress.” [emphasis added]

Talk about “prosecutorial discretion” or, in this case, indiscretion – giving Petraeus a fine and probation but no felony conviction or prison time for what he did! Lesser lights are not so fortunate. Just ask Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning who is serving a 35-year prison sentence for disclosing information to the public about U.S. war crimes and other abuses. Or Edward Snowden, who is stuck in Russia facing a U.S. indictment on espionage charges for informing the people about pervasive and unconstitutional U.S. government surveillance of common citizens.

Or former CIA officer John Kiriakou who was sent to prison for inadvertently revealing the name of one Agency official cognizant of CIA torture. Here’s what Neil MacBride, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, said then: “The government has a vital interest in protecting the identities of those involved in covert operations. Leaks of highly sensitive, closely held and classified information compromise national security and can put individual lives in danger.”

When, on Oct. 23, 2012, Kiriakou acquiesced to a plea deal requiring two-and-a-half years in federal prison, then CIA Director Petraeus sent a sanctimonious Memorandum to Agency employees applauding Kiriakou’s conviction and noting, “It marks an important victory for our agency …  there are indeed consequences for those who believe they are above the laws that protect our fellow officers and enable American intelligence agencies to operate with the requisite degree of secrecy.” [emphasis added]

Consequences for Kiriakou but not, as we now know, for Petraeus.

If you feel no discomfort at this selective application of the law, you might wish to scroll or page back to the “Factual Basis” for Petraeus’s Plea Agreement and be reminded that it was just three days after his lecture to CIA employees about the sanctity of protecting the identity of covert agents that Petraeus lied to FBI investigators – on Oct. 26, 2012 – about his sharing such details with his mistress.

Why Did Petraeus Do It?

Old soldiers like Petraeus (indeed, most aging but still ambitious men) have been known to end up doing self-destructive things by letting themselves be flattered by the attentions of younger women. This may offer a partial explanation – human weakness even in a self-styled larger-than-life super-Mensch. But I see the motivation as mostly vainglory. (The two are not mutually exclusive, of course.)

Looking back at Petraeus’s record of overweening ambition, it seems likely he was motivated first and foremost by a desire to ensure that his biographer would be able to extract from the notebooks some juicy morsels he may not have remembered to tell her about. This might enhance his profile as Warrior-Scholar-“King David,” the image that he has assiduously cultivated and promoted, with the help of an adulating neocon-dominated media.

Petraeus’s presidential ambitions have been an open secret. And with his copping a plea to a misdemeanor, his “rehabilitation” seems to have already begun. He has told friends that he would like to serve again in government and they immediately relayed that bright hope to the media.

Sen. John McCain was quick to call the whole matter “closed.” A strong supporter of Petraeus, McCain added this fulsome praise: “At a time of grave security challenges around the world, I hope that General Petraeus will continue to provide his outstanding service and leadership to our nation, as he has throughout his distinguished career.”

And Michael O’Hanlon, Brookings’ neocon military specialist who rarely gets anything right, spoke true to form to the New York Times: “The broader nation needs his advice, and I think it’s been evident that people still want to hear from him. … People are forgiving and I know he made a mistake. But he’s also a national hero and a national treasure.”

The “mainstream media” is trapped in its undeserved adulation for Petraeus’s “heroism.” It is virtually impossible, for example, for them to acknowledge that his ballyhooed, official-handout-based “success” in training and equipping tens of thousands of crack Iraqi troops was given the lie when those same troops ran away (the officers took helicopters) and left their weapons behind at the first sight of ISIL fighters a year ago.

Equally sham were media claims of the “success” for the “surges” of 30,000 troops sent into Iraq (2007) and 33,000 into Afghanistan (2009). Each “surge” squandered the lives of about 1,000 U.S. troops for nothing – yes, nothing – except in the case of Iraq buying time for President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney to get out of town without a clear-cut defeat hanging around their necks.

Many of the supposed successes of Petraeus’s Iraqi “surge” also predated the “surge,” including a high-tech program for killing top militants such as Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and the formation of the so-called Sunni Awakening, both occurring in 2006 under the previous field commanders. And, Bush’s principal goal of the “surge” – to create political space for a fuller Sunni-Shiite reconciliation – was never accomplished. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “The Surge Myth’s Deadly Result.”]

And last, it is important to note that David Petraeus does not have a corner on the above-the-law attitudes and behavior of previous directors of the CIA. The kid-gloves treatment he has been accorded, however, will increase chances that future directors will feel they can misbehave seriously and suffer no serious personal consequence.

The virtual immunity enjoyed by the well connected – even when they lie to the FBI or tell whoppers in sworn testimony to Congress (as Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has done) – feeds the propensity to prioritize one’s own personal ambition and to delegate a back seat to legitimate national security concerns – even basic things like giving required protection to properly classified information, including the identity of covert officers.

One might call this all-too-common syndrome Self-Aggrandizing Dismissiveness (SAD). Sadly, Petraeus is merely the latest exemplar of the SAD syndrome. The unbridled ambitions of some of his predecessors at CIA – the arrogant John Deutch, for example – have been equally noxious and destructive. But we’ll leave that for the next chapter.

Full Disclosure: Petraeus has not yet answered McGovern’s letter of Feb. 3 regarding why McGovern was barred from a public speaking event by Petraeus in New York City on Oct. 30, 2014, and then was roughly arrested by police and jailed for the night. McGovern wonders if Petraeus failed to respond because he was pre-occupied working out his Plea Agreement.

Ray McGovern worked for a total of 27 years in all four of CIA’s main directorates. He served under seven Presidents and nine CIA Directors, and is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). He now works for Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington.

source consortiumnews

PETRAEUS  FILES

Charleston Voice: Petraeus Affair: Shirtless FBI Pic Appears to Be ...

Nov 21, 2012 ... Petraeus Affair: Shirtless FBI Pic Appears to Be Playful - ABC News.

Charleston Voice: General Petraeus may have been officially ...

Sep 9, 2013 ... Another special forces veteran, retired Colonel James Coffman, worked with Steele and reported directly to General David Petraeus, who had ...

Charleston Voice: Cover-up at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

Nov 11, 2012 ... “What I do know is that an integral part of that firewall involved having information on Petraeus that would potentially damage his career, legacy ...

Charleston Voice: CIA-Sponsored Trolls Monitor Internet & Interact ...

Nov 29, 2012 ... Petraeus is seeking to better the CIA's ability to create online identities for undercover spies. Currently, each internet user has a digital footprint ...

Traitors Within the Gates: CFR's Military Membership Roster

Oct 6, 2014 ... GEN David Petraeus - Director CIA (Aug. 2011) Resigned 11/9/12 Admitted Adulterer present Commander of U.S. and Coalition forces in ...

Charleston Voice: Could Theft of $500M Fuel in Afghanistan be ...

Sep 11, 2012 ... Could Theft of $500M Fuel in Afghanistan be another Thread to be Unraveled on Petraeus' Watch? Posted by Charleston Voice ...

Charleston Voice: Mossad Chief Secretly Met With Top U.S. Officials ...

Feb 1, 2012 ... Feinstein then indicated that she had met Mossad chief Pardo earlier in the week in Washington, with Petraeus adding that he too met Pardo ...

DOJ, CFTC have Begun Investigation of 10 Major Banks for Rigging Metals Fixing

Need a job? Drop gold investigation

Posted on March 2, 2015 by Pat Heller

   

Late last week, The Wall Street Journal reported that the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) had begun investigations of 10 major banks over the process of setting prices for gold, silver, platinum and palladium in the London market.

Look for the end result to pretty much
be a cover-up of the suppression of
gold and silver prices. – Pat Heller

The banks under scrutiny are Bank of Nova Scotia, Barclays PLC, Credit Suisse Group AG, Deutsche Bank AG, Goldman Sachs Group Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Societe Generale SA, Standard Bank Group Ltd., and UBS AG. After this announcement, the Swiss competition commission, WEKO, said it was looking into possible manipulation by Swiss banks in the precious metals markets.

As reported in the Journal, the Department of Justice is looking into criminal activity, while the CFTC has opened a civil investigation.

Many researchers have written about the extensive history of central banks manipulating gold prices over the decades.  In the United States, for instance, declassified government documents released so far have all confirmed that the federal government has conspired with other governments and major banks to manipulate gold prices right from the 1930s up into the 1980s.

Historically, many government monetary systems were valued in relation to gold, so it should not surprise anyone that governments would try to influence the relative prices.  In the United States, for instance, the Treasury Department’s Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF) was established as a provision of the January 31, 1934 Gold Reserve Act.  The ESF was explicitly authorized to use its funds to stabilize the exchange value of the dollar versus gold.  Changes over the years have never revoked the authority to manipulate gold prices.  In fact, a law enacted in 1970 directed the Secretary of the Treasury, with the approval of the President, to “deal in gold, foreign exchange, and other instruments of credit and securities.”

These new investigations follow similar reviews in Europe. Last year, the British government fined Barclays Bank more than $40 million for one incident of gold price manipulation.  Also, the Swiss regulator, FINMA, said it found “serious misconduct” among precious metals traders at UBS involving a silver-fix order of one client.

If you think that the researchers and writers claiming that central banks and major private banks were manipulating the precious metals markets by suppressing prices are finally going to be proven right, think again.

I am confident that the end result of the U.S. government investigations will be, after several years in the works, some fines collected from many of these banks for specific individual incidents. Further, there will be promises that whatever wrongdoing they had done will no longer occur.  And that will be all that happens.

Why do I think this is what will be the end result of such a bombshell development? The answer is simple. Ask yourself why the DOJ and CFTC are investigating trading in the London markets but not in the New York COMEX markets. While it is true that the London market handles more volume of precious metals trading than the COMEX, the U.S. markets are more relevant to Americans.

Also ask yourself why the investigations involve eight foreign owned banks and only two U.S. companies. The foreign banks would only be within the purview of American regulators if their actions in the London markets were perpetrated from the U.S.-based offices. Why aren’t other U.S. banks being investigated?

The reason these investigations will be pretty much whitewashed is that the Department of Justice is unwilling to go after Wall Street. New York Federal Reserve Bank president William C. Dudley (who worked at Goldman Sachs 1986-2007 as the chief U.S. economist, a partner, and as a managing director) confirmed not that long ago that the DOJ has no ongoing investigations of Wall Street firms. The DOJ is not conducting such investigations despite former Federal Reserve chair Alan Greenspan’s public claim that there were massive illegal and criminal frauds committed by Wall Street firms.

The DOJ consistently stated that it will not prosecute these large institutions because the risk of damage to the economy, as they were told by outside experts.  However, could this DOJ policy could have more to do with the revolving doors where the DOJ and CFTC investigators largely have worked for the above named banks or hope to do so when the leave government employment?

After all, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced two years ago that no investigation of UBS’s fixing of LIBOR interest rates would be done. Holder claimed in a news conference that the lack of prosecution was based on a decision of how such an investigation would impact global financial markets. But, was the real reason that UBS was a client of the law firm where Holder worked before his current job?

Want to add some luck to your 
collection or your pocket?

In a previous decision not to investigate HSBC, a Congressional panel asked for the identity of outside parties who advised the DOJ to drop the investigation for global financial stability reasons.  Eventually, Justice officials had to admit that they did not consult any outside parties before canceling the HSBC review.

In sum, I expect the public to be lulled into thinking that the U.S. government is really finding and reporting the truth about the manipulation of precious metals prices. However, once you realize that the DOJ and CFTC are investigating the wrong market (London instead of the New York COMEX), not all of the appropriate American-based banks that should be investigated are being pursued because the government agencies have a “policy” to avoid investigations of firms where they used to work or hope to later be employed. Don’t expect any definitive revelations about the depth and breadth of the manipulation of precious metals trading in America.

Instead, look for the end result to pretty much be a cover-up of the suppression of gold and silver prices.

via numismaticnews

Ten Banks, Including JPM, Goldman, Deutsche, Barclays, SocGen And UBS, Probed For Gold Rigging

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 02/23/2015 22:17 -0500

No matter how many times the big banks are caught red-handed manipulating precious metals, some failed former Deutsche Bank prop-trader (you know who you are) will take a vociferous stand based on ad hominem attacks and zero facts that no, what you see in front of you is not precious metal rigging at all but a one-off event that has nothing to do with a criminal banking syndicate hell bent on taking advantage of anyone who is naive and dumb enough to still believe in fair and efficient markets. 

The last time this happened was in November when we learned that "UBS Settles Over Gold Rigging, Many More Banks To Follow", and sure enough many more banks did follow, because in Europe, where the stench of gold market manipulation stretches far beyond merely commercial banks, and rises through the central banks, namely the BOE and ECB, culminating with the Head of Foreign Exchange & Gold at the BIS itself, all such allegations have to be promptly settled or else the discovery that the manipulation cartel in Europe involves absolutely everybody will shock and stun the world, which heretofore was led to believe that such things as gold market (not to be confused with Libor or FX) manipulation only exist in the paranoid delusions of a few tinfoil fringe-blogging lunatics.

However, as usually happens, someone always fails to read the memo that when it comes to gold-market manipulation one must i) find nothing at all incriminating if one is a paid spokesman for the entities doing the manipulation such as former CFTC-sellout Bart Chilton or ii) if one can't cover it, then one must settle immediately or else the chain of revelations will implication everyone.

This time, that someone is the US Department of Justice, which as the WSJ just reported, is investigating at least 10 major banks for possible rigging of precious-metals markets. The DOJ is shockingly doing so "even though European regulators dropped a similar probe after finding no evidence of wrongdoing, according to people close to the inquiries." Of course, the reason why said probe was dropped in Europe is because it would have implicated virtually the entire trading desk at the biggest and most important European bank: Deustche Bank, as well as the biggest bank in Switzerland, UBS and UK's own Barclays, reveal a manipulation cartel rivaling even that of Libor. And once traders at the commercial banks turned sides and squealed for the prosection, well then it would be the central banks' turn next. Which is why it was imperative to bring this investigation to a quiet end.

But not in the US.

According to the WSJ, "prosecutors in the Justice Department’s antitrust division are scrutinizing the price-setting process for gold, silver, platinum and palladium in London, while the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has opened a civil investigation, these people said. The agencies have made initial requests for information, including a subpoena from the CFTC to HSBC Holdings PLC related to precious-metals trading, the bank said in its annual report Monday.

HSBC also said the Justice Department sought documents related to the antitrust investigation in November. The two probes “are at an early stage,” the bank added, saying it is cooperating with U.S. regulators.

Who is involved in this latest gold-rigging scandal? Why everyone! ... which makes it immediately obvious why the European regulator had to promptly cover up the whole affair. Under scrutiny are Bank of Nova Scotia , Barclays PLC, Credit Suisse Group AG , Deutsche Bank AG , Goldman Sachs Group Inc., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Société Générale SA, Standard Bank Group Ltd. and UBS AG , according to one of the people close to the investigation.

Robert Hockett, a law professor at Cornell University, said it is “not particularly surprising” that the Justice Department is plowing ahead despite the decision by European regulators.  

Recent scrutiny of big banks’ operations in the physical commodities markets and criticism of the Justice Department’s financial-crisis track record make it “quite understandable” that the agency would investigate allegations of precious metals price-rigging.

Last year, the FCA fined Barclays £26 million ($40.2 million) for lax controls after one of its traders allegedly manipulated the gold fix at the expense of a client.

Swiss regulator Finma settled last year allegations of foreign-currency manipulation with UBS. The regulator said it found “serious misconduct” among precious-metals traders at UBS, including “front running,” or trading ahead of, the silver-fix orders of one client. A spokeswoman for UBS, which said at the time that it “instituted significant cultural and compliance changes,” declined further comment.

You mean to say that the banks that were for decades rigging Libor... and FX... and bonds... and stocks... oh, and gold, were let go with a slap on the wrist and a promise to "change their ways" and not to do it again?  Yup, that's exactly right.

So what happens next? Well, we finally will find just how much of a banker-controlled muppet the so-called US attorney general truly is. Recall that a week ago he gave his subordinates 90 days to being cases against individuals for their role in the financial crisis.

Well here is the perfect opportunity.  Should Holder let this latest mass criminal ring go without any incarceration, one can officially stick a fork in the US justice system, which is meant for everyone, but the rule-flouting bankers who can clearly get away with absolutely anything.

As for the rigging in the gold market, rigging which begins with the lowliest prop-traders at Deutsche Bank and involves every single central bank and High Frequency trading outfit and is now a proven fact, we have explained over the years and thousands of times just how to end it all, so instead of wasting readers' time on this topic yet again, here are just two very simple solutions how to fix this one particular market:

So simple, even the most corrupt US Attorney General caveman can do it.

Source ZeroHedge

Finding the Foreign Agents

Isn't it unlawful for our congress members to receive donor contributions from foreigners and not be registered as foreign agents under FARA? Nearly every US congressman is on Israel's payroll. See the complete list HERE. Pretty unlikely that an honest game will ever be seen by the American people when the 'umpires' are on the other team!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by Philip Giraldi on February 3, 2015

One suspects that the Barack Obama/Eric Holder Justice department has little stomach for going after any organization linked to Israel... 

In monitoring the activities of foreign organizations, the DOJ often gives powerful political lobbies a pass.

 

by Philip Giraldi 

American Conservative

In high school civics classes, Americans are brought up to believe that in their nation a rule of law prevails. Justice is depicted as blind and the rules apply to everyone. All Americans will receive the same fair hearing in court or at the hands of the government. Of course the reality is that experience tells us that those who trust in impartial justice are somewhat delusional as the criminal justice and regulatory systems do not operate in a reliably mechanical fashion. Many factors determine whether a suspect actually goes to trial or whether an organization is regulated or investigated and there are a number of roadblocks along the way that influence the outcome.

One of the federal government regulatory bodies that few have heard about is the board at the United States Department of Justice’s Counterespionage Section that administers the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). The original FARA was passed in 1938 just before the outbreak of war in Europe and was intended to monitor the activities of front organizations being directed by the German and Italian governments. From its inception FARA was politicized and selective. Rome and Berlin were potential enemies while the extremely active British government efforts to draw the United States into what eventually became a European and then a world war were largely ignored.

The original act was loosely worded to include anyone propagandizing for a foreign power but an amended version in 1966 narrowed the definition of whom would be covered to include only actual “agents of a foreign principal” working directly for a foreign government in an attempt to influence U.S. economic or political decision making. Since 1966 there have been no successful criminal prosecutions under FARA and nearly all compliance has been more-or-less voluntary. There have, however, been a number of civil cases and administrative resolutions in which the government asserted the viability of the act. In 2004, for example, Susan Lindauer, a former congressional staffer, was charged with taking payments from an Iraqi government source. Her case was finally dropped in 2009.

There are somewhat less than 2,000 foreign agents registered under the act representing more than 100 countries. Their names and their periodic financial and activities filings are accessible by the public at the FARA Unit office in Washington. Most are associated with law or lobbying firms that represent foreign governments as part of their business. Former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert was, for a time, a registered agent for Turkey when he held that account while working for the Dickstein Shapiro law firm, which he joined after leaving congress. Former Congressman Dick Gephardt also headed a company engaged in lobbying for Turkey. Both Gephardt and Hastert were involved in lobbying Congress to oppose pending legislation calling the First World War massacre of Turkish Armenians a “genocide.”

The disadvantage of registering under FARA is that you have to disclose your sources of income and you also have to detail what you are doing on behalf of the foreign government. Organizations that do not consider that they are actually directed by a foreign government or who assess their relationship to be borderline are consequently reluctant to comply.

FARA inevitably is selective in its targeting. Agents of nations hostile to the United States are pursued with some vigor while organizations linked to powerful domestic political lobbies tend to get a pass. This has been historically true of Irish republican groups as well as of the predecessor of the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which was founded in 1949 as the American Zionist Council. The American Zionist Council was funded directly by the Jewish Agency for Israel. Attorney General Robert Kennedy ordered the group to register in 1962 but the death of his brother led to an intense lobbying campaign to influence his strongly pro-Israel successor Lyndon B. Johnson who obligingly instructed the Justice Department to stand down.

I am sometimes asked if I have any regrets about publishing our book. As of today, my only regret is that it is not being published now. After the humiliations that Obama has endured at the hands of the Israel Lobby and the Hagel circus, we would sell even more copies and we would not face nearly as much ill-informed criticism. — Stephen Walt, co-author of the book.

Since that time repeated efforts to compel AIPAC to register have failed due to White House and Justice Department unwillingness to confront the issue but a new initiative by the Israeli government might well be construed as having crossed the line in violation of FARA. In early January the Prime Minister’s Office of the Israeli government funded a joint project to be run by the government’s National Information Directorate and StandWithUS, which has been described as an “American hasbara organization.” In Hebrew the name, hasbara, means literally “public explanation” but the expression is generally applied to anyone involved in generating pro-Israeli propaganda. It is also sometimes more politely described as a program of “perception management,” a euphemism made popular by the Donald Rumsfeld Pentagon in 2004.

Finish reading>>

Why the NY State Police (and DC) Fear the Oathkeepers - *vid*

John Wallace, vice president of the New York Oath Keepers. (From Wallace’s Facebook)

Hatred and contempt for our Constitution from above is being frustrated from below. Ordinary rank 'n file Americans who love their country and their own individual liberties are flocking to the sanctuaries of lawful order. Oathkeepers is the leading non-violent sanctuary to restore and preserve those ends, and challenges those who seek to end it. NYC mayors of treason, DeBlasio and Bloomberg you're not wanted here.

---

 ▶ Oath Keepers Orders We Will NOT Obey - Full Length Video - YouTube

Uploaded on Apr 8, 2009

http://OathKeepers.org
Meet David Berry: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyaxEw...
Meet Eddie & Ada Gilbert: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49GPAK...
http://stewart-rhodes.blogspot.com/
"This is my old, private blog that is now sadly neglected since I have launched Oath Keepers, which has truly taken off like a rocket, leaving me no time for personal blogging - not that I'm complaining. the Oath Keepers mission is very important, and worth the time and effort.

Go here: www.oathkeepers.org

However, if you want to see what prompted me to finally launch Oath Keepers, there are several posts on this blog that show my thinking.

Back in 2006 I wrote several scathing criticisms of the Bush Administration's absurd and dangerous claims of nearly unlimited executive "war" powers. Those articles built on my research at Yale Law School (where I won the Miller Prize for best paper on the Bill of Rights).

One of the most common refrains I get from Obama supporters is "where were you when Bush was violating the Constitution." Well, I was right here. Read this:"
http://stewart-rhodes.blogspot.com/

OATH KEEPERS is a non-partisan association of Military, Veterans, and peace officers who will honor their oaths to defend the Constitution, will NOT just follow orders, will stand for liberty, and will save the Republic, so help us God. Our motto is:

"Not on Our Watch!"

SUMMARY LIST OF ORDERS WE WILL NOT OBEY:

1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.

2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people
3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as unlawful enemy combatants or to subject them to military tribunal.

4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a state of emergency on a state.
5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.

6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.

7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to keep the peace or to maintain control.

9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.

10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

Read the full declaration at http://oathkeepers.org

What do you know about your own "STATE DEFENSE FORCE" ?

As it's becoming apparent our country is being overrun, it's time for state governors to adorn a mantel of responsibility for the safety of their citizens. Order home the national guards from foreign deployment, establish operational relationships as well with their respective State Defense Force. Expel federal troops, ICE, Homeland, and nuisance agencies from state sovereign land.  

Nullification is the people's tool - use it! Afterall, if the federal government is incapable, or criminally deliberate in disrupting our society, culture, sovereignty and economics, let the people participate in their own defense!

The Georgia State Defense Force’s rich heritage dates back to England. Under the direction of General James Edward Oglethorpe, Sergeants of the Guard trained future colonists in militia tactics. Georgia settlers arriving in 1733 became members of General Oglethorpe’s militia. These militia forces later joined General George Washington to secure American Independence.

The volunteer militia remained in continuous service throughout the 1700’s and 1800’s. During the War Between the States Georgia responded with over 100 volunteer regiments, battalions, and batteries. This volunteer commitment was second only in number to the State of Virginia.

During World War II, the 8,000 members of the volunteer militia force guarded war plants, critical communications facilities, utilities, reservoirs, and transportation facilities. Although not officially disorganized until 1951, the Georgia State Guard began its retirement in July 1946. The Georgia State Defense Force was re-authorized in 1973.

Today, the Georgia State Defense Force is authorized under the Official Code of Georgia, Title 38. The Georgia Department of Defense is comprised of the Army National Guard, the Air Guard and the State Defense Force, all of whom serve under the direction of the Adjutant General of Georgia. Source

---

State Defense Force

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about defense forces of individual states of the United States of America. For defense forces of states countries and nations, see military.

State defense forces: army
units highlighted in red, naval
units in blue, those with both
in green, inactive in purple.

State defense forces (SDF) (also known as state guards, state military reserves, or state militias) in the United States are military units that operate under the sole authority of a state government; they are partially regulated by the National Guard Bureau but they are not a part of the Army National Guard of the United States.^[1] State defense forces are authorized by state and federal law and are under the command of the governor of each state.

State defense forces are distinct from their state's National Guard in that they cannot become federal entities (all state National Guard personnel can be federalized under the National Defense Act of 1933 with the creation of the National Guard of the United States).^[2] The federal government recognizes state defense forces under 32 U.S.C. § 109 which provides that state defense forces as a whole may not be called, ordered, or drafted into the armed forces of the United States, thus preserving their separation from the National Guard. However, under the same law, individual members serving in the state defense force are not exempt from service in the armed forces (i.e., they are not excluded from the draft). Under 32 USC § 109(e), "A person may not become a member of a defense force . . . if he is a member of a reserve component of the armed forces."

Nearly every state has laws authorizing state defense forces, and 22 states, plus Puerto Rico, have active SDFs with different levels of activity, support, and strength. State defense forces generally operate with emergency management and homeland security missions. Most SDFs are organized as army units, but air and naval units also exist.^[3][4]

Origins

From its founding until the early 1900s, the United States maintained only a minimal army and relied on state militias to supply the majority of its troops.^[5] As a result of the Spanish-American War, Congress was called upon to reform and regulate the training and qualification of state militias. In 1903, with passage of the Dick Act, the predecessor to the modern-day National Guard was formed. It required the states to divide their militias into two sections. The law recommended the title "National Guard" for the first section, known as the organized militia, and "Reserve Militia" for all others.^[6]

During World War I, Congress authorized the states to maintain Home Guards, which were reserve forces outside the National Guards being deployed by the Federal Government. The Secretary of War was authorized to furnish these units with rifles, ammunition, and supplies.^[7]

In 1933, Congress finalized the split between the National Guard and the traditional state militias by mandating that all federally funded soldiers take a dual enlistment/commission and thus enter both the state National Guard and the newly created National Guard of the United States, a federal reserve force. In 1940, with the onset of World War II and as a result of its federalizing the National Guard, Congress amended the National Defense Act of 1916, and authorized the states to maintain "military forces other than National Guard."^[8] This law authorized the War Department to train and arm the new military forces that would come to be known as State Guards. Many states took advantage of this law and maintained distinct state military forces throughout the war to defend their own territories, shorelines, and airspaces.

​.. read more​

Check out your own state below. If not listed, go here. (If you're a vet, I bet they'd appreciate your interest):

Alaska
Alaska State Defense Force


California
California State Military Reserve

Connecticut
Connecticut - Governor's Foot and Horse Guard Units

Georgia
Georgia State Defense Force


Indiana
Indiana Guard Reserve


Louisiana
Louisiana State Guard (Louisiana State Military Department)

Maryland
Maryland State Defense Force

Massachusetts
Massachusetts State Defense Force

Michigan
Michigan Volunteer Defense Force

Mississippi
Mississippi State Guard

New Mexico
New Mexico State Guard

New York
New York Guard
 
Ohio
Ohio Military Reserve
Ohio Naval Militia

Oregon Oregon State Defense Force

Puerto Rico
Puerto Rico State Guard

South Carolina
South Carolina State Guard

Tennessee
  Tennessee State Guard

Texas
  Texas State Guard


Vermont
Vermont State Guard


Virginia
Virginia State Defense Force

Washington
Washington State Guard