Category Archives: conspiracy

Wayne Allyn Root on Obama’s Gestapo

Wayne Allyn Root

Obama’s America

Obama is going rogue. By every metric the Obama economy is melting down. We are seeing the beginning stages of another recession at best, or a total economic meltdown at worst.

At the moment there are no decent paying jobs in America. Obama has opened the border and given amnesty to at least 5 million illegal aliens already in the country, thereby putting them in competition with working class and middle class Americans.
Think I’m wrong? Did you know the government is giving businesses a $3000 incentive to hire illegal’s over native-born Americans?

Did you know cities are hiring non-citizens (and even illegal aliens given amnesty by Obama) as policemen? All you need is a work permit. Someone here illegally can wear a badge and enforce the law against you.

Did you think the border crisis was over? Obama’s amnesty has encouraged a new wave of poverty-stricken illegals at the border.

And, in a bankrupt nation with over $18 trillion in debt, Obama has used amnesty to give illegals access to food stamps, free healthcare, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, earned income tax credits…and by issuing drivers licenses and Social Security cards they will be able to vote immediately (because States don’t have the technology to tell the difference between a legal citizen or a noncitizen, legal or not).

The Obamacare fiasco gets worse by the day. The middle class is being bankrupted by skyrocketing increases in their health insurance premiums; hospitals are being bankrupted by the flood of illegal aliens accessing services; and the economy will drown in the new debt caused by Obamacare.

Obama’s claim that ISIS is on the run is a proven fraud, ripped bare by America’s embarrassing military withdrawl from Yemen.

Obama is going nuclear in his hatred for Bibi Netanyahu and Israel, force-feeding the world a weak nuclear agreement with Iran that is so bad, even France is fighting for stronger sanctions. Meanwhile Obama threatens to become the first president in history to abandon Israel at the United Nations.

But, I haven’t gotten to the bad part yet. Is it possible the terrible news about the economy, the border, ISIS and Israel is all just a distraction? Because the really important news is that Obama has created a modern-day version of “the Gestapo.”

The Obama government is using an initiative called “Operation Chokepoint” to force legal businesses it doesn’t like out of business, by threatening and intimidating banks and credit card processors.

At the same time, the Obama government is urging banks to call the police to report citizens who withdraw $5000 or more from their own bank accounts. Yes, I said banks are urged to call the police, when you withdraw your own money.

This comes at the same time that FEMA announced it will no longer provide FEMA disaster relief funds to states whose Governors deny “climate change.”

And let’s not forget Obama used an FCC party-line vote to take over the Internet and institute sweeping new changes to a system that is working perfectly as the form of communication for most Americans.

Obama’s first goal is clearly massive new taxes on Internet usage, just another way to destroy the middle class and redistribute income. But is his real goal controlling communications on the Internet- specifically the anti-Obama criticism and anti-government message so prevalent on the Internet.

But let’s circle back to the most Gestapo-like Obama initiative ever. It’s called “Operation Chokepoint.” This is your government’s attempt to put morality controls (just like those in Iran) on the American public by shutting down gun stores, precious metals companies, casinos, tobacco distributors, telemarketers, and short-term money lenders.

How can they close legal businesses you ask? By threatening and intimidating banks and credit card processors to close accounts for businesses the government doesn’t like. Just like an Iranian Ayatollah, if Obama doesn’t like your business, he will “choke off” your ability to stay in business. Hence the name, “Operation Chokepoint.”

Never forget Obama has been on a 6-year long relentless crusade to raise our taxes and take away our tax deduction for charitable donations, choking off contributions to churches. Yes, Obama is trying to “choke off” the funding that keeps churches in business too.

Why is this happening? First, because Obama despises capitalism. He needs to put prosperous businesses out of business. By murdering the middle class’s ability to prosper, he creates his utopia of equality (ie “shared misery”), making everyone dependent on government in a classless, socialist society. Think Cuba and Venezuela.

Second, there is an obvious reason Obama hates these particular industries. The subtitle of my 2009 book, “The Conscience of a Libertarian” says it all. The subtitle was “Empowering the Citizen Revolution with God, Guns, Gold, Gambling & Tax Cuts.” Is it a coincidence that virtually every item I mentioned is under attack?

The businesses on the list of “Operation Chokepoint” are all dominated by people that Obama would describe as capitalists, patriots, conservatives, Tea Partiers, Christians and supporters of the Constitution. Not coincidently, those are the same groups targeted by Obama in the IRS scandal.

And then of course, if Obama can’t close your business, or “choke off” your ability to prosper, he can force banks to call the police if you dare to withdraw money from your own account.

Folks this is eerily reminiscent of The Gestapo, or the Soviet KGB, or the East German Stasi.

Is this the America you want? The NSA spying on your every move…the federal government in charge of your healthcare and now your free speech on the Internet…the IRS auditing enemies and critics of the government…the federal government forcing legal businesses they deem “unacceptable” out of business…and banks spying on their own customers and being forced to call the police when customers withdraw too much of their own money.

Yes, under Barack Hussein Obama the Gestapo is alive and well in the former “Land of the Free.”

Wayne Allyn Root, a former Libertarian Vice Presidential nominee, is one of the most popular political and media stars in America. His columns and commentaries are read at the biggest political & news web sites in America- including FoxNews.com. He makes regular appearances at Fox News Channel, and hundreds of radio stations across the country. Wayne is a Capitalist Evangelist, entrepreneur and small businessman, home-school dad, best-selling author, and Tea Party Libertarian conservative. His web site: http://www.ROOTforAmerica.com

Democrats are upset by this sign

Overpasses For America posted this photo to their Facebook page, on March 13, 2015, of a sign somewhere in America which says:

We used to hunt Communists. Now we elect them.

commie sign

The sign has struck a nerve and has gone viral.

There are T-shirts with that message. Zazzle even offers a sheet of 20 “We used to hunt communists” stickers for only $5.50!

 

As American Overlook writes (via The Federalist Papers):

Just a few decades ago, America was anti-communist and fought valiantly in the name of freedom and democracy.

But when you look at the facts today, communism didn’t die with the U.S.S.R. Instead communists are alive and well in America, they’ve just changed their party affiliation to Democrat….

If you are not convinced by this statement, let’s take a look at President Obama’s actions.

  • Obama believes that if you’re a business owner, you didn’t create you business. Minimum wage workers and the government did.
  • Obama has aided Cuba’s communist government by returning spies, normalizing relations, and treating the communist leader there with more respect than he does members of the Republican Party here in America!
  • While growing up in Hawaii, Obama was mentored by Frank Marshall Davis, a communist, who had pledged allegiance to the Soviet Union.

American communists

Think the “We used to hunt communists, now we elect them” sign is hyperbole?

Think again.

Did you know that in 2010, Communist Party USA sued the Democratic Party for theft of its (CPUSA) party platform?

Two years later, CPUSA and the Democrats kissed and made up, and in the 2012 elections that year, Communist Party USA actually endorsed Obama and the Democrats. It was also at the 2012 Communist, oops, Democratic National Convention that communists, excuse me, Democrats thrice rejected God.

Street vendors in China peddling ObamaMao t-shirts. They know!

Street vendors in China peddling Obama Mao t-shirts. They know!

See also:

Sucking the life out of America!

Sucking the life out of America!

~Éowyn

Admiral James A. “Ace” Lyons

4-Star Admiral Slams Obama: Muslim Brotherhood Infiltrated All Of Our National Security Agencies

Published on Jan 28, 2015

During a press conference on how to combat radical Islamic extremism, Admiral James A. “Ace” Lyons (U.S. Navy, Ret.), former Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet, stated that under the leadership of Barack Obama the Muslim Brotherhood have infiltrated all of the National Security Agencies of the United States. Furthermore, Lyons said that Obama is deliberately unilaterally disarming the military and spoke to the need for the new GOP controlled congress and Military leaders to stand up to the administration and uphold their oaths.


Marxist origin of the homosexual movement

Lana, a reader of FOTM, recently made a very insightful comment, citing the thesis of E. Michael Jones in his book Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control. Lana writes:

…the further the sexual deviance and permissiveness i.e. sexual liberation, the inevitability of the need for social control. In other words, there is a method to the madness. TPTB promote this extreme excess because it has been scientifically shown that it paves the way for political control and repression…. [T]he end-game of the so-called “sexual liberation” — of which women’s “liberation” and the homosexual movement are part and parcel — is a way for the state to gain control.

As constraints on behavior increasingly are loosened, the social fabric increasingly becomes frayed, resulting in increasing chaos and disorder. But a society cannot function under such circumstances, so citizens increasingly turn to the state as a solution, thereby expanding the powers of government.

Indeed, Numbers 26 and 40 of the 1963 Communist Goals For America, which was entered into the Congressional Record (Appendix, pp. A34-A35) on January 10, 1963, state:

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”

40. Discredit the family as an institution.  Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

On March 16, Mike published a post on “Communists Conceived Women’s Liberation Movement.” Here’s a companion piece on the Marxist (aka communist) origin of the homosexual movement.

~Éowyn

Photo credit: Americans For Truth About Homosexuality, www.aftah.org

A scene from San Francisco’s Folsom Street Fair, 2010. Photo credit: Americans For Truth About Homosexuality http://www.aftah.org

The revolution of the family: the Marxist roots of ‘homosexualism’

by Hilary White
Life Site News
Aug 23, 2013

A few days ago in The Guardian, Peter Tatchell wrote a pretty good description not only of that ideology’s goals but its origins. This political ideology, often called “queer theory” by its proponents in academia, is what is being pushed, quite openly these days, by the “gay rights” movement. Despite what we are told all day by their collaborators in the mainstream media, from the six o’clock news to your favourite sit-com, this movement is not about “equal rights”. It is about re-writing the foundational concepts of our entire society. I predict that it will not be much longer before the pretense of “equality” is dropped, having done its work.

… Others have pointed out the Marxist origins of the Sexual Revolution as a whole, and it is clear that the sudden explosion of homosexualism is merely the next logical step in a systematic programme. A close cousin to radical feminism and grandchild of Marxism, homosexualism was developed out of the politico-academic pseudo-field of “gender studies” and has, for 30 or 40 years, been pushed on a mostly unwilling public, through “anti-discrimination” and “equalities” legislation by a coalition of lobbyists, NGOs and politicians on the extreme left, and in increasingly powerful international circles.

Peter Tatchell is a prominent British homosexualist, which means he is a proponent of a specific political and social ideology that he wants to see adopted in British society and elsewhere. He is also a homosexual man, that is, he experiences sexual attraction for other men, a condition whose origin is still debated by doctors, psychiatrists and geneticists. The two things are not the same. This is a fact that tends to escape a lot of people who read and write about the Culture Wars, especially in its current manifestation that seems to have suddenly become all about homosexuality. Not all homosexuals are homosexualists, and not all homosexualists are homosexuals.

Tatchell’s Guardian piece was a paean to a document put together in 1971 by what he describes as a collective of “anarchists, hippies, leftwingers, feminists, liberals and counter- culturalists” to bring about “a revolution in consciousness”. He called the “Gay Liberation Front: Manifesto” “a pioneering agenda for social and personal transformation” that started with the proposal that “subverting the supremacy of heterosexual masculinity was the key to genuine liberation.” Tatchell said it was the book that changed his life.

The Manifesto sums it all up, Tatchell says, by “critiquing” “homophobia, sexism, marriage, the nuclear family, monogamy, the cults of youth and beauty, patriarchy, the gay ghetto and rigid male and female gender roles” … the whole kaboodle of the sexual revolution.

The Manifesto itself is quite blunt about identifying the main enemies to defeat: “The oppression of gay people starts in the most basic unit of society, the family.”

“Consisting of the man in charge, a slave as his wife, and their children on whom they force themselves as the ideal models. The very form of the family works against homosexuality.”

Most tellingly, the Manifesto says that “reform,” in other words “equality,” is never going to be enough; what is needed is a total social revolution, a complete reordering of civilisation. Reform, it said, “cannot change the deep-down attitude of straight people that homosexuality is at best inferior to their own way of life, at worst a sickening perversion. It will take more than reforms to change this attitude, because it is rooted in our society’s most basic institution – the Patriarchal Family.”

Far from being “the source of our happiness and comfort,” it says, the family is the oppressive “unit” in which the “dominant man and submissive woman” teach children “false beliefs” about traditional “gender roles” “almost before we can talk”.

The core concept of gender ideology is given: there is “no proven systematic differences between male and female, apart from the obvious biological ones. Male and female genitals and reproductive systems are different, and so are certain other physical characteristics, but all differences of temperament, aptitudes and so on, are the result of upbringing and social pressures. They are not inborn.”

“Human beings could be much more various than our constricted patterns of ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ permit – we should be free to develop with greater individuality.”

“Our entire society,” the Manifesto says, “is built around the patriarchal family and its enshrinement of these masculine and feminine roles. Religion, popular morality art, literature and sport all reinforce these stereotypes. In other words, this society is a sexist society, in which one’s biological sex determines almost all of what one does and how one does it; a situation in which men are privileged, and women are mere adjuncts of men and objects for their use, both sexually and otherwise.”

It is this that must be overturned, entirely eradicated, before the true freedom we all deserve can be put in place.

It does not take a degree in political theory to recognise the origins of this kind of language: throw off your chains, comrades! Indeed, a very little digging will take you directly to the origins of the Gay Liberation Manifesto in the writing of the first Marxists: in this case, Friedrich Engels, who wrote a document describing what most of us call the traditional family in terms nearly identical to that of the Manifesto.

Engels called it “monogamous marriage” and said that it exists “not as the reconciliation of man and woman, still less as the highest form of such a reconciliation. Quite the contrary. Monogamous marriage comes on the scene as the subjugation of the one sex by the other; it announces a struggle between the sexes unknown throughout the whole previous prehistoric period.”

“The first class opposition that appears in history coincides with the development of the antagonism between man and woman in monogamous marriage, and the first class oppression coincides with that of the female sex by the male.”

“The modern individual family is founded on the open or concealed domestic slavery of the wife, and modern society is a mass composed of these individual families as its molecules.” Engels’ solution, of course, we all know already.

The Gay Liberation Manifesto, like Mr. Engels’ work before it, proposes that once we throw off the ancient shackles of “heterosexism, male privilege and the tyranny of traditional gender roles” we all get to live in a glorious and shining “new sexual democracy” in which “erotic shame and guilt would be banished”. This means, in practice, more or less what we now have: everyone gets to sleep around with whomever, and nobody gets to have any long-term claims on anyone else either in marriage or as parents.

Now that it has started the global “gay marriage” snowball, the ideology’s promoters seem to have only a few mop-up operations left to accomplish. The pressure is already starting to widen the burst-open definition of marriage to include multiple partners of either sex and to legalise and accept paedophilia – as an expression of “children’s rights”.

But as with all utopian visions, homosexualism’s great weakness is the failure to consider the entirety of human nature. It proposes, essentially, a permanent state of self-indulgent adolescence, and to other self-indulgent adolescents, this sounds pretty good. Have all the cake you want, eat it for breakfast, lunch and dinner, and never get fat.

Unfortunately, since the 1960s, most of us have been raised to think that this programme is the very meaning of freedom and securing it the whole purpose of democracy. The ideology was already being promoted to children on television to children when I was a child. I remember the huge splash made in 1974 by an animated TV show called “Free to be you and me” that told us through a series of cute animated sketches, narrated by the icons of the 70s lefties Marlo Thomas and Alan Alda, that it was wrong to assume, or adopt, traditional sex roles. Gender ideology for tots.

For those who actually try to put it into practice, however, it quickly becomes obvious that humans were simply not meant to function this way, and basing an entire culture on the proposition, as we have since the 1960s, is going to create dismal state of emotional and social chaos, misery, loneliness, poverty and selfishness such as the world has never seen before.

The main problem with the homosexualist version of the Marxist dream is that you have to get everyone to agree. And I mean everyone. Marxist theorists have always known that utopia will only work if no one is allowed to raise any objection. Everyone has to agree, and no voice of dissent can be tolerated to pop the soap bubble logic of the enterprise.

The first voice to be aggressively silenced, as always, is therefore the Church that proposes something rather more rich and (ahem) fertile for man’s destiny than this facile materialism and sensualism. The Church that, furthermore, has a more comprehensive understanding of human nature, and knows that total license is not a recipe for human happiness… far from it.

What else might President Lucifer accomplish in the last phase of his presidency?

nuclear_blast4

WND EXCLUSIVE

OBAMA’S ‘JIHAD AGAINST JEWS’ SPILLS ISRAEL’S NUKE SECRETS

White House declassifies details of Middle East democracy’s defenses

by BOB UNRUH

In a move blasted by commentators as part of President Obama’s “jihad against Jews,” the White House has abruptly declassified details of Israel’s nuclear program.

According to Israel National News, the Obama administration declassified a Department of Defense top-secret document with details of Israel’s assets, “a highly covert topic that Israel has never formally announced to avoid a regional nuclear arms race.”

The report said until now, the U.S. has respected that effort by remaining silent.

“But by publishing the declassified document from 1987, the U.S. reportedly breached the silent agreement to keep quiet on Israel’s nuclear powers for the first time ever, detailing the nuclear program in great depth,” the report said.

It openly questioned, “Obama revenge for Netanyahu’s Congress talk,” and other commentators were more direct.

At Shoebat.com, started by a former Muslim terrorist turned Christian, was the blunt headline “Obama’s evil revenge on Netanyahu continues.”

Pamela Geller, on her Atlas Shrugs blog, called it “Obama’s jihad against the Jews.”

“Obama is sick, sick with Jew-hatred – unbalanced, unhinged, a danger to this this country, our allies, the world. Israel’s nuclear program, whatever it may be, is purely existential insurance. If they have a nuclear weapon, they have had it for 50 years and have never used it, despite the decades-long Muslim wars against the Jews,” she wrote.

“Israel has shared its secrets with the U.S. for decades. They never imagined a jihadist in the White House…”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/obamas-jihad-against-jews-spills-israels-nuke-secrets/#pgJFuQuiGTxzKivh.99

Project Veritas uncovers a rat at Cornell

idiot_at_cornell

Just when I thought I had seen everything
James O’Keefe proves me wrong

Joseph Scaffido, Assistant Dean of Students at Cornell is seen opening the door to have ISIS training camps on their campus in upstate New York.


Contact Information

President: David J. Skorton

Office of the President
300 Day Hall
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853

Telephone: (607) 255-5201
Fax: (607) 255-9924
E-mail: president@cornell.edu

Executive Assistant to the President
Jane M. Miller

Schedule Manager
Patricia Driscoll


Normally I weigh in on a subject, But this time I just can’t find the words. For more on Project Veritas: http://projectveritas.com/cornell-dean-advises-starting-isis-club-0

Jon Rappoport on Edward Snowden

Unanswered questions for ex-CIA officer Edward Snowden

by Jon Rappoport

March 18, 2015

NoMoreFakeNews.com

Now that the documentary, Citizen Four, has been released, and now that it has won an Oscar, it’s time to revisit unanswered questions, which I raised soon after Snowden’s identity was revealed to the world. (Spygate archive here)

This is not an article about the value of the documents Edward Snowden took from the NSA. I leave those judgments to others.

This article is about Snowden himself and his back-story.

So far, I see no reporter who has directly asked Snowden even faintly challenging questions about his background.

I find that quite odd. And the number of people who don’t find it odd makes the situation even odder.

If a man came to me, stating he was an ex-CIA officer who had taken a huge cache of vital documents from the other major spying agency in the US, the NSA, I would want to know a great deal about him.

I wouldn’t care that he was an engaging young man who appeared to be committing a heroic act on behalf of freedom. I wouldn’t care, because I know that people who work for intelligence agencies are prepared to lie. They are trained to lie. They believe in lying. This is basic knowledge that any reasonable reporter would have.

Yet, in Snowden’s case, an exception has been made. Why?

As soon as you see a photo of Snowden for the first time, you realize he’s the perfect image of the techie’s counter-spy: young, thin, bespectacled, “vulnerable.”

You have to wonder: if he’d been 60, balding, fat, with a constant sheen of nervous perspiration on his chubby cheeks, would he have grabbed so much positive attention from the get-go? Would reporters have refrained from grilling him about his back-story?

Within a day of Snowden’s identity being revealed, details of that story appeared in the press.

Upon reading the story, a number of questions sprang to mind. To my knowledge, none of them have been satisfactorily answered, or even posed by journalists who have had direct access to Snowden.

Why do potential or possible holes in Snowden’s back-story matter? Because holes always matter. They can lead to unexpected discoveries; they can reveal that a person is more than he says he is, different than he says he is.

In 2003, at age 19, without a high school diploma, Snowden enlists in the Army. He begins a training program to join the Special Forces. The sequence here is fuzzy. At what point after enlistment can a new soldier start this training program? Does he need to demonstrate some exceptional ability before Special Forces puts him in that program?

Snowden breaks both legs in a training exercise. He’s discharged from the Army. Is that automatic? How about healing and then resuming Army service?

If Snowden was accepted in the Special Forces training program because he had special computer skills, then why discharge him simply because he broke both legs?

Circa 2003 (?), Snowden gets a job as a security guard for an NSA facility at the University of Maryland. He specifically wanted to work for NSA? It was just a generic job opening he found out about?

Also in 2003 (?), Snowden shifts jobs. He’s now in the CIA, in IT. He has no high school diploma. He’s a young computer genius?

What kind of work does he do for the CIA until, in 2007…

He is sent to Geneva. He’s only 23 years old. The CIA gives him diplomatic cover there. Diplomatic cover is serious status. Snowden is put in charge of maintaining computer-network security. A major job. Obviously, he has access to a wide range of classified documents. Sound a little odd? He’s just a kid. Maybe he has his GED by now. Otherwise, he still doesn’t have a high school diploma.

Snowden reportedly says that during this period, in Geneva, one of the incidents that really sours him on the CIA is the “turning of a Swiss banker.” One night, CIA guys get a banker drunk, encourage him to drive home, the banker gets busted, the CIA guys help him out of that jam, and then with that bond formed, they eventually get the banker to reveal deep banking secrets to the Agency.

Snowden is this naïve? He doesn’t know by now that the CIA does this sort of thing all the time? He’s shocked? He “didn’t sign up for this?”

Furthermore, if this banker story is true, and if Snowden is the source for it, why did he reveal it? All sorts of people should be able to do a little digging and figure out who the Swiss banker is—thus blowing the banker’s cover and exposing him. Was that Snowden’s intention?

In 2009, Snowden leaves the CIA.

It should noted here that Snowden claimed he could do very heavy damage to the entire US intelligence community in 2008, but decided to wait because he thought Obama, just coming into the Presidency, might make good changes.

After two years with the CIA in Geneva, Snowden really had the capability to “take down most of the US intelligence network,” or a major chunk of it? He had that much access to classified data?

Snowden goes on to work for two private defense contractors, Dell and Booze Allen Hamilton. In this latter job, Snowden is assigned to work at the NSA.

He’s an outsider, but he claims to have access to so much sensitive NSA data that he can take down the whole US intelligence network in a single day. Really?

How many people work in highly classified jobs for the NSA? Here is one man, Snowden, who is working for Booz Allen, an outside NSA contractor, and he can get access to, and copy, documents that expose the spying collaboration between NSA and the biggest tech companies in the world—and he can get away with it.

If so, then NSA is a sieve leaking out of all holes. Because that means a whole lot of other, higher-level NSA employees can likewise steal these documents. Many, many other people can copy them and take them. Are we to believe this?

“Let’s see. Who’s coming to work for us here at NSA today? Oh, new whiz kid. Ed Snowden. Outside contractor. Twenty-nine years old. No high school diploma. Has a GED. He worked for the CIA and quit. Hmm. The CIA. They don’t like us and we don’t like them. Why did Snowden quit the CIA? Oh, never mind, who cares? No problem.

“Tell you what. Let’s give this kid access to our most sensitive data. Sure. Why not? Everything. Let Snowden see it all. Sure. What the hell. I’m feeling charitable. He seems like a nice kid.”

Sometimes cognitive dissonance, which used to be called contradiction, rings a gong so loud it knocks you off your chair.

Let’s see. NSA is the most awesome spying agency ever devised in this world. If you cross the street in Podunk, Anywhere, USA, to buy an ice cream soda, on a Tuesday afternoon in July, they can know.

They know if you sit at the counter and drink that soda or take it and move to the only table in the store. They know if you lick the foam from the top of the glass with your tongue or pick the foam with your straw and then lick it.

But this agency, with all its vast power and its dollars…with the brightest, sharpest minds in the business…

Can’t protect its own data from outright theft. Can’t lock up its own store. They overlooked their own security systems. Never set them up right in the first place. Forgot to.

And they can’t track one of their own, a man who came to work every day, a man who made up a story about needing treatment in Hong Kong for epilepsy and then skipped the country.

Just can’t find him.

Can’t find him in Hong Kong, where he does a sit-down video interview with Glenn Greenwald and Poitras and MacAskill. Can’t track the reporters to Snowden’s hotel.

Can’t find that place where Snowden’s staying.

No. Can’t find him or spy on his communications while he’s in Hong Kong. Can’t figure out he’s booked a flight to Russia.

Can’t intercept him at the airport before he leaves for Russia. Too difficult.

And this man, this employee, is walking around with three or four laptops that contain the keys to all the secret spying knowledge in the known cosmos.

Can’t locate those laptops. The most brilliant technical minds of this or any other generation can find a computer in Outer Mongolia in the middle of a blizzard, but these walking-around computers in Hong Kong are somehow beyond reach.

And before this man, Snowden, this employee, skipped Hawaii, he was able to access the layout of entire US intelligence networks. Yes. He was able to use a thumb drive.

He walked into work with a thumb drive, plugged in, and stole…everything. He stole enough to “take down the entire US intelligence network in a single afternoon.”

Not only that, but anyone who worked at this super-agency as a systems-analyst supervisor, or higher, could have done the same thing. Could have stolen the keys to the kingdom.

This is why NSA geniuses with IQs over 180 decided, in the midst of the Snowden affair, that they needed to draft “tighter rules and procedures” for their employees. Right.

A few thousand pieces of internal security they hadn’t realized they needed before would be put in place.

This is, let me remind you again, the most secretive spying agency in the world. The richest spying agency. The smartest spying agency.

But somehow, over the years, they’d overlooked their own security. They’d left lots of doors open.

But now, yes now, having been made aware of this vulnerability, the Agency would make corrections.

Sure.

Should we believe the NSA is this weak and bumbling, when it comes to protecting its data, when it comes to tracking down one of its own who has stolen the farm? Or should we entertain the possibility that Snowden didn’t really steal all that information himself? Did someone at the CIA give it to him? Was this a long-term CIA op?

Yes, strange possibilities. But the world of intelligence is strange. It’s designed that way.

May 20, 2013: Snowden arrives in Hong Kong from Hawaii. He’s just taken medical leave from the NSA. This is not troubling to his employer, despite the fact that, as AFP reports, Snowden worked briefly at the US Embassy in New Delhi (2010) and abruptly left India, citing medical problems on that occasion as well.

Both times, Snowden didn’t seek medical help in the country in which he was employed.

June 1, 2013: Three reporters connected with The Guardian—Glenn Greenwald, Ewen MacAskill, and Laura Poitras—fly from New York to Hong Kong, and begin their week-long interview of Snowden. If this raises red flags, it doesn’t lead to intercepting Snowden.

June 5, 2013: The Guardian publishes its first article containing NSA leaks. The next three days see more NSA revelations, but there is no mention of Snowden.

June 9: The Guardian goes public about Snowden for the first time. According to Reuters, the NSA started an “urgent search” for Snowden several days before June 9—perhaps as early as June 1.

June 10: Snowden checks out of his hotel, but remains in Hong Kong. The US intelligence apparatus still can’t find him.

June 12: The South China Post publishes an interview with Snowden, who says he’ll stay in Hong Kong until he’s told he has to go. The NSA still can’t find him.

June 14: The UK Home Office orders airlines to deny passage to Snowden, if he tries to come to the UK.

June 20, 21: The Guardian publishes more top-secret documents from the Snowden cache.

June 23: Free and unencumbered, Snowden flies to Moscow with Wikileaks’ Sarah Harrison.

During this entire period (May 20-June23), the NSA, and other agencies of the US government, have been unable to locate Snowden?

They’ve been unable to get hold of, or disable, his famous four laptops, which presumably contain all the documents he took from the NSA. Instead, Snowden transfers the documents to Greenwald and Poitras in Hong Kong, hides out successfully, and makes his flight to Moscow.

In past articles, based on all these questions and oddities and paradoxes, I’ve spelled out alternative scenarios about who Snowden might be, and what’s really going on here. For this piece, in the wake of Citizen Four, I just want to refresh the questions, the unanswered questions about Snowden and the NSA.

And point out that no reporters who have had direct access to Snowden have pressed these questions.

He’s been given a free pass.

“Well, why should we wrangle with Snowden? He handed us the documents? Why should we look a gift horse in the mouth?”

Because in the spying game, things are not what they seem. In the spying game, ops are layered. They have multiple purposes. Cover stories. These ops conceal their bottom lines.

Snowden worked for the CIA. He was a spy. And at certain levels, the CIA and the NSA hate each other. They compete for federal money, for status, for prestige.

The NSA doesn’t just spy on private citizens. The NSA spies on politicians and bankers and corporate CEOs, and those people know it and they don’t like it, and they want to relieve themselves of that burden and that threat. They want to curb the power of the NSA as it applies to them.

They would welcome, as perhaps the CIA would, putting a crimp in NSA’s spying capabilities, limiting those capabilities in some way, at least giving NSA pause for thought about risking further exposure beyond Snowden’s disclosures.

For these and other reasons, the back-story of Edward Snowden is more than an academic pursuit, and the unanswered questions are of more than passing interest.

Educated privacy advocates who spend a great of their time commenting on security issues may not want to disturb the image of Snowden; and they certainly don’t want to be called conspiracy nuts re their view of who Snowden might be; but reporters shouldn’t care about that. Reporters should vet their sources as thoroughly as possible.

That’s SOP. Only this time, from all available information, it didn’t happen. It didn’t happen when Greenwald, Poitras, and MacAskill met Snowden. It didn’t happen after Snowden gave them his cache of NSA data. And it isn’t happening now.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com orOutsideTheRealityMachine.