IRS Agent Confesses...

No Authority to Assess!

+-----------------------------------------+

| From the "Reasonable Action" Newsletter |

|                                         |

| S.A.P. Fellowship                       |

| P.O. Box 91                             |

| Westminster, MD 21158                   |

|                                         |

| 410-857-4441 (Voice)                    |

| 410-857-5249 (Fax)                      |

| info@save-a-patriot.org (E-mail)        |

+-----------------------------------------+

!!!!  !!!!  !!!!  !!!!  !!!!  !!!!  !!!!  !!!!  !!!!  !!!!

IMPORTANT NOTE:  This text makes reference to documents

that were printed along with the original R.A. article.  

These are NOT reproduced here.  

!!!!  !!!!  !!!!  !!!!  !!!!  !!!!  !!!!  !!!!  !!!!  !!!!

           IRS AGENT CONFESSES: NO AUTHORITY TO ASSESS

Yes -- the truth can leak out even in the

biased courtrooms of America -- but when IRS employees are

involved, such honesty comes as quite a shock! Sometimes

these revelations occur suddenly or unexpectedly during

cross examination.  The official may be caught off guard

just long enough to spill the beans or perhaps the official

may not realize the implications of his own testimony. Whatever 

the reason, the truth is revealed. In this

particular case the facts were accidentally exposed by an

IRS employee who had been called upon to answer a few simple

questions.

It is doubtful that this IRS employee fully understood the

ultimate impact of his statements. IRS personnel sometimes

suffer from a comprehension-gap concerning the application

of the law. If they do not understand the structure of the

Code, they can not possibly understand the limitations of

the law which they are attempting to enforce. That being the

case, any given IRS employee may fall prey to the

presumption that other legal provisions exist to account for

actions which they do not understand. Ignorance and apathy

play an important part in perpetuating the problem. For the

most part, IRS employees simply do what they are told and

never question the direction of superiors.

To these employees, the requirement of the law is

irrelevant. Therefore, the authority for their activity

rarely figures into the equation. They just assume that

their actions are legal. Ask any IRS agent to outline the

limitations of his legal authority to sign a summons and you

won't get a correct answer. Ask him what provision within

subtitle F (Administration and Procedure) permits the

issuance of a summons and the agent will not know. Ask for

the delegation order to sign a summons and the answer you

will hear is... "I'm just doing what I was told."

It is true that individual IRS employees may not fully

understand the limitations of the law, but their superiors

do understand, and the courts and legal professionals have

an obligation to ensure that the limitations of the law are

properly enforced. Excuses like "I didn't know" or

"I'm just following orders" are not acceptable.

That defense didn't work at Nuremburg, and it is doubtful

that it will work when IRS employees are eventually

prosecuted for violating the rights of the victims they have

plundered. Given the increasing number of what the IRS calls

"nonfilers," it is only a matter of time before this illegal

enforcement activity is exposed for everyone to see.

YOU CAN'T HIDE THE TRUTH

People are discovering this scheme because the truth is

leaking out. You can't hide the truth. You may succeed in

covering it up for a short period of time, but sooner or

latter the truth will prevail. The disclosure of IRS fraud

is inevitable. At this very moment it is happening

throughout the country. The IRS is fully aware of the

impending demise of their scam. Five years ago Fred

Goldberg, the Commissioner of the IRS, admitted that there

were 6 million non-filers. Last month, Shirley Peterson (the

present commissioner) admitted that the number of non-filers

had increased to 10 million. That's a substantial increase -

- almost double what it was 5 years ago. High ranking IRS

officials cannot help but be worried. With each leak, more

and more people learn and react to the knowledge that their

government is intentionally misapplying the law.

In the case of  United States of America v. William R.

Lloyd those facts again leaked out. The defendant was on

trial for tax evasion and the circumstances

(authority/procedure) to assess became the topic of

examination. Before he knew it, Special Agent Gary Makovski

let the cat out of the bag and actually admitted that "If

no information or a return is filed, the Internal Revenue

Service cannot assess you..."  To understand why the

testimony is so significant, it is well worth reviewing the

constitutional restriction on the power to tax, the actual

application of the income tax laws,  and the authority to

assess those who are the subject of the law.

NOT SO COMMON KNOWLEDGE

The general public is unaware that the Internal Revenue Code

is limited in application. It cannot (per constitutional

restriction)... does not... and never has been... applied

against the United States citizen who is living and working

within the 50 states of the union. That individual is

neither the subject nor the object of the tax -- and neither

is his income.

The application of the tax is limited to and imposed upon

certain occupations and/or activities. Taxable activities

presently include the manufacture of certain commodities

like alcohol, tobacco, or firearms.  An example of a

privileged occupation might be the practice of law. But, it

is the privilege associated with the governments permission

to engage in the activity that is the subject of the tax -

not the individual -- nor the income -- and even then the

income is only the "measure" of the tax.

The income tax laws were never applied against citizens

themselves, or their occupations in general, because

Congress was never granted the power to levy a "direct" tax

against the citizen. The power to levy a direct tax is

limited to the taxing of state governments only, and

according to the supreme Court, the 16th amendment merely

clarified a power that Congress had "from the beginning" to

levy an "indirect" tax (in the form of an excise) on income

without apportionment; but this is not the same as, nor did

it allow for, a "direct" tax on the property or person of

the U. S. citizen unless apportioned among the states

according to the formula directed to be taken in Article 1

Sec. 2  Cl. 3.

All such "direct" taxes must still be apportioned by the

census of enumeration and billed to the state governments

respectively. Yes, the federal government may tax "income,"

but it cannot tax the person or property of a citizen

without violating the rule of apportionment concerning

direct taxes. If it did, it would by virtue of its

application, create a direct tax in violation of Article 1

Section 9 Clause 4, and Article 1 Section 2  Clause 3 of the

Constitution. This is why there is no statutory liability

for a citizen living and working within the 50 states to pay

a federal tax on income. And that is why the tax is 100%

constitutional.

THE 16th AMENDMENT

The 16th amendment does tend to confuse the average person.

Most people do not understand the difference between

"direct" taxation and "indirect" taxation. They assume that

a "tax on income" is neither. In fact, some law schools

actually teach that the income tax is (in their own words) a

"bastard" tax that falls somewhere between direct and

indirect. That is incorrect. No doubt the contention arises

and results from a naive belief that the government would

not allow the intentional misapplication of the tax laws,

(when in fact it propagates it) and that there must be some

other explanation -- but, it has probably never occurred to

those who are of this opinion, that the taxes and the

resulting social programs effectively buy the public vote,

and strengthen the political establishment that benefits

from the misapplication.

Such opinions exist because people are unaware of supreme

Court decisions confirming that the tax on income is an

"indirect" tax in the form of an excise, rather than a

"bastard" tax that is neither direct nor indirect. It is NOT

some  "unique" tax, that is "direct," and yet not subject to

the rule of apportionment. It is indirect, and by virtue of

this status, it cannot be subject to the rule of

apportionment just as the language of the 16th amendment

reads.

It is therefore not applicable against a citizen living and

working in the United States of America (50 States).

Congress has by statute identified the taxable party and/or

entity. The IRS has provided by regulations the procedure by

which the U.S. (50 States) citizen claims his/her exemption

from withholding -- the presentation of a statement of

citizenship to the employer who retains the original copy

and forwards the duplicate to the IRS Philadelphia PA with

an accompanying letter of transmittal.  Congress has

directed that those who are liable for a tax on income are

subject to withholding; has created a withholding agent;

and, imposed liability for any tax on same. The withholding

agent must withhold tax from anyone coming under the

provisions of IRC Code sections 1441, 1442, 1443, and has

imposed liability on the withholding agent per section 1461.

Congress has in IRC 1461 also indemnified the withholding

agent from claims asserted by those identified in IRC

section 1441, 1442, and 1443 for obeying the appropriate

statutes. Nevertheless, the citizen is under the protection

of the Constitution and Congress has been obedient to the

Constitution by not enacting a liability statute against a

citizen living and working in the United States of America

(50 States). 

The IRS inputs phony entries to its computers

in a blatant attempt to defraud U.S. citizens. Congress

acquiesces in this criminal activity by ignoring the pleas

of the citizens that improper actions of the IRS be

controlled. Congressman forward to their constituents copies

of IRS responses to Congressional inquiries and members of

Congress drop the issue by telling their constituents that

"the IRS has responded (see enclosed)," but the "see

enclosed" they mention is a copy of the IRS response to the

inquiring member of Congress. The constituent is then

advised that if their elected official "may be of service to

them in the future" that the elected official should be

contacted without hesitation. 

This "drop issue" letter is

designed to convey to their constituents the idea that the

IRS response is to be assumed to be correct. This is the

heart of the scam. If Congress wanted to exercise control of

the IRS and keep them obedient to the Constitution a

different posture would be adopted.

Most politicians are unaware of the limited application of

the tax laws anyway, and most legal professionals woefully

uneducated in such matters; but even assuming that they were

educated, the income tax serves the political purpose of

funding programs that buy the public vote, and there is no

reason (other than morality) for them to rock the ship of

state.

The political machine thus ignores, if not encourages, (by

default) the routine misapplication and illegal enforcement

of the tax laws. That is a fact of life -- and that is why

our struggle has been long and  difficult; but considering

the increase in the number of so-called "nonfilers,"  that

struggle may soon be over, and we may yet see the tables

turned on the illegal activities of an increasingly

globalist minded government.

SEE NO EVIL -- SPEAK NO EVIL --

HEAR NO EVIL

So who is to blame? Are just a few select officials

responsible, or is the average IRS employee also to blame

and if so, to what degree? Do the agents themselves know

what they are doing, or is their training and function

within the service sufficiently limited to allow for an

acceptable misunderstanding as to their actual authority?

Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in between. The instant

case may shed some light and help us answer this question.

The fact is, some agents are aware of the limited

application of the law and some are not -- possibly some

suspect but go along with policy for the sake of expediency,

not caring about their moral or legal obligations as long as

they do what they are told and get a pay check at the end of

the week. If some agents know and some don't, it is just as

certain that this education was not included in their

training. Those who know, probably figured it out on their

own, or were made privy to such information by a friend or

associate who was higher up within the IRS.

If the employee were so inclined, he could put it all

together and figure out what is happening. Unfortunately,

most have neither the character or the where-with-all to do

this, and the hierarchy within the IRS is certainly not

going to train its personnel in the knowledge that would

defeat the political objectives of those who appoint them to

office.

Indeed, to ensure their very existence and preserve their

employment these IRS officials must "encourage voluntary

compliance." Were there an honest concerted effort to inform

the various agents of the limited application of the law,

the IRS could not expect them to ignorantly misapply its

provisions and they might be out of a job. Instead, the IRS

fosters an atmosphere where their agents operate in the

dark. The agents have a "duty" to know, but end up making

incorrect assumptions, or they leap to conclusions because

of their incomplete education. With this in mind we will

examine agent Makovski's testimony to determine the extent

of his actual knowledge and the significance of his

testimony.

EVASION OF WHAT?

Mr. Lloyd was on trial for alleged violations of section

7201 (evasion of taxes). To evade a tax, one must first have

a "known duty" to file a return and pay a tax. Second, and

more important as far as evasion is concerned, there must be

an outstanding "bill" or "assessment" that is due and owing.

In the case of someone who has not filed, there must be a

"presumed valid assessment" executed with proper authority

by IRS personnel, followed by a tax "bill" which must be

sent to the taxpayer, (notifying the taxpayer of the

liability) otherwise, there is nothing to evade.

Now for the facts... Mr. Lloyd did NOT file a return.

Moreover, he  had NOT received a "bill" or

"assessment," presumed valid or otherwise. As a United

States citizen who was not involved in one of the activities

previously mentioned we can make several presumptions about

his alleged liability or lack thereof, and the authority for

the IRS to assess a tax against him; all of which are

relevant for demonstrating the wrongful prosecution

instituted by the IRS, and determining agent Makovski's

knowledge and intent.

TO ASSESS OR NOT TO ASSESS

Given the above facts, and knowing that Lloyd was not

required to file, (and did not) there would be no authority

or procedure which would allow the IRS to assess a tax.

Reprinted below is section 6201. This section is the

assessment authority found within subtitle F, and it reveals

something which may not have occurred to those IRS agents

who simply "do what they are told." Notice that when no

return is filed, the authority to assess is limited to

assessments involving stamp taxes. What on earth is this

statute referring to? Could it be the stamps we see on a

bottle of alcohol or a pack of cigarettes? When a

manufacturer of alcohol or tobacco products wishes to sell

his goods, he must purchase stamps to pay the tax associated

with his taxable activity, and then place the stamps on the

products he sells.

Did you ever take the time to examine the stamps on a pack

of cigarettes or a bottle of alcohol? These are the stamps

that this statute is referring to. They are required for

those products whose manufacture is the subject of the

excise. If they fail to pay the stamp tax associated with

the activity, then 6201(a)(2) provides the authority for the

IRS to assess a tax.  If the bill remains unpaid, then it

could be construed as evasion for which the penalty in

section 7201 might apply. Lloyd was not involved in such

activity.

The remaining provision for assessment authority (section

6201(a)(1)) pertains only to those individuals who have

filed returns. The information on that return is subject to

assessment by virtue of the fact that the return was signed

under penalty of perjury by the taxpayer who filed it,

testifying to the fact that a liability, and a requirement

to file exists; and that the information on the return is

true and correct. If it is not correct, the authority under

this section allows for a correction to be made based on the

information that is given on the return. Under no

circumstances (except stamps) may the IRS assess a tax

without a return being filed by the taxpayer himself.

Therefore, there was no authority to assess Lloyd. Courts

have held that an unsigned substitute return such as those

typically filed by the IRS when a 1040 return has not been

filed "...is no return at all." (Vaira v. C.I.R., 444 F.2d,

citing Dixon v. Commissioner, 28 T.C. 388); and that, "Since

the 'returns' prepared by the IRS contained no information

from which a tax could be determined, they were not returns"

(U.S. v. Verkuilen, 82-2 U.S.T.C., Schiff v. Commissioner,

U.S.T.C. 1984 223). 

If a return is not filed, the IRS's only

recourse is to move for an indictment against the individual

who is presumably required to file. To do so they must cite

the section of the law allegedly requiring that person to

file. Reference may of course be made to the penalty

associated with having a "known duty to file" and willfully

not filing the return,  but even then such  penalty is

applicable only if a person actually believes he has a

requirement to file and chooses to shirk that duty. Lloyd

had not filed a return and there was no other provision for

assessing a tax against him.

THE CAT SLIPS OUT OF THE BAG

Since there was no assessment, Lloyd had never received a

"bill" to evade, so naturally the question arose as to the

assessment circumstances. To the right is the text of the

transcript of the agents testimony.  When Makovski was asked

under what circumstances an assessment was made he explained

"two ways." He did not say that it was limited to just 2

ways, but it wasn't necessary for him to elucidate. The law

itself provides only 2 ways, and agent Makovski's reference

to two circumstances would seem to indicate that he had

personal knowledge of the 2 provisions in law. He said...

"First of all, whenever you file a return yourself"

(emphasis on 'yourself') "and it is sent to the service

center..." an assessment is made. He then added "If no

information or return is filed, the Internal Revenue Service

cannot assess you anything." To which section under 6201 was

he referring? Was it subsection (a)(1) or subsection (a)(2),

and did it suddenly occur to Makovski that there was no

authority or did he know or suspect all along?

He obviously knew enough to answer the question!  He knew

that Lloyd had not filed a return. He investigated Lloyd so

he knew that Lloyd was not involved in an activity that

required the purchase of stamps. He knew that there was no

assessment. 

What's more, he knew that Lloyd was on trial for

allegedly "evading" an "assessment" that did not, and

could not, by law exist. Therefore he had to know his

investigation was a fraud. If there was no authority to

assess Lloyd then how could Makovski investigate an

"evasion" of an "assessment" that could not possibly exist.

If a return had been filed, then the story would be

different. The authority to assess under section (a)(1)

would have allowed for an "assessment" that could

conceivably be "evaded," but Makovski knew that Lloyd had

not filed a return for the years in question. He certainly

knew from his own criminal investigation that Lloyd was not

involved in an occupation involving a stamp tax. So what was

he investigating? If no return was filed, and the authority

is limited to stamp taxes, then in Makovski's own words

"the IRS cannot assess you." Agent Makovski not only knew

the law, but he (accidentally?) told the truth.

THE HUNDRED YARD DASH

We were informed by attendees of the trial that after

Makovski's admission the U.S. attorney put her head in her

hands. The jury must have understood the implication of the

testimony because it took even less time for the jury to

acquit Lloyd than it did to pick the jury from the jury

pool; and, Lloyd received a standing ovation from those in

the courtroom as the U.S. Attorney slithered out with the

Judge to avoid talking with the media.

This case is just one example of the coming deluge of

opposition to IRS fraud. The public will no longer accept

this flagrant disregard for the law. What will the

government do? Find out in the next issue of the Reasonable

Action where we will look at why the income tax is obsolete

and review the dangers of proposed alternative forms of

taxation.

[END]

save-a-patriot.org 

Late Friday Night News from Poppy3 at Dinar Updates

Late Friday Night News from Poppy3 at Dinar Updates

08/09/2014

Dinar Updates:

23:09 [poppy3] guys just got a couple mins. JUST GOT A CALL FROM MIDDLE EAST . THEY TOLD ME THAT USA BLACKHAWKS AND OTHER PLANES SHOOK THE COUNTRY THIS EVENIN BEFORE DARK AND THEY DIDN'T PLAY AROUND .

HE SAID PEOPLE WHERE VERY EXCITED AND HAPPY THE USA WERE FINALLY SUPPORTING THEM, HE ALSO SAID IF IRAQ HAD NOT GIVEN THE o ADMINISTRATION FACTUAL INFORMATION AND DEFINITE TIME TABLE WHO AND WHEN THE NEW PM IS AND WHEN HE WOULD BE VOTED ON AND SWORN IN THEY WOULD NOT BE FREE TO FINALLY STRIKE HARD AGAINST ISIS.

 HE SAID THEY KNEW WEEKS AGO WHY THEY WERE SENT THERE AND THAT THEY WHERE TOLD THERE WOULD BE NO ACTION UNTIL THE GOI WAS SEATED IN FULL.

THE STRATEGIC STRIKES THEY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO MAKE OVER THE LAST 11 WEEKS HAVE BEEN PRIMARILY HUMANITARIAN. WE HAVE NOW MOVED 50% CLOSER TO SEE TURKI TURN OUR MONEY LOOSE

BE HAPPY ENCOURAGED AND GO OUT AND SHOW IT THIS WEEK END . I WILL BE WHITE WATER RAFTING AND HAVING A BALL. GO OUT AND LIVE PEEPS BECAUSE WHEN THIS HIT YOU WILL HAVE MORE TO DO THAN YOU CAN SHAKE A STICK AT FOR MONTHS. NIGHT ALL POPPY3

http://www.dinarrecaps.com/our-blog/late-friday-night-news-from-poppy3-at-dinar-updates

Late Friday Night Dinar Chatter

Late Friday Night Dinar Chatter

08/08/2014

Stage3Alpha:

EXOGEN August 8, 2014 at 10:59pm FOR ALL OF THE NEW REPUBLIC PEOPLE, THAT PROCESS HAS GONE BETTER THAN EXPECTED (HINT HINT)

EXOGEN August 8, 2014 LOOK AT THE FLAGS AND THEY WILL REVEAL ALL (HINT HINT)

Visionaire > EXOGEN August 8, 2014 I don't get it; what about the flags?

Donna Skinner > Visionaire August 8, 2014 The gold fringed flags signaled Admiralty law.  

KayKay August 8, 2014 at 3:44pm Maybe it is wishful thinking, but I have been noticing little things that signal a change. C-span reporting on 9/11, Russia putting our utube video of the history of the federal reserve and cabal-related activities, sending support to Iraq to beat down ISIS/ISIL/Daash (or whoever they are supposed to be), and the posture of some politicians putting their attention and emphasis more on America's needs. We shall see as it all plays out, but I see the glass at half full (right now).
....

Donna Skinner > KayKay August 8, 2014 at 3:51pm Those are excellent examples....yes, things are changing.  (smile)To add to your post, KayKay, the supreme court from what I gather made a couple of unusual rulings of late that were for the people.Also, this 7 billion dollars that O is going to use for our Veterans.  That is showing this change too, imo.

*************

RV vs GCR  Posted by Mac on August 8, 2014 at 10:42pm

I have not been hearing much about the GCR..many have been talking about The revaluing on the dinar! Surely the GCR will not be far behind it?? Thoughts anyone??

Janie Waters August 8, 2014 at 11:02pm The RV of the dinar was on the books for years before the GCR idea was envisioned. Then once the world financial folks decided it was a solution to a real problem worldwide (as in the corrupt Fed, and the imbalance in all the emerging countries), the decision was made to use the RV of the dinar as the founding currency for the GCR.

the GCR was originally supposed to roll out in baskets, but I suspect as this has evolved that idea has melted into the lore of the process and all the currencies will roll out at the same time. (thus eliminating any chances of the bad guys of getting even richer than they are now).

The GCR involves somewhere around 196 countries (that's the top end that I've read about). I've seen that number range anywhere from 40-200. So, somewhere in there is the truth.

 It was posited that the RV would happen and then within "days" the GCR would roll out. My bet is there is no longer a delay (see note above about the bad guys). 

The RV is indeed just the dinar. The GCR is all the following countries. 

**************************

TNT:

Soundoc:     Banker Intel from 8/08/2014

Banker says: No info today, too sensitive!

**************************

KTFA:

Backdoc:  Hey friends remember we have a signed SOFA agreement.

This puts us in the penthouse !!!

Frank26:  Yes........ But first had to clean up mess o and M made in the last 1.5 years ago.

KTFA,   Frank

************

ehankins » August 8th, 2014, I COULD BE WAY WAY OFF HERE ... BUT IT SEEMS THAT THE "RAMPING" UP OR ESCALATION OF THE US MILITARY ASSISTANCES APPEARS TO BE A MOVE TO ENHANCE THE MONITARY STRENGTH IN IRAQ.

I MAY BE CAPT. OBVIOUS HERE, I DON'T KNOW BUT IT SEEMS THAT THE SHOWING OF STRENGTH WOULD BE AN INTENTIONAL CALIBRATED MOVE SO TO BE THE STRONGEST WHEN WHATS WANTED ($$) COMES TO THE FOREFRONT WITHIN THE COMMERCE AND SOCIAL TRADE WITHIN A GOVERNMENT...OR A WIDESPREAD NATION.

IT JUST SEEMS TO BE A PICTURE OF A FEW THOUSAND ARMED GUARDS ARE WALKING FROM THE ARMOURED TRUCK INTO OR OUT OF A BANK.... AS TO MAKE WAY FOR THE INTENTION TO BE SAFE.....WITHOUT A DOUBT, AND FOR A PURPOSE. THERE JUST SEEMS TO BE SOMETHING ON THE MOVE IN MY GUT.....AND KNOW I'M NOT NAUSEATED OL...

************************

OOM&F:

[..Sambo] I went to the bank to buy me some Dinar

Teller said you would be wiser to buy a car

She said before you buy you should reading

And make sure your account is not a bleeding

She said we have been told to say this is a scam

If i told you the real truth i would be in a big jam So with a smile and grin I gave her my dollars And said when this RVs I will stand up and holler

http://www.dinarrecaps.com/our-blog/late-friday-night-dinar-chatter14

A baby delays Obama’s speech on Iraq

August 8, 2014 by Abdelhak Mamoun

(IraqiNews.com) A baby forced President Barack Obama to delay his speech which was addressed to the American people about Iraq, at dawn on Friday, after obtaining a security breach on the north side of the White House.
This child also forced the American president and all means of local and international media to wait until the lifting of the warning state.
Concerning the details of the incident, the baby managed to squeeze himself between the bars of the White House fence, just minutes before Obama’s speech, which led to the launch of the alarm in addition to the automatic temporary lockdown of the presidential residence.
The United States Secret Service did not take too long time to resolve the matter, and returned the baby to the arms of my father.
Secret Service spokesman, Edwin Donovan said, sarcastically: “we have to wait a long time until the child learns to speak in order to question him.”
http://www.iraqinews.com/arab-world-news/baby-delays-obamas-speech-iraq/

Jaafary: Jobouri got INA’s votes to support its nominee for PM post

July 15, 2014 by Ahmed Hussein

Baghdad (IraqiNews.com) The head of the Iraqi National Alliance, Ibrahim al-Jaafary, stated that the parliament Speaker, Saleem al-Jobouri, has got the votes of the Iraqi National Alliance for supporting its nominee for the PM post.
Speaking to IraqiNews.com “The INA is the only side that name a nominee for the Prime Minister Post where Jobouri adhered to supporting INA’s nominee for the PM post in order to get its votes to be the parliament Speaker.” /End/

Barzani calls INA to clarify its stance over its nominee for PM post

July 12, 2014 by Ahmed Hussein

Baghdad (IraqiNews.com) The President of Kurdistan Region, Masoud Barzani, called the Iraqi National Alliance to clarify its stance over nominating its nominee for the Prime Minister post.
A statement by the Kurdistan Regional Governemnt cited “While meeting with head of the National List Iyad Allawi, Barzai stressed the need that the National Alliance to announce clearly its position on the next candidate for prime minister.”  “Barzani outlined that the Peshmerga forces have stationed themselves in places that the Iraqi army withdrew from, but otherwise they would have fell in the hands of terrorists,” the statement added, noting that “We worked after 2003 to build a new Iraq away from sectarianism, but the wrong policies brought us to the current situation.” “He said that Iraq is going to disintegrate inevitably, if they remained govern Iraq and this mentality remained,” the statement pointed out, assuring that “He assured the need to name a new candidate for prime minister, and to separate between the legitimate demands of the Sunni people and terrorism.” /End/
http://iraqnewsgazette.com/?s=PM+for+Iraq+August+9%2C2014

First world war: 15 legacies still with us today

ing.admin | January 15, 2014

The great war may have been destructive, but it also generated so many startling developments  – in medicine, warfare, geopolitics and social relations – that its influence still resonates today. Here are 15 lasting legacies of the war. If you think we’ve missed anything, add it in the comment thread

Poisonous gas

The experiment began on 22 April 1915. German soldiers, entrenched in the Belgian medieval town of Ypres, attacked with 6,000 steel canisters of chlorine gas. The wind carried the lethal gas, which was two-and-a-half times heavier than air, across to the British enemies, over a front that ran along some four miles. The gas caught the British soldiers unaware, killing 3,000 of them. In no time all of the sides in the war started to set off their own gas attacks: it wafted over battlefields, made it over exclusion zones and wounded more than a million people, killing 70,000.
One of the characteristics of poisonous gas, which was banned under international law as a chemical weapon in 1925, is its barbarity. On 10 July 1917 German troops shot blue cross (diphenylchloroarsine) shells, whose ingredients combined to cause victims to sneeze violently, penetrating their gas masks. These were duly called “mask breakers”.
The second characteristic is the indiscrimination with which the gas killed. It is impossible to exactly pinpoint this. Whether they were soldiers, citizens or children, each were killed in the same way.
Ronen Steinke, Süddeutsche Zeitung

Shell shock and PTSD

Psychological victims of war are as old as war itself. Deuteronomy, the Greeks and Shakespeare all tell us this. But it wasn’t until the first world war that science began to understand this properly and essay the kind of diagnoses that are familiar to us today. Even during the war, some medics still thought that “shell shock” or “war neurosis”, as it was known, was down to the physical impact of exploding military ordnance.
But slowly another theory began to form: that the peculiar symptoms exhibited by huge numbers of soldiers (80,000 in the British army alone) was borne of emotional, not physical, stressors – in particular, the almost suicidal nature of the frontline campaign, the close proximity to death, the hideous sight of watching a friend – or enemy – meet a particularly gruesome end.
Traumatised soldiers shared many common symptoms – from speech difficulties, twitches, anxiety and digestive disorders to more comprehensive nervous indispositions. Doctors found it baffling that these symptoms would often not present until the patient was back in the safe confines of civilian life and why they would persist long after the war was finished.
The vast majority of men did not recover sufficiently to return to the army or the front. Siegfried Sassoon did, but not before he’d written the poem, Survivors:
“No doubt they’ll soon get well; the shock and strain
Have caused their stammering, disconnected talk.
Of course they’re ‘longing to go out again’, –
These boys with old, scared faces, learning to walk.
They’ll soon forget their haunted nights; their cowed
Subjection to the ghosts of friends who died, –
Their dreams that drip with murder; and they’ll be proud
Of glorious war that shatter’d their pride …
Men who went out to battle, grim and glad;
Children, with eyes that hate you, broken and mad.”
Despite the sudden insights of the first world war, and countless more sufferers in the second world war, it wasn’t until 1980 and the aftermath of the Vietnam war that this condition was formally recognised as post-traumatic stress disorder.
Mark Rice-Oxley, the Guardian

Conscription

“Your Country Needs YOU!”, the famous poster featuring Britain’s secretary of state for war, Lord Kitchener, encouraged more than a million men to enlist to bolster the original expeditionary force deployed to France hopelessly unprepared and unfit for a European war. Within a year of Britain declaring war on Germany in August 1914, despite the numbers of enthusiastic young men who joined up (often with their friends and neighbours in what became known as “Pals” battalions) such was the rate of casualties it was clear the country could not continue to fight by relying solely on volunteers.
For the first time in British history early in 1916 the government introduced conscription. Unlike in many continental powers – including France, Germany, Russia, Austria and Hungary, where compulsory enlistment in different forms had existed for many years, in Britain there was no tradition that citizenship carried military obligations, according to Sir Hew Strachan, Oxford University’s professor of the history of War. Strachan made the point in his book, The First World War, that the principle of universal military service was introduced in Britain without the adoption of universal adult male suffrage – Britain had the most limited franchise at the time of any European state bar Hungary.
Britain’s Military Service Act was passed by parliament in January 1916. It imposed conscription on all single men aged between 18 and 41. The medically unfit, clergymen, teachers and workers employed in key industries were exempt. Conscription was extended to married men in May 1916, and during the last months of the war in 1918, to men up to the age of 51. Conscription raised about 2.5 million men during the war.
Protests against conscription included a demonstration by 200,000 people in Trafalgar Square. Tribunals were set up to hear demands for exemption, including from conscientious objectors. However, the principle of objecting to military service on moral grounds was widely accepted and, in most cases, objectors were given civilian jobs.
The tribunals’ main task was ensuring that men not sent to the battlefields were productively employed at home. As the war went on and more men were sent to fight, the shortage of skilled workers in arms factories became more acute. Late in 1917 the German Reichstag passed a law obliging all available males between 17 to 60 to work in arms factories.
An attempt in 1918 to force conscription on Ireland was strongly opposed by trade unions, nationalists and the Roman Catholic hierarchy. It was abandoned and served only to increase support for an independent Ireland (though more than 200,000 Irishmen – Catholic and Protestant – volunteered to serve in the British army).
Canada introduced conscription in its “khaki election” in 1917, the year the US president, Woodrow Wilson, also did so, arguing, Strachan notes, “that it was the most democratic form of military enlistment”.
Richard Norton-Taylor, the Guardian

War technology

The war that was supposed to be the one to end all wars was in fact the beginning of all modern conflicts, the origin of the “storm of steel”, as described by German officer Ernst Jünger in his memoir of trench warfare.
With the first world war, the technical revolution reached the battlefields and forever changed the way that armies fought. Technology became an essential element in the art of war. It could be argued that it had already been so throughout history (Could the Spanish colonisation of the Americas have taken place without gunpowder? Could Rome have conquered the known world without the superior organisation of its military forces?). However, technology never became so important, and above all, so destructive, although it took many battles and casualties to recognise it.
In Adam Hochschild’s essay about the conflict, To End All Wars, he describes how these novelties came upon the battlefields; the submarine and aerial bombardment of civilians, armoured tanks (which weighed 28 tonnes and advanced at the rate of two miles an hour), toxic gas attacks … But, on top of that, the most important innovation was the barbed wire fences, the most definitive and unassuming weapon used, that held the war back to the trenches.
Douglas Haig, the much-criticised commander of the British forces in France, wrote of the conflict’s end with profound lucidity: “I believe that the value of the horse and the opportunity for the horse in the future are likely to be as great as ever. Aeroplanes and tanks are only accessories to the men and the horse, and I feel sure that as time goes on you will find just as much use for the horse – the well-bred horse – as you have ever done in the past.” Like so many other times, he could not be more mistaken.
Guillermo Altares, El Paîs

Pacifism

Bertha von Suttner, who in 1905 became the first woman to be awarded the Nobel peace prize, once jested that humanising the war was like regulating the temperature when boiling someone in oil.
However, when war broke out in Europe, it wasn’t just pacifists who were shocked, but many erstwhile war enthusiasts too. (For example, the German writer Kurt Tucholsky had signed up for “drunken nationalism” in the first few days of the war. Now he was disenchantedly calling the war ‘a worldwide latrine with blood, barbed wire and hate songs”.)
After the war the pacifists had admittedly more influence than before: about 70,000 members belonged to pacifist groups in Germany, which incidentally was comparatively less than the 500,000 members of the soldiers’ unions.
Above all though, the war destroyed a part of their primordial self-certainty. Before 1914, the pacifists had dreamed that wars could be contractually banned – it was an unwordly belief, as was shown. Now the peace-lovers strove for a more realistic, modest aim – disarmament, international understanding, reconciliation and a humanisation of war through the abandonment of certain weapons.
Ronen Steinke, Süddeutsche Zeitung

The Middle East legacy

The first world war and the treaties that followed it redrew the map of the Middle East by creating new states and new political realities on the territory of the defeated Ottoman empire. Rivalry between Britain and France, the growth of Arab nationalism, Zionist ambitions in Palestine and the emergence of modern Turkey all changed the face of the region. It is one of history’s neater ironies that lines that were drawn in the wartime sand are starting to blur a century later.
The Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916 secretly divided the former Ottoman lands into British and French zones of influence. The Mandate system created by the interwar League of Nations promised only eventual self-government, not the immediate independence for which Sharif Hussein of Mecca had launched a desert revolt against the Turks – with the help of Colonel TE Lawrence (“of Arabia”). And, in another conflicting pledge, the Balfour Declaration of 1917 gave Britain’s support for the creation of a “national home” for the Jews in the holy land – laying the foundations for the emergence of Israel and the world’s most intractable contemporary conflict. Historians have been arguing ever since about this tangled diplomacy and its fateful repercussions.
Ethnic, sectarian and tribal differences were of little concern to the colonial-era map-makers. Iraq was formed by merging three Ottoman provinces – dominated respectively by Shias, Sunnis and Kurds. It was also cut off from Kuwait – the genesis of trouble later. Its king was a Hashemite from the Arabian peninsula who had been thrown out of Syria so was the king of neighbouring Jordan, created by a stroke of Winston Churchill’s pen after a boozy lunch in Cairo in 1921. Lebanon was split off from “Greater Syria” as a home for the Christians whose support would strengthen French influence.
The biggest losers of the postwar lottery in the Middle East were the Kurds. Nowadays this still stateless people enjoy a high degree of regional autonomy – as well as relative peace – in federal Iraq while their compatriots in Syria control areas that are out of reach of Bashar al-Assad’s forces.
The very idea of Arab nationalism is under threat by sectarian extremists, who look back to Islam to create a new caliphate (abolished by the newly secular Turks in 1922). Assad’s enemies include a leading jihadi group with links to al-Qaida. Its Arabic name is “the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham (Syria and Lebanon)” – a deliberate erasure of those post-first world war frontiers.
Ian Black, the Guardian

Filmed propaganda

In a conversation with the philosopher Alexander Bogdanov in 1907, Lenin spoke of cinema as “one of the most important means of education of the masses”. The first world war was to prove him emphatically right.
At the start of the war, audiences – and governments – were still relatively new to the idea of cinema. But in the US alone, 2,500 films were produced between 1915 and 1918. Many such as Zepped contained an undeniable propaganda slant to them. Others were produced to more subtle effect, such as The Battle of the Somme – a British effort to appeal to US public opinion and draw America into the war. In Italy, Maciste alpino, by Luigi Romano Borgnetto and Luigi Maggi (1916) emphasises the values of battle, pushing the audience to identify with the hero protagonist.
But not all of it was pro-war. In Civilization (1916), Thomas Harper Ince launched his allegorical cry for peace. Abel Gance’s J’accuse, with some scenes filmed on real battlefields, is undeniably pacifist.
But the jewel of the period, dated 1918, is the Charlie Chaplin film Shoulder Arms, which illustrates, halfway between tragedy and farce, the horrors of life at the front.
Fulvia Caprara, La Stampa

Workers of the world

For the European socialist and labour movement , and the nascent trade union movement , the outbreak of the first world war was a terrible shock. Though well organised in countries including Germany, Britain and France, the leadership of socialist and social democrat parties failed to mobilise against the war in the summer of 1914.
The parties and the first trade unions (with the exception of Italy, which maintained its neutrality until May 1915) were co-opted into the war effort and production. For a long time workers in large industries – in particular skilled workers, crucial for the production of machinery and armaments necessary to feed the monstrous battle of materials at the front – were not only exempted from recruitment into the army, but also enjoyed favourable food and wage conditions in return for the banning of strike action.
But as the war destroyed lives and resources, living and working conditions for factory workers gradually declined. Socialist minorities began to agitate for a peaceful settlement of the conflict; the Russian year of revolution in 1917 turned the political calculus upside down, reviving radical political parties and trade unions in all the belligerent countries. One of the few things left standing at the end of the war in 1918 was an aggressive, organised, determined European trade union movement about to embark on its heyday.
Roberto Giovannini, La Stampa

The planned economy

Before the Soviet Union forced a planned economy on half of Europe, the Germans had discovered it. The first legislation limiting economic freedom was implemented on 3 August 1914.
The German state took control over citizens’ savings, foreign trade and the production and sale of food. It also set maximum prices for various goods and introduced “raw material associations”, which controlled the distribution of raw materials that were in shortage according to the needs of a war economy.
In November 1916, a planning institute was established and the total mobilisation of resources and labour was implemented. Industry was organised into 170 “war associations” based on previous chambers of industry. The programme halted what had amounted to a decline in production for the army, although consumption and agriculture continued to face a slump.
The prices of basic products rose eightfold during the war and millions of Germans were forced into starvation – food rations amounted to 700-900 calories daily. At the time, others considered the military mobilisation of the Germans a huge achievement.
It made a huge impression on the Bolsheviks, who were then waiting to take over power in Russia. When Lenin took control in 1918, he introduced “war communism” – an economy based on nationalisation and the robbery of assets.
It gave the Bolsheviks control over economic life and the resources necessary to win the civil war but it also brought with it a downturn in living standards, widespread poverty and the destruction of production capacity.
At the beginning of the 1920s, the communists in Russia announced NEP – “New Economic Policy” – making a compromise with the market by leaving it with a large chunk of the production of consumption goods. The planned economy was to the taste of politicians as well as journalists with various political views.
In the period between the two great wars, during which people were shaken by hyperinflation and the Great Crisis, capitalism was commonly viewed as something that meant chaos and the ineffective allocation of creative energy.
Both the radical left and the radical right believed that capitalism created wealth among the few and poverty among the masses and that a planned economy helped to even out income and led to greater solidarity in society.
After the Great Crisis, experiments were carried out with various forms of a planned economy not only in Germany or the Soviet Union but in many European countries, including Poland.
Adam Leszczyński, Gazeta Wyborcza

Nation states

The year 1918 radically reshaped the map of central and eastern Europe. Several new states (or ones recreated after a century) appeared in the place of three powerful empires – Germany, Russia and Austria-Hungary.
The new countries were poor, in conflict with each other and studiously divided by borders and customs duties. It was the era of triumphant nationalism. Countries such as Ukraine suffered the bad luck of having been unable to successfully fight for their own state because their rivals had proven stronger.
In September 1918, the Austro-Hungarian empire tried to make contact with western powers to ask for a ceasefire. The US, by then the most powerful country in the world and one untouched by the war, replied that its stance had been presented by President Woodrow Wilson in January of that year in his Fourteen Points proposal.
Apart from his postulates of transparent international agreements, unfettered access to the seas and the lifting of trade barriers, Wilson had talked about new borders in Europe based on ethnicity and had also mentioned the rebirth of Poland. As it would later turn out at the Versailles conference in 1919, his postulate of “borders based on ethnicity” would prove to be not only utopian, but also the precursor to many conflicts.
In central Europe, nations often lived side by side with each other and claimed ownership of the same territories. Each resolution passed by the big powers triggered diplomatic protests and, quite often, armed conflict.
The biggest of the new countries was Poland, which had disappeared from the map for 123 years after being partitioned in 1795. Its territory was reclaimed thanks to armed conflicts with the Germans, Ukrainians, Lithuania, Czechoslovakia and the great battle with Russia. In 1923 when its borders were finally settled, Poland had relatively good relations with only two neighbours – tiny Latvia to the north and a distant Romania to the south. This would soon prove fatal.
And yet the war also produced the League of Nations – the world’s first proper attempt at an international peace-keeping organisation. Its successes and existence were shortlived, and it would take another world war for the second iteration, the United Nations, to be born.
Adam Leszczyński, Gazeta Wyborcza

The “broken faces”

Modern surgery was born in the first world war, where civil and military hospitals acted as theatres of experimental medical intervention. Trench warfare meant that the head and the face were especially exposed to enemy fire. Countless veterans survived the war but paid the price by leaving it maimed, mutilated and disfigured. These were the so-called “broken faces”, named after an expression coined in France by colonel Yves Picot, president of the Union des blessés de la face et de la tête, which was founded in 1921.
By the end of the first world war there were about 6.5 million war invalids in France. Surgeons from the belligerent countries faced a considerable flood of these “broken faces”, and were charged with giving them human features again, to ease the plight of their reintegration into civil life. Missing flesh and bone were covered up with graft, an innovation that came about by using skin from other parts of the body.
Paul Benkimoun, Le Monde

Blood banks

The discovery in 1914 that blood could be prevented from clotting if mixed with sodium nitrate, plus the benefits of refrigeration, were huge breakthroughs that paved the way for blood banking.
In the second half of the war, medics improvised to use preserved blood at casualty clearing stations, though initial survival rates were not good. Finding donors was not a problem, but overlooking blood groups was. Still, the sudden advances led to a blood donor service being established in London in 1922.
Mark Rice-Oxley, the Guardian

The decline of aristocracy

Those sons of the British upper classes fortunate enough to survive the first world war returned to find a country in a state of flux and their place in it no longer automatically assured.
Their diminished numbers – until late 1917, the upper classes suffered proportionately greater losses in the fighting than any other class – ensured that a resumption of the prewar status quo was physically impossible.
“The apprentices for the postwar were no longer there; they were lying in Flanders Fields,” says Joanna Bourke, professor of history at Birkbeck College, London.
“This had a devastating impact: the prime minister’s son was killed, a number of cabinet members’ sons were killed and this meant that in the immediate postwar, those apprentices who were expected in the natural order of things to become leaders – particularly in politics and business – were no longer there.”
But not only were the numbers of the male upper classes severely diminished; there was also a fall in the number of those willing to serve them and their families as they had done for hundreds of years.
Many of the women whom the war effort had forced out of domestic service and into factories found themselves unwilling to relinquish their new independence.
“You get the delegitimisation of the whole structure that maintains upper middle-class life,” says Bourke.
“In the past, the servant class in upper middle-class homes were those people whose family tradition was to work there. When someone left, the cook would recommend her niece – and that no longer happened, so there’s a real crisis in terms of the labour that’s required to keep up these lifestyles.”
The decline of the upper classes was further hastened by the passing of the Representation of the People’s Act in June 1917, which gave the vote to an additional 5 million men and nearly 9 million women.
The extension of the franchise, coupled with an explosion in trade unionism, afforded the working classes greater social representation and with it the freedom to challenge the power of the establishment parties and question the wisdom of those who had sent so many soldiers to their deaths.
But perhaps the greatest harbinger of the decline of the upper classes emerged from the mud and blood of the western front as the institution charged with protecting the traditional British way of life became the unwitting agent of its dissolution.
The introduction of conscription in 1916 turned a professional army into a civilian one and flooded its ranks with middle-class men whose mothers and fathers occupied powerful places in society and used those positions to demand that their children’s sacrifices were not in vain. It also led to the rise of new officers from humble backgrounds who, like so many thousands of female Britons at home, were not prepared to abandon the possibility for social advancement that the war had brought them.
As Bourke puts it: “These people came back – some of them with medals – and they weren’t going to go back to being shopkeepers.”
Sam Jones, the Guardian

Christian democracy

The catastrophic heights that the first world war provoked drove French politicians and intellectuals to protest “never again”.
Marc Sangnier, founder of the Sillon movement at the end of the 19th century, was one of the figures emerging from that rallying cry. This thread of social Christianity extolled a reconciliation of the church and the republic in the name of a third way between capitalism and socialism.
Like his contemporary Jean Jaurès, Sangnier became the sworn enemy of the Catholic monarchists led by Charles Maurras. Sangnier served as a trench engineer during the war. In 1916, the joint prime minister and foreign minister, Aristide Briand, made Sangnier an ultimately unsuccessful peace emissary between the pope and France. Sangnier left the war as a commander and was decorated with the legion of honour and the French Croix de guerre.
From 1919 to 1924, Sangnier was a statesman. His colleagues were sarcastic about his efforts to restore Europe through international collaborations with the likes of Russia and Germany. Only the left and the extreme left applauded this curious Christian for radical pacifism, a visionary who was elected with the moderate right but who the conservatives classified as a “bolshevik Christian”. His idea was to organise the “peace for youth” through international democracy. This led to international congresses; the grand finale in Bierville in August 1926 featured more than 5,000 participants from 33 nations, although the majority were Germans.
When Sangnier died in 1950, the ideas he defended lived on in the Christian Democrats who held power in France, Germany and Italy.
Michel Lefèbvre, Le Monde

Women’s emancipation

Historians still wrangle over whether the war liberated women. Without a doubt, women accomplished a high number of largely masculine roles during the war. Without a doubt, women achieved the most important political rights in certain countries (such as Britain). Without a doubt, some of the fashions, such as the flapper “garçonne” (“little boy”) look, evoked an emancipation of the traditional feminine codes. However, in reality women’s work was already on the rise before 1914 and once the war was over, many women went back to their old jobs.
The feminisation of work is limited and depends on what sector it is in. It grows in business, in liberal professions or in banks. In fact, women are denied quite a few rights (in France, women only won the right to vote in 1944. In Germany they could vote as of 1919, in Great Britain from the age of 30 in 1918, and from the age of 21, like men, in 1928). Often the forms of emancipation of traditional roles were socially and quantatively restrictive. Recent works suggest that this period was a transitional phase, a teaser of the evolutions to come.
Nicolas Offenstadt, Le Monde
http://iraqnewsgazette.com/first-world-war-15-legacies-still-with-us-today/

The Unknown History Of The Atomic Bomb....The Jewish Devil-Weapon... Designed, Delivered, Lauded And Paid For...By Jews

The Rumor Mill News Reading Room 

The Unknown History Of The Atomic Bomb....The Jewish Devil-Weapon... Designed, Delivered, Lauded And Paid For...By Jews

Posted By: Watchman
Date: Friday, 8-Aug-2014 21:26:11

The world was stunned to learn that India has now tested nuclear weapons. For many years, all nations have been concerned about the proliferation of atomic explosives. Even in their distress, no one seems to be interested in the historic or the psychological record of why these weapons were developed, and what special breed of mankind devoted themselves to this diabolical goal. Despite the lack of public interest, the record is clear, and easily available to anyone who is interested. My interest in this subject, dormant for many years was suddenly rekindled during my annual lecture tour in Japan. My hosts had taken me to the city of Nagasaki for the first time. Without telling me their plans, they entered the Nagasaki Atomic Bomb Museum. I thought it would be an interesting experience, but, to my surprise, when I walked into the exhibition rooms, I was suddenly overcome by sadness. Realizing that I was about to burst into tears, I moved away from my companions, and stood biting my lip. Even so, it seemed impossible to control myself. I was surrounded by the most gruesome objects, the fingers of a human hand fused with glass, a photograph of the shadow of a man on a brick wall; the man had been vaporized in the explosion . A NEW MISSION When I returned to the United States, I knew1 had to unearth the sinister figures behind greatest of human catastrophes. It took many weeks of research to uncover what turned out to be the most far-reaching conspiracy of all time, the program of a few dedicated revolutionaries to seize control of the entire world, by inventing the powerful weapon ever unveiled. The story begins in Germany. In the 1930s, Germany and Japan had a number of scientists icing on the development of nuclear fission. In both of these countries, their leaders sternly forbade them to continue their research. Adolf Hitler said he would never allow anyone in Germany to work to work on such an inhumane weapon. The Emperor of Japan let his scientists know that he would never approve such a weapon. At that time the United States had no one working on nuclear fission. The disgruntled German scientists contacted friends in the United States, and were told that there was a possibility of government support for their work here. As Don Beyer tells these immigrants to the United States pushed their program. “Leo Szilard, together with his long time friends and fellow Hungarian physicists, Eugene Wigner and Edward Teller, agreed that the President must be warned; fission bomb tehnology was not so farfetched. The Jewishemigres, now living in America, had personal experience of fascism in Europe. In 1939, the three physicists enlisted the support of Albert Einstein, letter dated August 2 signed by Einstein was delivered by Alexander Sachs to Franklin D. Roosevelt at the White House on October 11, 39.” CRIMINALS ON DISPLAY At the Nagasaki Atomic Bomb Museum, photographs of two men are prominently displayed; Albert Einstein, and J. Robert Oppenheimer, who developed the atomic bomb at Los Alamos laboratories, New Mexico. Also on display is a statement from General Eisenhower, who was then supreme Military Commander, which is found in number of books about Eisenhower, and which can be found on p.426, Eisenhower by Stephen E.Ambrose, Simon & Shuster, NY, 1983. “Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson first told Eisenhower of the bomb’s existence. Eisenhower was engulfed by “a feeling of depression’. When Stimson said the United States proposed to use the bomb against Japan, Eisenhower voiced ‘my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use (of atomic weapons).’ Stimson was upset by Eisenhower’s attitude ‘almost angrily refuting the reasons I gave for my quick conclusion’. Three days later, Eisenhower flew to Berlin, where he met with Truman and his principal advisors. Again Eisenhower recommended against using the bomb, and again was ignored. Other books on Eisenhower state that he endangered his career by his protests against the bomb, which the conspirators in the highest level of the United States government had already sworn to use against Japan, regardless of any military developments. Eisenhower could not have known that Stimson was a prominent member of Skull and Bones at Yale, the Brotherhood of Death, founded by the Russell Trust in 1848 as a bunch of the German Illuminati, or that they had played prominent roles in organizing wars and revolutions since that time. Nor could he have known that President Truman had only had one job in his career, as a Masonic organizer for the State of Missouri, and that the lodges he built up later sent him to the United States Senate and then to the presidency. ATOMIC TERRORISM The man who set all this in motion was Albert Einstein, who left Europe and came to the United States in October 1933. His wife said that he “regarded human beings with detestation”. He had previously corresponded with Sigmund Freud about his projects of “peace” and “disarmament”, although Freud later said he did not believe that Einstein ever accepted any of his theories. Einstein had a personal interest in Freud’s work because his son Eduard spent his life in mental institutions, undergoing both insulin therapy and electroshock treatment, none of which produced any change in his condition. When Einstien arrived in the United States, he was feted as a famous scientist, and was invited to the White House by President and Mrs. Roosevelt. He was soon deeply involved with Eleanor Roosevelt in her many leftwing causes, in which Einstein heartily concurred. Some of Einstein’s biographers hail the modern era as “the Einstein Revolution” and “the Age of Einstein”, possibly because he set in motion the program of nuclear fission in the United States. His letter to Roosevelt requesting that the government inaugurate an atomic bomb program was obviously stirred by his lifelong commitment to “peace and disarmament”. His actual commitment was to Zionism; Ronald W. Clark mentions in Einstein; His Life And Times, Avon, 1971, p.377, “He would campaign with the Zionists for a Jewish homeland in Palestine.” On p.460, Clark quotes Einstein, “As a Jew I am from today a supporter of the Jewish Zionist efforts.” (1919) Einstein’s letter to Roosevelt, dated august 2, 1939, was delivered personally to President Roosevelt by Alexander Sachs on October 11. Why did Einstein enlist an intermediary to bring this letter to Roosevelt, with whom he was on friendly terms? The atomic bomb program could not be launched without the necessary Wall Street sponsorship. Sachs, a Russian Jew, listed his profession as “economist” but was actually a bagman for the Rothschilds, who regularly delivered large sums of cash to Roosevelt in the White House. Sachs was an advisor to Eugene Meyer of the Lazard Freres International Banking House, and also with Lehman Brothers, another well known banker. Sachs’ delivery of the Einstein letter to the White House let Roosevelt know that the Rothschilds approved of the project and wished him to go full speed ahead. A UNITED NATIONS PROJECT In May of 1945, the architects of postwar strategy, or, as they liked to call themselves, the “Masters of the Universe”, gathered in San Francisco at the plush Palace Hotel to write the Charter for the United Nations. Several of the principals retired for a private meeting in the exclusive Garden Room. The head of the United States delegation had called this secret meeting with his top aide, Alger Hiss, representing the president of the United States and the Soviet KGB; John Foster Dulles, of the Wall Street law firm of Sullivan and Cromwell, whose mentor, William Nelson Cromwell, had been called a “professional revolutionary” on the floor of Congress; and W. Averill Harriman, plenipotentiary extraordinary, who had spent the last two years in Moscow directing Stalin’s war for survival. These four men represented the awesome power of the American Republic in world affairs, yet of the four, only Secretary of State Edward Stettinius Jr., had a position authorized by the Constitution. Stettinius called the meeting to order to discuss an urgent matter; the Japanese were already privately suing for peace, which presented a grave crisis. The atomic bomb would not be ready for several more months. “We have already lost Germany,” Stettinius said. “If Japan bows out, we will not have a live population on which to test the bomb.” “But, Mr. Secretary,” said Alger Hiss, “no one can ignore the terrible power of this weapon.” “Nevertheless,” said Stettinius, “our entire postwar program depends on terrifying the world with the atomic bomb.” “To accomplish that goal,” said John Foster Dulles, “you will need a very good tally. I should say a million.” “Yes,” replied Stettinius, “we are hoping for a million tally in Japan. But if they surrender, we won’t have anything.” “Then you have to keep them in the war until the bomb is ready,” said John Foster Dulles. “That is no problem. Unconditional surrender.” “They won’t agree to that,” said Stettinius. “They are sworn to protect the Emperor.” “Exactly,” said John Foster Dulles. “Keep Japan in the war another three months, and we can use the bomb on their cities; we will end this war with the naked fear of all the peoples of the world, who will then bow to our will.” Edward Stettinius Jr. was the son of a J.P. Morgan partner who had been the world’s largest munitions dealer in the First World War. He had been named by J.P. Morgan to oversee all purchases of munitions by both France and England in the United States throughout the war. John Foster Dulles was also an accomplished warmonger. In 1933, he and his brother Allen had rushed to Cologne to meet with Adolf Hitler and guaranteed him the funds to maintain the Nazi regime. The Dulles brothers were representing their clients, Kuhn Loeb Co., and the Rothschilds. Alger Hiss was the golden prince of the communist elite in the united States. When he was chosen as head of the prestigious Carnegie Endowment for International Peace after World War II, his nomination was seconded by John Foster Dulles. Hiss was later sent to prison for perjury for lying about his exploits as a Soviet espionage agent. This secret meeting in the Garden Room was actually the first military strategy session of the United Nations, because it was dedicated to its mission of exploding the world’s first atomic weapon on a living population. It also forecast the entire strategy of the Cold War, which lasted forty-three years, cost American taxpayers five trillion dollars, and accomplished exactly nothing, as it was intended to do. Thus we see that the New World Order has based its entire strategy on the agony of the hundreds of thousands of civilians burned alive at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, including many thousands of children sitting in their schoolrooms. These leaders had learned from their master, Josef Stalin, that no one can rule without mass terrorism, which in turn required mass murder. As Senator Vandenberg, leader of the Republican loyal opposition, was to say (as quoted in American Heritage magazine, August 1977), “We have got to scare the hell out of “em.” THE JEWISH HELL-BOMB The atomic bomb was developed at the Los Alamos Laboratories in New Mexico. The top secret project was called the Manhattan Project, because its secret director, Bernard Baruch, lived in Manhattan, as did many of the other principals. Baruch had chosen Maj. Gen. Leslie R. Groves to head the operation. He had previously built the Pentagon, and had a good reputation among the Washington politicians, who usually came when Baruch beckoned. The scientific director at Los Alamos was J. Robert Oppenheimer, scion of a prosperous family of clothing merchants. In Oppenheimer; the Years Of Risk, by James Kunetka, Prentice Hall, NY, 1982, Kunetka writes, p. 106, “Baruch was esp the rest: http://www.fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/the-secret-history-of-the-atomic-bomb/99787#more-99787