MEDIA ROOTS —  A month ago, Luke Rudkowski of WeAreChange and Abby Martin of Media Roots confronted Senator Rand Paul on camera at the Capitol building as he left a press conference.  The question they both asked him repeatedly is why he endorsed Mitt Romney if he stands in opposition to almost every Libertarian principle that both he and his father, Ron Paul, hold so dear.  Rand’s handler tried to shield Paul from Luke and Abby but failed to do so, creating a few cringe worthy moments that made Rand seem like an utter coward.  He silently looked down in embarrassment without even giving them a glance as he skirted away.

Some people may say that any form of ‘ambush’ journalism is unfair; since you don’t have permission to confront someone, don’t expect a friendly attitude or response.  However, in the past, a pre-Senate Rand Paul was spotted on the street by WeAreChange and asked about Bilderberg.  He seemed eager to speak candidly about the subject, throwing out a lot of anti New World Order rhetoric.

When Abby’s video hit YouTube, the comments and reactions were evenly split.  Some WeAreChange fans said they were okay with his endorsement, and that Rand Paul had to ‘make a deal’ in order to gain ground for their cause.  Others were furious at Abby and Luke for challenging ‘one of their own.’  Overall, many expressed the thought that Rand had sold out and betrayed his own father by catering to the Republican establishment.  Rand and Ron have been big allies with WeAreChange’s philosophical agenda for years, dovetailing off of WeAreChange’s association with the Alex Jones and Infowars.  To those unfamiliar with these different groups’ involvement in underground politics, WeAreChange acts as emissaries of the confrontational style of journalism Alex Jones has been known for, i.e. bullhorning in public buildings and confronting politicians about the New World Order.  Arguably, Alex Jones is following in the footsteps of Bill Cooper and David Icke with a heavy philosophical dose of the John Birch Society.

I started listening to Alex Jones in early 2004, and from the very first broadcast he spoke very favorably of one politician in particular, a Congressman named Ron Paul.  At the time I knew of people like Cynthia McKinney and Dennis Kucinich, but had no knowledge of anyone on the ‘right’ who held strongly to some of my personal beliefs about foreign policy, freedom and civil liberties.  After doing a bit of research on Ron Paul, he seemed like the real deal.  It made sense why Alex Jones was such a fan since Jones considered himself a ‘paleo conservative,’ neither Republican nor Democrat. 

Many years later, Paul’s son, Rand, came onto the scene and became a U.S. Senator in Kentucky; this was directly after the media coverage of the Tea Party movement had reached its peak.  Originally, the Tea Party phenomenon was started by 9/11 ‘truthers’ who were fans of Ron Paul and Libertarianism in general because of its focus on restoring liberties and cutting back on military intervention.  Eventually, the Tea Party was co-opted by the likes of Fox News and the RNC which turned it into a mainstream commodity to package and sell.  Rand stood side by side with the Tea Party and even considered himself one of the first Tea Party Senators.  His father, Ron Paul, seemed generally pleased at its success–the Tea Party’s growing appeal would only catapult him to more fame.

Slowly it became clear that Rand was following in his father’s footsteps in a lot of ways, sometimes being one of the few Senators to vote “no” on a bill simply because of a possible threat to civil liberties.  However, it was also clear from the beginning that he was different from his father and didn’t have enough political cache to speak ill of American foreign policy or the War on Terror.  He definitely didn’t risk saying anything remotely close to his dad’s statements about 9/11 being a result of CIA blowback.

Alex Jones still promoted Rand, along with his father Ron, regardless of their differences on 9/11 and the War on Terror.  WeAreChange and the Infowars community seemed to be mostly excited about Ron and his son becoming such well known fixtures in the mainstream media and Republican party.  But there were exceptions–early on I noticed that certain fans became leery of these events, wondering why elements of the RNC would accept Rand and his father with open arms unless there was a bigger chess game at play.

The attention reached its peak during the 2011 Republican presidential primaries, when Ron Paul collected over 200 delegates. Just like in 2008, Ron Paul hinted at running third party if he lost the primary, but didn’t end up launching a third party bid after losing the nomination.  After discovering that Mitt Romney was the clear victor, it’s most likely that both Pauls were asked by their ‘friends’ in the Republican party to endorse him for president.  Apparently, Rand felt compelled to do just that.  Less than a month after the dust had settled, he went on television to announce his endorsement for the war mongerer.

Was he offered a sweet deal or did he go into it with the underlying understanding that if he solidified his friendship with the Republican overlords it would pay off in the long term?  Surely he knew that the liberty movements’ reaction would range anywhere from mildly unhappy/confused to feeling betrayed–but he decided to do it anyway.  Or, is a third possibility conceivable–that Ron and Rand Paul have been used as tools by the Republican party for longer than the Romney endorsement; now they may actually be inadvertently helping this so called ‘New World Order’ they both profess to oppose?

If you have been following the history of the evolution of the Pauls as I have, you can see that Abby and Luke’s video confrontation at the Capitol asking Rand about his curious endorsement of Romney blew up the internet with a heated albeit much needed debate.  Many Paul fans feel as if they have been mislead, and that the Pauls are playing into the hands of the very untrustworthy establishment that has shut out their movement for so long.  Can we blame them?

UPDATE: A week after this confrontational video was broadcast, Abby’s workplace, Russia Today, received an ominous phone call from a Senate committee staffer who represents mainstream media access to the Capitol building.  This representative implied that Abby had trespassed (she did not, they were both credentialed press for the event) into the Capitol to ‘harass’ Rand Paul.  It turns out that it was Rand Paul’s staff that put the pressure on this committee to try to strip Abby of her press credentials and intimidate her.  Luckily, the Rand Paul campaign was extremely naive and had no idea that Abby only becomes stronger and more aggressive in the face of adversity and threats.  Rand Paul has opened a can of worms on this that they will not be able to close. Trying to get a journalist in trouble or even fired from their organization for simply asking a question is one of the sleaziest and oldest tricks in the book; we are even surprised that politicians still employ these strong arm techniques instead of more subtle and nuanced approaches.

I’ve been on the fence for a long time about what the Pauls are really trying to accomplish.  Now that we know for sure that Rand Paul tried to threaten and intimidate Abby simply for asking him why he endorsed Mitt Romney, I think I can safely hop to one side of the fence–the side in which Rand and possibly Ron Paul are clearly working on behalf of the “establishment.”

Robbie Martin for Media Roots

To hear Abby and I discussing these events on our most recent podcast click here, or stream below


Media Roots Radio – Rand Paul Crackdown, Gay Rights, Illuminati & NWO Distraction by Media Roots

***

MEDIA ROOTS — After 9/11, U.S. war budgets skyrocketed, leading to a Pentagon purchasing binge previously unrivaled in history.  Through the 1033 Program and Homeland Security grants, thousands of law enforcement agencies have received an excess of military weaponry and equipment, which were once reserved for war zones abroad.

In the style of Amazon.com, local police forces can even create “want lists” to facilitate future acquisition.  As a result, those charged with protecting and serving Hometown, USA now possess military-grade weaponry and garb.  This militarization concerns all U.S. citizens, because taxpayer dollars ultimately fund police militancy.

The Posse Comitatus Act was designed to limit federal military involvement in local law enforcement activity.  While the Act is still nominally intact, it is increasingly bypassed through militarization of local police.  Militarization is exemplified by arming domestic drones and conducting military exercises in major U.S. cities, including nighttime maneuvers above Miami and Los Angeles, and daytime tank training on the streets of St. Louis.  Even small-town Peñitas, TX receives Pentagon weaponry.  

Domestic police forces classify many of their weapons as “less-than-lethal” or “non-lethal” in order to shirk the thornier questions associated with militarization.  These euphemisms are outright lies, since many of these weapons can cause death, including tasers and rubber bullets.  (These concerns don’t stop local police from adding Taser shotguns to their arsenals, or shooting an Attorney with rubber bullets, at which police officials laughed hysterically.)  LRADs have been strutted out at town hall meetings, the 2009 G-20 meeting in Pittsburgh, the 2010 G-8 meeting, the 2012 NATO summit in Chicago, against OWS protests, and elsewhere.  The LRAD Corporation boasts about many local police departments using LRADs, including Boston, San Diego, and Santa Ana.  Unfortunately, by marketing harmful weapons as “non-lethal,” both the compliant U.S. public and zealous U.S. police departments accept their increased use. 

Government officials who support increased militarization fail to realize the Pentagon is selling more than just military-grade weaponry and material to local police forces.  It is tacitly providing domestic police with a paramilitary ethos, which your local police department may perceive as a green light to behave in a militant manner.  Officials who support militarization as a safeguard against terrorism are misdirecting their concerns, since U.S. citizens are more likely to drown in a bathtub than die in a terrorist attack in the U.S.  So with no terrorist threat in sight, police forces often end up using military equipment during daily police operations, sometimes with devastating consequences.  Meanwhile, all government officials ignore the basic facts that spending on domestic priorities (e.g. education, healthcare, clean energy) creates more sustainable jobs than manufacturing military weaponry and equipment.

Since the last protest movement of national significance, the U.S. government has been learning how to better deal with public dissent, irrespective of public grievances.  Meanwhile, no mass protest movement has adapted accordingly.  This leaves the peaceful United States citizenry facing an inappropriate use of military-grade weaponry, whether lethal or non-lethal.  Essentially, USA is now a weapons testing ground against first amendment activity, often enabled by local officials.

After pressure from independent and international media outlets, the Pentagon temporarily halted a small portion of their weapons sales to certain domestic police forces.  Sensitivities to election year politics surely played a part – no branch of the federal government wishes to remind the public of police-state activities or the conflicting message associated with spending rampantly during times of austerity.  Regardless, the real question remains: what is the ramping up of police militarization preparing for? 

Potentials are grim, since the U.S. government completely ignores the political predicament articulated by the Occupy Wall Street movement.  It also avoids confrontation by relocating key functions, like moving the G8 Conference from Chicago to Camp David.  When ignorance and avoidance prove inadequate, the government opts to confront protests head-on and crush them where they sprout up.  If the Occupy Wall Street movement resurges this summer, look for the U.S. government to continue this pattern of ignorance, avoidance and physical oppression. 

  Abby Martin reports on the militarization of local law enforcement for RT TV

For further discussion about the militarization of U.S. police, click here.

Christian Sorensen for Media Roots

***

Photograph by Flickr user Alexhophotography

MEDIA ROOTS – For two weeks every July, elite diplomats, oil executives, U.S. presidential hopefuls, Ivy League Presidents, media CEOs, and other members of the .01% carouse together at a secluded Redwood camp out called the Bohemian Grove in Monte Rio, CA. 

The Bohemian Club of San Francisco hosts the powerful soiree, where the rich and powerful network, give talks, discuss policy and drink heavily. Regrettably, like other closed door gatherings of the global elite, the public is largely ignorant of this annual meeting.

Aside from the heavy partying similar to how co-eds act on a Cancun vacations or Puerto Vallarta resorts, probably the most peculiar thing that happens at the Grove is the ‘Cremation of Care’ ceremony, where 50 men in monk robes ritualistically sacrifice a life size coffin effigy to a giant 40 foot owl called ‘Molock.’

Media Roots and RT’s Abby Martin went to find out if people in DC know about the Bohemian Grove:

Bohemian Grove: Orgy of Power for the Ruling Elite

The Occupy Wall Street movement and those who protest the Bohemian Grove share some stark commonalities.  Both are justifiably concerned that an elite group of men make political and economic decisions behind closed doors, without due transparency.  Both are justifiably concerned that police in riot gear – who themselves belong to the 99% – go against their own socioeconomic interests when guarding the power structure of the elite.  Finally, both OWS and Bohemian Grove protestors are outraged that money purchases political power, and those without wealth consequently have no voice in the U.S. political process.  To counteract the ‘Cremation of Care’ ritual, protesters held a ‘Creation of Care’ ceremony to show how they want the Grove’s policy makers to care about the impact made by their policies, not burn them away.  Abby’s interviews with women and men from Occupy the Bohemian Grove protest shed light on these common concerns:

 Occupy Protesters Take on the Bohemian Grove

The Bohemian Grove highlights a glaring problem within the U.S. political system: elites meet in secret and deliberate policy behind closed doors, with no transparency, away from the electorate.  As the Occupy Wall Street and Occupy Bohemian Grove movements acknowledge, our own ignorance and idleness allows these activities to continue unabated.  Only through an engaged and informed citizenry can we create an equitable future together where our political representatives works to serve the interests of the community, not themselves.  Even though this year’s Bohemian Grove meeting is already half over, the questions it raises persist:

Abby Martin gives a wrap up of the weekend’s events from Oakland, CA

 Written by Christian Sorensen and Abby Martin

***

 Photo by Flickr User Laser Burners 

MEDIA ROOTS – Luke Rudkowski of WeAreChange and I got the chance to confront Senator Rand Paul about some of the questions thousands of his supporters have about his endorsement for Presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Luke spots the Senator walking outside and questions him about his endorsement, just days after Mitt was spotted at the Bilderberg Group, according to the London Guardian. He also brings up his previous interview he had with pre-Senate Paul where Paul said that the Bilderberg Group had malintentions and that Goldman Sachs should be audited.  Romney has received over half a million dollars from Goldman Sachs for his 2012 campaign. I then follow up inside the Senate building and ask him why he is supporting a candidate that endorses all the policies Rand claims he is against.

Abby

***

Rand Paul Confronted about Romney Endorsement

***

MEDIA ROOTS – Daniel Klaidman, former editor for Newsweek magazine, recently produced a slick and pandering ‘anti-war’, pro-drone, pro-Obama video on the ‘liberal’ website The Daily Beast.  The segment insinuated that Muslims in Pakistan are grateful for US drone strikes, even when they kill innocent people.  

A portion of the clip humanizes drone operators, saying that sometimes they linger for hours, even days, to make sure they have the right target, illustrating how in one instance an operator waited until a father was finished playing with a child before bombing him to death. Interestingly enough, other reports show the exact opposite–that drones actually target innocent people, and mourners of the dead.  Not only do the strikes target innocent civilians, but the reason the administration can tout such low civilian casualties from the strikes is because they automatically consider every military aged male in a strike region to be a combatant.

The video also makes the claim that tribal Muslims fear the Pakistani ‘anti al-Qaeda’ tactics far more than they do US drones.  Klaidman must have missed the petition from Pakistani families filed early this year pleading for the US to halt drone warfare in their country.

In this new Orwellian era, where black is white and up is down, a video production style normally reserved for Robert Greenwald, a prolific anti-war filmmaker (who also seems to have softened his approach towards Obama as compared to Bush), with a dash of video music artist Michel Gondry, has been employed to promote the idea of robotic ‘targeted assassinations’.  Overall message from this piece of propaganda: C’mon guys, just trust the President and let him do his job! He’s a good guy who means well, just like you and me!  Forget about the eradication of habeus corpus or that old fashioned concept of “proving” guilt before murdering groups of people and calling it a day.

Written by Robbie and Abby Martin

***

Pro-Drone Propaganda on the Daily Beast

***

Abby Martin reports on Klaidman’s pro-drone video on RT TV

***

SALON – How is it remotely justifiable — using the standards of “objective journalism” that these media outlets incessantly invoke — for Newsweek to produce a video that has little purpose other than to justify, glorify, and defend Obama’s drone attacks on other countries? Is this not one of the most glaring examples ever demonstrating that “objective journalists” like Newsweek‘s Daniel Klaidman are barred from expressing opinions — unless the opinion expressed is that the actions of the U.S. Government are justified and noble? That’s why Chris Hedges was forced out of The New York Times for opposing the attack on Iraq while John Burns was venerated and made the chief war correspondent after he supported that attack: opinions are perfectly permissible from American journalists only to the extent that they defend official actions. In what conceivable way is it the proper role of Newsweek and its national security “reporters” to produce melodramatic agitprop which vigorously takes the U.S. Government’s side in ongoing, highly divisive political controversies?

Then there’s the content itself. Klaidman (now in the midst of promoting his new book based on ample access generously providedby Obama officials) pretends to speak on behalf of — or to read the minds of — drone opponents by claiming that what really motivates opposition is the weapon’s unique “pinpoint” precision, its “almost supernatural effectiveness.” Actually, what motivates opposition are totally different and very significant facts that Klaidman completely ignores because it would spoil the creepy and uplifting message of that video — Embrace the drone. Love the drone. Become one with the drone — little things like this (“Obama terror drones: CIA tactics in Pakistan include targeting rescuers and funerals”), and this (“The boy, 16, sitting with me in these photos was protesting against deadly US drone strikes… Three days later he was killed – by a US drone, says Jemima Khan”), and this (“Anwar al-Awlaki’s family speaks out against his [16-year-old American] son’s death in airstrike”), and this (“In Yemen, U.S. airstrikes breed anger, and sympathy for al-Qaeda”), and this (Obama administration “counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants”)

Continue Reading Glenn Greenwald At Salon.