ALERT: Agenda 21 to Gel into Global Control, Mid 2013

By: Arlen Williams
Gulag Bound

The following is an email alert from Sovereignty activist Rosa Koire, on the rapid advancement of Agenda 21 in American neighborhoods and around the world.

You are witnessing a plan that is taking place all across the United States NOW.  It has many names but it’s the same plan. UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development: Sustainable Cities Strategy.  It is a regional plan that creates unelected boards of elected officials who are engaged in erasing the boundaries between cities, counties, and states.  You are losing your ability to influence your government policies at the same time that you are being solicited for your opinion. It’s a tactic to placate you. This is the Delphi method of manipulating groups and controlling populations that may protest. By 2050, or sooner, there will be 11 Mega-Regions in the United States that include parts of Mexico and Canada.  Local and state boundaries and jurisdictions will be dissolved. This is not a delusional rant.

This is a fact.  Go to www.America2050.org

What are these plans called?  Your government is using similar names for all of these plans and they are all the same: Regional.  They are being rolled out NOW.  The adoption date is MID-2013.  ALL OVER THE US.  Most of us are unaware that the plan we are fighting is the same plan, with minor variations, being imposed in the name of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, expanding public transportation, and funding low-income housing.  All plans include Smart Growth–high density housing with restrictions on personal space and car usage.  All plans support high speed trains–the building block of Mega-Regions.  All plans give power to regional transportation and planning boards (MPOs and COGs) through federal and state fund disbursements.  In all plans housing and transportation are now linked.  In all plans population projections are hugely inflated.  All plans will go forward as planned.  This is a planning revolution.

Here are just a few plans around the country using the word “VISION” a UN Agenda 21 buzz word.  Other plan names use variants on the sustainability jargon.  There are thousands of these plans and they all have a goal of transformation–a jargon term for destruction.

  • One Valley One Vision (you’ll find this in Santa Clarita Valley,
    CA; Montana; and Dona  Ana County / Las Cruces New Mexico
  • Nine Counties, One Vision (Tennessee)
  • One Region One Vision (New York, and Indiana)
  • Our Florida Our Visio
  • One Bay Area (SF Bay Area–9 counties)
  • Six Towns One Vision (Lycoming County)
  • Five Counties One Vision (Minnesota)
  • Four States One Vision (Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, Kansas)

We need to use civil disobedience.  Refuse to accept these plans. They are not YOUR plan.  They are destroying our government and installing a new regime.  This is UN Agenda 21 / Sustainable Development / ICLEI.  Educate yourself and others.  This is war.  Join us at Democrats Against UN Agenda 21 in fighting for our freedom.

Not on our watch.
Awareness is the first step in the Resistance.
Action is the second step.

Rosa Koire, ASA
Executive Director
Post Sustainability Institute

We learned of this email from Dr. Eowyn of Fellowship of the Minds.

For critical further learning about Agenda 21, you may click that Gulag Bound tag. We suggest not just scrolling but paging down through the article titles. In them one will find “How Marxofascism is Being Systematically Implemented in American Neighborhoods,” including a key video by Ms. Koire.

Please look for those involved in your local Tea Party, and in economic development, zoning, and planning in your community or rural area. Also we recommend attending your municipal and county government council meetings and asking them questions. Time is very critical, this is late in the game.


CNN’s Zakaria Papers Over Mass Murder

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

Fareed Zakaria of CNN has written a column for The Washington Post that serves as an excuse for letting Iran develop and acquire nuclear weapons. MJ Rosenberg, Senior Foreign Policy Fellow at Media Matters Action Network and contributor to Al-Jazeera, was absolutely ecstatic, saying Zakaria had done “a terrific job destroying some arguments for war with Iran,” and that he had done so by “citing history.” But Zakaria’s “history lesson” gets an “F.”

Touting the theory of mutually assured destruction, which prevented the U.S. and the Soviet Union from annihilating one another with nuclear weapons, Zakaria suggested that Iran could be deterred from using nuclear weapons. He quoted Gideon Rose, the editor of Foreign Affairs magazine, as saying that deterrence “is less disastrous than preventive war.” Rose is a former National Security Council official in the Clinton Administration and a prominent official of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Zakaria said that “While the Iranian regime is often called crazy, it has done much less to merit the term than did a regime such as Mao’s China. Over the past decade, there have been thousands of suicide bombings by Saudis, Egyptians, Lebanese, Palestinians and Pakistanis, but not been a single suicide attack by an Iranian.”

This is deceptive to the point of dishonesty. Why would he go back in history to the time of Mao’s China, but only examine suicide bombings over the last ten years?

The answer is that the facts about Iranian suicide bombings do suggest a craziness on the part of the regime. The strange formulation of “over the past decade” enabled him to ignore the fact that, on October 23, 1983, Iran ordered and carried out the suicide bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon, killing 241 American military personnel. An Iranian drove the car bomb into the barracks.

I attended and covered the 2003 trial in which the detailed evidence of the Iranian role in this bombing was presented in detail.

As I reported for AIM at the time, the trial involved a case brought against Iran by attorneys Steven Perles and Thomas Fortune Fay on behalf of the families of the Marines who were killed. Under a U.S. law passed in 1996, victims of terrorism can sue state sponsors of terrorism and collect damages from the assets that the terrorist regime may hold in the U.S.

The trial featured a videotaped deposition of a former terrorist insider named “Mahmoud,” who described in detail how Iran ordered the terrorists to attack the U.S. Marines and French troops in Lebanon, and revealed that the driver of the truck carrying the bomb was himself an Iranian.

In a videotaped deposition, former CIA officer Robert Baer testified that there was no doubt, based on the best intelligence information, that Iran was behind it. Baer said this bombing, and a previous bombing of the U.S. embassy in Beirut, Lebanon, were “acts of war.”

Dr. Reuven Paz of Israel testified via videotape that before the Marine barracks bombing Israel had intercepted a message from the government of Iran to its Ambassador in Syria, calling for military attacks on the foreign forces in Lebanon, including the Americans. Paz, who worked for the Israeli security service known as Shin Bet, said the intercepted message was provided to the CIA.

Admiral James Lyons, who was Deputy Chief of Naval Operations at the time, testified that he received a copy of the message, which described the need for a “spectacular action” against the Marines. But he received the message two days after the bombing.

Sergeant Steve Russell, who was guarding the embassy on that fateful day, said he had been warned about a possible car bombing of the barracks literally hours before it happened. He warned others, and stayed alert. But, as a “peacekeeper” under restrictive rules of engagement, he carried an unloaded gun and the compound was surrounded only by concertina wire. The car bomber drove through all of this into the barracks.

This evidence was accepted by U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth, who found Iran liable for billions of dollars in damages.

Not only did Zakara ignore all of this, he stated previously, in a Newsweek article, that “Iranians aren’t suicidal.” This seems to be a common theme of his, in order to justify a do-nothing approach to the Iranians developing nuclear weapons. He wants us to believe that the regime can be rational and calm.

Ironically, the article carried the title, “Everything You Know About Iran Is Wrong.”

The author of The Post-American World, Zakaria seems eager to usher in this state of affairs by permitting the rise of dangerous regimes such as Iran with nuclear capability. Interestingly, Obama was photographed in 2008 carrying a copy of Zakaria’s book.

Frighteningly, his bio promotes Zakaria as “the most influential foreign policy adviser of his generation” and one of the top 100 global thinkers in 2010. Not surprisingly, he addresses hedge fund billionaire George Soros, funder of Media Matters and other left-wing causes, on a first name basis as “George.”

In a February 2011 interview that covered Iran and other issues, Zakaria asked Soros about the survival of the Iranian regime, which was being challenged by pro-democracy demonstrators. Soros said he was “convinced that the regime will not survive.”

Zakaria asked if the U.S. could do anything to challenge the regime internally. Soros replied, “I think Obama did actually there also a very good job by refusing to get involved and to be instigating regime change. This—this attempt to impose a regime change from the outside is counterproductive, because then the regime can accuse its opponents as being in the pay of a—of a foreign power, right?”

Zakaria replied: “Right.”

Not only has the regime survived, but there are numerous reports that Iran is preparing to use suicide-bomb boats to disrupt shipping in the Gulf.

However, Zakaria assures us that the Iranians are not crazy and don’t engage in such things—at least over the last decade.

Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected].



FEB. 17, 2012 (Kensington, MD) – With today’s arrest of a suspected suicide bomber at the nation’s capital, it’s time for the federal government immediately strengthen the protection of Jewish synagogues, schools and other institutions in Montgomery County and the surrounding region, national security expert and Republican Congressional candidate Ken Timmerman said.

“This is not a time to wait and see,” said Timmerman. “I know the Iranian regime very well. They are dangerous and when they threaten openly to start a new wave of terrorism, as they are now doing, we have to be ready to stop them.”

Ken Timmerman is a candidate for the Republican nomination for Congress in Montgomery County. He has investigated terrorist networks worldwide and has pushed for stronger action against the Islamic Republic of Iran. Ken has worked with Iranian dissidents who want to win back their country and is an acknowledged expert on Iranian affairs.

“Given this latest attempted terrorist attack and the recent threats against Jews and Israelis emanating from Tehran, I think Jewish families in our area need special protection, just as New York City residents are now getting,” Timmerman said. “Montgomery County provides security for many of our government leaders, a number of whom are of the Jewish faith. They need to extend that to Jewish institutions, in particular synagogues and Jewish day schools,” Timmerman added.

“Ahmadinejad and the terrorist crowd around him must be laughing at our lack of preparedness. Stepping up police patrols and making sure the federal government shares time-sensitive intelligence with local law enforcement authorities is absolutely critical. It is our duty to take action now, before it’s too late.”

Timmerman has been endorsed by former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton; former CIA director R. James Woolsey; former Navy secretary and 9/11 commission member, John Lehman; former national counter-intelligence executive, Michelle VanCleave; former federal terrorism prosecutor, Andrew C. McCarthy, and a panel of respected national security professionals.

Timmerman For Congress


Will Exploding Gas Prices Extinguish Obama’s Reelection Bid?

By: Jeffrey Klein

The monumentous attention surrounding the extension of the so-called “Payroll Tax Holiday” and long-term federal unemployment benefits, along with the Medicare “doc fix” legislation, concluded today, when the measure was passed by both the House and Senate, according to an article in FOXNews this afternoon.

As President Obama has repeatedly stated, getting the payroll tax holiday extension was an election-year priority, because the extra $1,000 per year received by the average middle class worker earning $50,000 per year, is “critical” to our economic recovery–and presumably, his reelection.

Then using that as a benchmark of importance, President Obama and his reelection hopes are about to get run over by a gasoline tanker truck.


The cost of gasoline and diesel motor fuel have risen by 93% since his inauguration day, from $1.84 per gallon to $3.52 now, as reported in Doug McKelway’s FOXNews article today.

This has robbed each American family of about $2,000 of disposable income per year.

In relative family budget terms, fuel costs represent 6.9% today, versus only 3.6% in 2009, leading to a staggering reduction of 3.3% in disposable income.

To put this into perspective, the “Personal Savings Rate” in the U.S. tipped just over 2% of GDP at the turn of the century (1999-2000), but has since fallen off that mark to the point where for the past two years–it has been below zero.

As consumer spending represents 70% of the U.S. economy, when fuel costs decrease disposable income by an average of $2,000 per family, per year, for the 112 million family units living in the U.S., it extracts a dramatic total of about $224 billion per year from the economy.

Why is the cost of fuel rising in the U.S.?

Put succinctly, President Obama’s lack of a petroleum centric energy policy–recognizing that the United States runs on petroleum products to virtually the exclusion of anything else, and will continue to do so for decades–renders the U.S. reliant on foreign oil in large part, particularly from the middle east, to the tune of about 10 million barrels per day net of U.S. production.

Add to that, his completely shutting down gulf oil platform production and refusal to open up a microscopic portion of the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve and coastal areas for drilling, where “proven” reserves exist–versus the totally phony act of granting “exploration” leases on millions of acres of federal land with very questionable geological promise.

Finally, his recent second refusal to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline project from Canada–also cost the immediate creation of at least 20,000 high paying construction jobs.

One administration critic, Rory Cooper of the Heritage Foundation, suggests the present spike is unique. “President Obama over the last three years has done everything in his power to cripple the increase in domestic supply and production. Clearly, world markets are taking a look at that and keeping prices high in response to American energy policy.”

President Barack Obama’s obsession with “winning the future,” focusing time and losing vast sums of taxpayer money on alternative energy programs, will hopefully scuttle his current reelection bid.

Copyright (c) 2012 by Jeffrey Klein



By: Chad Kent
Chad Kent Speaks

The General Welfare Clause

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States…

The General Welfare Clause is one of the most distorted and misunderstood parts of the Constitution. A lot of people today – including the Supreme Court – will tell you that it grants the federal government a separate power to provide for the “general welfare of the United States.” In other words, that Congress has the authority to do whatever is in the best interests in the country.

It seems like common sense that no one who was trying to create a limited government would decide to give Congress this kind of broad, unrestricted power. Despite that, this can be a tricky topic to debate. To help you the next time you have to explain the obvious to someone, I’ve prepared a crash course for you on the General Welfare Clause.

Below is an explanation of the meaning of the General Welfare Clause, along with four reasons why is simply cannot be a separate grant of power – all broken down into individual arguments that you can use.

What does the General Welfare Clause mean?

– This clause has two parts – a power and a purpose. The first half grants the power to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises”. The second half gives the purpose that this power is to be used for – “to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare.”

“Is this an independent, separate, substantive power, to provide for the general welfare of the United States? No, sir. They can lay and collect taxes, etc. For what? To pay the debts and provide for the general welfare. Were this not the case, the following clause would be absurd. It would have been treason against common language.”

Edmund Randolph, June 15, 1788

– The General Welfare Clause is actually a restriction on Congress rather than a grant of broader power. It is a clarification that the power to lay taxes, etc is to be used for the general welfare (the good of the whole country) rather than the specific welfare (a certain state, region, group, etc.).

– In other situations in life, the meaning of a clause like this would be obvious. For example, imagine that parent leaves a note for his teenage son that reads:

“You have permission to use the car keys and the $20 that are laying on the table, go to the football game and have a good time. ”

It’s pretty clear that the son is being given permission to use the keys and the money for the purpose of going to the football game. No one in their right mind would argue that “have a good time” is a separate grant of permission for the boy to do whatever he thought would be fun. But the way that the General Welfare Clause is currently interpreted would be like the son in this example going to an all night drinking party and then claiming, “But you said I had permission to have a good time!”

Why grant specific powers if there is a grant of “general” power?

The Founders put a lot of time and effort into deciding exactly which powers would be granted to the new federal government. It makes absolutely no sense to waste all that time on specifics if they were just going to turn around and grant the government the virtually unlimited power to provide for the general welfare.

James Madison made the same point:

“But may it not be asked with infinitely more propriety, and without the possibility of a satisfactory answer, why, if the terms were meant to embrace not only all the powers particularly expressed, but the indefinite power which has been claimed under them, the intention was not so declared? why, on that supposition, so much critical labour was employed in enumerating the particular powers, and in defining and limiting their extent?”

James Madison, Nov. 27, 1830

If it is a separate power this clause creates unlimited government power

– Creating a limited federal government was one of the central purposes for writing the Constitution. But granting the authority to provide for the general welfare would have resulted in a government of unlimited power.

We can now see for ourselves that this is true. The Supreme Court has decided that this clause does grant the power to provide for the general welfare – because of that most of our public officials believe that the General Welfare Clause justifies anything they want to do. Can you think of one area of your life that current members of Congress don’t feel is their business?

“If the clause, “to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States,” is construed to be an independent and substantive grant of power, it not only renders wholly unimportant and unnecessary the subsequent enumeration of specific powers; but it plainly extends far beyond them, and it creates a general authority in congress to pass all laws, which they may deem for the common defence or general welfare. Under such circumstances, the constitution would practically create an unlimited national government.”

Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution

– Can you think of a law that couldn’t be justified under a power to whatever is in the best interests of the country?

“[F]or what is the case that would not be embraced by a general power to raise money, a power to provide for the general welfare, and a power to pass all laws necessary and proper to carry these powers into execution […] Can less be said, with the evidence before us furnished by the journal of the Convention itself, than that it is impossible that such a Constitution as the latter would have been recommended to the States by all the members of that body whose names were subscribed to the instrument?”

James Madison, Nov. 27, 1830

– If the intent of the Founders was to create a limited federal government, then granting a power to provide for the general welfare wouldn’t have just been a mistake – it would have completely defeated the purpose of writing a Constitution in the first place. They were far to intelligent to do something nonsensical like this.

As a separate grant of power this clause would be inconsistent with the rest of the Constitution

– The 10th Amendment states that:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution […] are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

If the General Welfare Clause is interpreted the way it is today and means that the federal government has the power to do what’s in the best interests of the country, this amendment makes no sense. Apparently – based on that interpretation – four years after the Constitution was written the Founders felt the need to pass an amendment to make sure everyone knows that the states have the power to do everything that’s not in the general welfare of the country. So… the states have the authority to do whatever is bad for the country. (On second thought, it may explain a lot about California and Illinois…)

– Nowhere else in life do we take one phrase out of over 7,000 words and assume it has a meaning that completely contradicts the rest of the document. The entire Constitution was written to carefully limit the power and scope of the government. So it is completely illogical to interpret the General Welfare Clause as granting the authority to do whatever is in the best interests of the country.

“On the other hand, construing this clause in connexion with, and as a part of the preceding clause, giving the power to lay taxes, it becomes sensible and operative. It becomes a qualification of that clause, and limits the taxing power to objects for the common defence or general welfare. It then contains no grant of any power whatsoever; but it is a mere expression of the ends and purposes to be effected by the preceding power of taxation.”

Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution

None of the Founders objected to this clause

– The authority to provide for the general welfare would have been a massive grant of power to the federal government. Yet somehow, none of the Founders objected to the General Welfare Clause during the Constitutional Convention:

“That the terms in question were not suspected in the Convention which formed the Constitution of any such meaning as has been constructively applied to them, may be pronounced with entire confidence; for it exceeds the possibility of belief, that the known advocates in the Convention for a jealous grant and cautious definition of Federal powers should have silently permitted the introduction of words or phrases in a sense rendering fruitless the restrictions and definitions elaborated by them.”

James Madison, Nov. 27, 1830

– The states – many of which were concerned about being overrun by the power of the new federal government – didn’t object either. Of all the 189 amendments that were suggested to be a part of the new Bill of Rights, none of them mentioned the General Welfare Clause:

“Here are a majority of the States proposing amendments, in one instance thirty-three by a single State; all of them intended to circumscribe the powers granted to the General Government, by explanations, restrictions, or prohibitions, without including a single proposition from a single State referring to the terms common defence and general welfare; which, if understood to convey the asserted power, could not have failed to be the power most strenuously aimed at, because evidently more alarming in its range than all the powers objected to put together; and that the terms should have passed altogether unnoticed by the many eyes which saw the danger in terms and phrases employed in some of the most minute and limited of the enumerated powers, must be regarded as a demonstration that it was taken for granted that the terms were harmless, because explained and limited, as in the “Articles of Confederation,” by the enumerated powers which followed them.”

James Madison, Nov. 27, 1830


Glenn Beck and the Death of Free Speech

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

Fox News has aired several interviews with Daily Caller editors and reporters on the influence of Media Matters, the Soros-funded left-wing attack machine. A series of articles in The Daily Caller sheds new light on the operations of the group, which masquerades as a non-profit but has partisan political ties to the Obama White House and the Democratic Party. Unfortunately, the interviews failed to touch on the most visible example of Media Matters working its will on the media—the sacking of Glenn Beck from Fox News.

One can imagine that this is a sensitive topic at Fox News.

It is even more sensitive in view of what News Corporation, the parent of Fox News, is doing to its staff at the British newspaper, The Sun. As part of an internal investigation of phone-hacking and bribery, News Corporation voluntarily turned over information to police authorities.

Sun associate editor Trevor Kavanagh reports that “30 journalists have been needlessly dragged from their beds in dawn raids, arrested and held in police cells while their homes are ransacked.” He said journalists were being treated like members of a criminal gang and that freedom of the press was in danger.

If News Corporation chief Rupert Murdoch would turn over his own journalists to authorities in Britain, why wouldn’t he sack Glenn Beck in response to an orchestrated campaign from George Soros and his operatives at Media Matters?

Beck has himself talked about Soros operatives making threats against his people, while a private investigator who interviewed News Corporation personnel confirmed some of them were living in fear. The channel was told to discontinue its probes into Soros and his financial interests.

When Beck left the channel and started GBTV on the Internet, a statement was issued that Beck and Fox would continue working on projects together. Nothing happened in this regard, although Beck has made some occasional appearances on the channel.

Commenting on The Daily Caller series and other reports, John Hudson of the Atlantic Wire writes, “The leftward shift or ‘course correction’ at Fox News in recent months could have several explanations but a pair of reports in Politico and The Daily Caller give credit to the cable network’s mortal enemy: Media Matters for America. It’s a thesis that Media Matters would gladly tout and Fox News would vehemently deny, but it comes as viewer complaints accumulate that the network is embracing a more mainstream conservatism compared with its previous embrace of Glenn Beck.”

The Daily Caller reported, “Glenn Beck, the former Fox News Channel host, drew the ire of a wide spectrum of liberal groups while his program aired nationally. But according to several people who watched the process from the inside, it was Media Matters that orchestrated much of the opposition to Beck.”

It quoted a former staffer as saying that the left-wing group Color of Change, co-founded by former White House “green jobs” czar Van Jones, received much of the credit for pressuring advertisers to drop their sponsorship of Beck’s show. But The Daily Caller said that in fact “Media Matters developed the campaign that cowed Beck’s sponsors” and provided a $200,000 grant to Citizen Engagement Laboratory, Color of Change’s parent group, to campaign against Beck.

Beck had exposed Jones on the air as a self-described communist engaged in anti-police and 9/11 “truth” activities. This led to his forced resignation from the Obama Administration. Thus, Jones had a vendetta against Fox.

George Soros, who was being subjected to scrutiny by Beck on his popular Fox News Channel program, had a vendetta as well. He personally gave $1 million to Media Matters to neutralize Beck and the conservative message of Fox News.

What has been the result? Complete success on the part of Media Matters and the Soros machine.

Number one—Beck is gone, replaced by a show, “The Five,” that includes Democratic Party operative Bob Beckel. Number two—Fox News now has two paid left-wing feminists on the air, Sally Kohn and Jehmu Greene, both graduates of Jane Fonda’s Women’s Media Center. And number three—it’s being reported that Fox News is developing a new program to be hosted by Greene called “The Greene Room.”

Greene ran the ACORN front-group Project Vote. ACORN whistleblower Anita Moncrief calls her the Fox News “infiltrator.”

What’s more, News Corporation chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch is now quoting Soros approvingly in regard to his economic thinking. Murdoch’s favorable tweet about Soros followed a flattering story about the hedge fund billionaire in The Wall Street Journal, another property of News Corporation.

The handwriting is on the wall. The “course correction” at the channel is being conducted at the direction, or with the approval, of Rupert Murdoch himself. But as Politico recently reported in a fairly comprehensive story by Keach Hagey, conservatives are definitely not happy with it. A Western Center for Journalism poll found that some 70 percent of conservatives thought the channel had moved to the left.

The issue, however, goes beyond the destruction of Fox News as a reliable conservative voice to the future of News Corporation. Rupert Murdoch has to be commended for bringing conservative news and information to people on a world-wide basis, with the Fox News Channel in the U.S. being the most visible manifestation of this.

But News Corporation’s own Wall Street Journal is reporting that the pressure on the company from the hacking and bribery investigation in Britain is mounting in the U.S., as the Obama/Holder Justice Department is also seriously looking at corruption charges against the media giant.

It appears that throwing Beck to the wolves didn’t stop the onslaught against News Corporation from powerful political interests. In short, the liberal/left may see an opportunity not only to take down Fox News but the whole company. Murdoch seems to think that throwing more journalists to the wolves is his way to avoid being eaten himself.

In a statement, News Corporation says it cooperated with the British Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) in “a review” of The Times, The Sun and The Sunday Times, which are part of News International, the main UK subsidiary of News Corporation. It said the Management and Standards Committee (MSC) of the company “gave the MPS every assistance during the searches of News International premises while ensuring that all appropriate steps were taken to protect legal and journalistic privilege.” The statement added that “immediate legal representation” was offered to those arrested and that “News Corporation will continue to give its total support to the continued work of the MSC and to ensure that legitimate journalism is vigorously pursued in both the public interest and in full compliance with the law.”

But as we saw with the ouster of Glenn Beck, “legitimate journalism” that affects powerful political interests can be sacrificed when it is convenient to do so.

Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected].


When They Came

When they came after…

The smokers and I said, “I don’t smoke.” So I did nothing.

The drinkers and I said, “I don’t drink.” So I did nothing.

The gun owners and I said, “I don’t own a gun.” So I did nothing.

Fast food and I said, “I don’t eat that stuff.” So I did nothing.

Then they went after the Jews and I said, “I am not a Jew, so I am safe.” So I did nothing.

Today they came after me. So I yelled, “I didn’t do anything!” And now it’s too late.

Gerald E. Loeffers Jr. 2/16/2012