Off The Grid News Better Ideas For Off The Grid Living
|
Listen To The Article
|
On this week’s episode of Off The Grid News Radio, host Brian Brawdy talks to The New American investigative reporter William F. Jasper, who believes the United States probably still will attack Syria.
Of course, that’s not the conventional wisdom, nor what the mainstream media has been reporting.
Jasper believes the Obama administration has not backtracked, and he explains by he believes the visit to the US by Iran President Hassan Rouhani ended up with a secret American-Iranian deal, ensuring that Iran won’t retaliate if the US attacks Syria. But will Russia and China intrude? Jasper gives his thoughts on that, too.
Off The Grid Radio
Ep177
Released: October 4, 2013
Brian: Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to Off The Grid News; the radio version of offthegridnews.com. I’m Brian Brawdy, sitting in today for Mr. Bill Heid and I have to tell you it’s an honor to be able to speak with our guest today. Terribly busy, we only have him for a half of the hour; but we’re going to be joined today—and I want to read you his bio. I mean talk about someone with their fingers on the pulse; someone in the know. Our guest today joined the staff of the John Birch Society way back in 1976 as a researcher. And soon became the contributing editor to the Society’s magazines, American Opinion and The Review of the News. When those publications merged in 1985 to become the magazine we all know and love, The New American, our guest continued to serve as a writer and contributing editor until 1990 when he was promoted to the position of Senior Editor, and I’m also learning now an investigative reporter accredited as a correspondent in the UN. Over the past three decades our guest has researched and written extensively on foreign and domestic politics, terrorism, national security, education, immigration, constitutional issues; I could take up the whole 30 minutes just reading you everything he’s done. He’s the author of the 2001 book The United Nations Exposed and also the 1992 book—here’s one I really like, The Global Tyranny Step by Step: The United Nations and the Emerging New World Order. Of course I’m talking about William F. Jasper. Bill, good morning, sir. How are you?
Bill: Doing well. Thank you so much.
Brian: Oh good golly, I could go on and on and on with everything you’ve done and every place you’ve been but I guess we’ll start by telling everyone you were born just north of our border. You were born in Madison, Wisconsin. So it’s nice to talk to someone that’s at least way back—way back when from the area.
Bill: Yep. Born in what unfortunately after I left became the People’s Republic of Madison.
Brian: Fair enough. So, Bill, I was saying in the introduction that with everything that you’ve covered and all the different topics that you’ve, as an investigative journalist, that you’ve given some great insightful analysis to over the years, it’s great to have you for 30 minutes today. How about we just give you your top three or four things and we’ll kind of let you rif? What is it our listeners need to know?
Bill: Well, gee. You know, there’s so many things that are important. Of course everyone’s concerned about the economy and the government shutdown and Obama Care. We could talk about that. But everybody’s also worried about, although for the last couple of weeks everybody’s kind of breathed a sigh of relief and thought, “Oh, well we’re not going to go into yet another war in Syria.” But actually it looks like the administration is preparing to do just that and has moved some chess players in order to bring that about. So but the upcoming unconstitutional and unapproved of and 90% of the American people against the war in Syria, a war on Syria, and it looks like it’s still a go. So I think we should talk briefly about that.
Another major thing that we’ve been writing about for many years and opposing is the vast new investments by the People’s Republic of China, still a Communist country ruled by the—they just had their latest Communist Party Congress and reaffirmed their commitment to Mao’s principles and they have been putting—buying up American corporations and stakes in American corporations and in the past couple of weeks really moving into our food chain, which should be of concern to consumers out there. And there’s many other things on the economic, national security and social plains that we might jump into if you want to, if we have time.
Brian: That sounds great. I would like to go over all of those. So let’s just take it from the top. Let’s talk a little bit about Syria and how you see that playing out. I mean most of our listeners, obviously, are going to have an opinion that to a major degree dovetails with yours, Bill. But maybe if I could ask you by starting off, tell us something we don’t know.
Bill: Well, first of all many of the listeners may have seen that last week Hassan Rouhani, the president—newly elected president of Iran, came to the United States and he spoke at the Council on Foreign Relations, the CFR; was introduced by Richard Hoff, the president of the CFR, and all of the high and the mighty, the great and the good were there and then he was featured in the Washington Post and much of the other media. Now this is a very big breakthrough and how does that relate to Syria? Well, Iran has been Syria’s main protector, supplier, mentor for the past 30 years and so going into Syria one of the things that much of our military and intelligence buzz had been questioning and challenging the president on was “Hey, you know, if we go into Syria we’re going to open up not only the possibility of attacks by Iran on us, but by Iran and Syria on Israel as well.” So the visit by Hassan Rouhani to the United States may actually have been a deal maker to make sure that Iran does not respond to U.S. invasion of attacks on Syria. And that was in tandem with over the last couple of weeks before that the administration’s negotiations at the UN and at the G20 summit, with China and Russia, who are also the main suppliers, protectors, trainers of Syria’s forces and have been for the last 20-some years. So, they both – Beijing and Moscow – have backtracked on their earlier opposition to inspections, UN inspections in Syria, and have made more muted their opposition to a U.S. armed intervention.
So, now that Iran, Russia and China have been mollified or bought off with various deal making that went on – oil pipelines, etc. – the fourth piece in the puzzle was the election two weeks ago of Angela Miracle in Germany, the reelection for the third time. It was a very historic election in Germany and Angela Miracle is the most powerful, well, Forbes puts her as the most powerful woman in the world. The second most powerful person in the world, politically, and she’s definitely the power in Europe now, in the E.U. Germany, by virtue of its economy size wealth is still one of the major powers not just now in the main one in the E.U. but a major power in the UN, World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the G5, the G8 and the G20. And so it was very important to various globalist insiders to have Angela Miracle reelected. She has been the biggest promoter of the unification of Europe. She has been batting down most of the opposition within Germany, France and England, who have been pushing for exiting the Euro and exiting the E.U. So she was a major factor in pushing through the Lisbon Treaty, which was the European constitution that had been rejected by voters. The Lisbon Treaty was basically the same thing. The constitution imposed by treaty. And she was the key person that got that in. So they wanted to make sure she was reelected and she couldn’t come out in favor of the war before the election, because it would have ensured her defeat. So now that she has been safely reelected, she has been moving Germany in favor of the Syrian conflict. So, I think that we are, right now, very much in position to see Obama push forward with and attack on Syria, which would put us into yet another war with Afghanistan still going on and with our forces scattered in dozens of other countries all over the world. So Syria is very much a major concern at this point.
Brian: So, Bill, hanging out with you and learning some of these things is you’re like a giant Rubik’s cube, in that you take all these different disparate colors and you keep turning the cube, turning the cube, turning the cube so that our listeners have a chance to see how all these things are lining up. As you see that and you think of – I like to think of it as the charm offensive – we had President Putin from Russia reaching out and writing an editorial. Then we had interviews with Iranian leaders speaking to the people of the United States and the like. Talk to me a little bit about the charm offensive, and how that either supports or takes away from what you were just telling us.
Bill: Well, on both of those examples that you just gave, it’s very much part of a charm offensive. Let’s drop back to Iran again for a second. In 1979, Jimmy Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski, his national security advisor in his state department, essentially tossed the Shah of Iran out of Iran, our most strategic ally in the whole Middle East there. The most progressive – in the true sense of the word – Islamic leader in the Islamic world, and replaced them with Ayatollah Khomeini, who was a fanatical (inaudible 11:43) Muslim. Very friendly to the Soviet Union, and established the first terrorist regime there with the Islamic Republican guards, supporting (inaudible 12:00) and the PLO, virtually all the terrorist organizations set up world headquarters in Tehran. So we saw a flip from a staunch ally to one of our most (inaudible 12:12) enemies allied with the Soviet Union. So Tehran has been a (inaudible 12:22) regime, to us, ever since. And a couple of times, over the years, however, because of their (inaudible 12:32) and sanctions against them, their economy has been very badly hurt and they have tried several times a charm offensive to say, “Oh, we’re different now. We want to be friends.” President (inaudible 12:47) was one of the early ones, here just about 10 years ago, when they tried the same thing.
But now President Rabbani has come forward and we see everybody referring to him as a moderate. Well, what you aren’t told in most of the media accounts of Rabbani is that he was a right-hand man to Ayatollah Khomeini clear back in 1979. He was with him in exile in France before he went back to Iran. If you look in the photos of Ayatollah Khomeini right after he took over Iran and he’s there in Tehran, you see Rabbani sitting right there at his right hand. And now that Ayatollah Khomeini died, he was replaced by Ayatollah Khamenei, same appearance and everything, and ideology, and Ayatollah Khamenei is the supreme leader of Iran. He is the religious leader and the secular leader of Iran. The dictator. And the president is really a ceremonial foreign policy ruse. The president is essentially appointed by Khamenei and the revolutionary council there. All of the “candidates” for president had to be approved by Khamenei, so there were six that were approved, all of whom were hardcore revolutionaries with a history going back to the earliest days of the revolution there. All of the real moderates were excluded. They were put in prison, they were persecuted or they’ve been run out of the country. And so all of the real moderates that tried to run were forbidden, in one way or another. So Rabbani now has simply changed his turban. He’s also a (inaudible 14:53) as well as a secular politician, and he has now adopted a smiley face and comes to the United States and we’re supposed to believe that now he’s a good guy.
Pretty much the same for Putin. He’s been a Soviet KGB man all his life. Then they changed the name of the KGB to the SFB and he brought all his former KGB guys into the government. Far more now than at any time in Soviet history, there’s a higher percentage of KGB officers serving in all top areas of the government than at any time under Stalin or Lennon. So, we see Putin putting on the smiley face and acting real moderate, as you pointed out, on the pages of New York Times. New York Times gave him an op/ed piece and in there he was calling on President Obama not to go into Syria. I agreed with most of what he had to say there, but it’s very interesting that things have been maneuvered such that now the United States is the war monger, going all over the world, dropping bombs and killing people with drones, etc., and we have a bloody handed KGB leader posing as the prince of peace, calling upon the United States, “Let’s not rush into this.” So, we’re seeing the whole world turned upside down in many of these events.
Brian: And then, Bill, I know way back when both of your books were printed and they continue to be so today as really the most authoritative and detailed exposes written about the UN. As we talk about Miracle, as we talk about Putin, we talk about all these other countries, are they dovetailing, and can we kind of read the tea leaves about anything that the UN is doing and compare it to what these other world leaders are doing?
Bill: Well, yes. As a matter of fact, with regard to the situation in Syria, for instance. The UN now has come in. First of all, I should just drop back for a moment and not assume that all of your listeners would be familiar with the history of the United Nations, so I’ll just give you a real quick encapsulation. The United Nations was formed, remember, in 1945 at the San Francisco conference where the principle person in charge – the general secretary of the conference, and the man who put his main imprint on the charter of the United Nations – was State Department functionary (inaudible 17:58), who was a Soviet agent. He was working for Stalin, inside the Roosevelt administration. He was a Soviet agent. He was the one in charge of the UN conference, and Molotov and (inaudible 18:14) from the Soviet Union were working on it also. So the UN charter was completely a Soviet operation. In my book, I list all the people that Hist brought in from our government to work at the San Francisco conference and design the United Nations, and all of them who were Soviet agents, like Nathan Gregory Silvermaster, John Carter Vincent, Harry Dexter White. They were put in charge of various aspects of the United Nations, and it was not just a coincidence, then, that the United Nations charter mimicked the Soviet constitution in many ways. So, right from the start, the United Nations has been a Trojan horse in the United States. I’ve been accredited there as a reporter for about 30 years. They hate me there. They try to keep me out. They try to take my accreditation away. But, because when I go there or I go to UN conferences around the world, like the Rio Earth Summit or the International Criminal Court in Rome, or the Global Warming summit in Copenhagen, I don’t just repeat their rip and read press releases that the UN hands out, like most of the other reporters do. I don’t worship at the UN alter. That’s what most of the rest of the media choir there does.
So, anyway, what’s happened in the last couple of weeks is, it’s fallen according to plan. They’ve created, in Syria, a big problem. First of all the Soviets, and then following them the Russians, gave Assad all of these chemical weapons. His missiles and all of these things. Now it appears they have also been supplying the rebels. So they create a problem there. Our government jumps in and helps with the problem by giving all kinds of arms and aid to the rebels, most of which are very nasty people, as you’ve been seeing from all the atrocities and the beheadings and things they’ve been doing. And so neither of the dogs in that fight are on our side. Neither of them are going to be, in any way, beneficent allies or any kind of decent rulers for the people there. The rebels, which are a motley assortment of various terrorist groups, will probably be worse than Assad. So now the U.S. is probably going to go in there militarily. The UN will then take over and do peacemaking and we’ll end up with another UN (inaudible 21:16) there, and the UN’s stature will be enhanced. Everyone will say, “Gee, isn’t it wonderful that we have the United Nations, because we couldn’t have done all of this without the UN.” And right now, the major issue at the UN, that President Obama and Secretary Kerry have been carrying out – as you saw just this past week we’ve done several stories on it – pushing through the new UN Arms Trade Treaty. So, it’s very interesting when you stand back and look at it here, President Obama is saying the American people should not have the right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed under our constitution. And as we’ve had for over 200 years here. But at the same time, while he says American civilians should not have firearms, he’s giving automatic weapons, all kinds of sophisticated armament, guns, ammo, missiles, to Syrian rebels who are murdering people and persecuting Christians. So, it’s quite amazing. He doesn’t trust the American people with firearms, and he’s willing to violate the constitution by having Secretary Kerry sign this UN treaty to disarm civilian populations, and at the same time he’s rewarding some of the worst terrorist and human rights offenders with vast supplies of arms.
Brian: Bill, I have to ask you, because as I hear all these things, I guess the question – we only have a few minutes left because I promised we’d get you out by the top of the hour – but just how gullible do they think we are? I mean, over my years of doing this, I see everyone wants to blame (inaudible 23:13) but the bottom line, Bill, it’s folks like you and me that are to blame. It’s regular folks that keep buying what they hear in other sources of media. It’s regular folks that go, “Oh, thank goodness for the UN.” There are other folks that are reading these editorials in the New York Times or seeing these different interviews. Just how gullible do they think we are? Maybe a better question is, just how gullible are we as a people?
Bill: Well, unfortunately you’re exactly right. As the old adage goes, we get the government that we deserve. And for a long time, Americans were hostage to the major media. The MSM, the so called main stream media, which has all been centralized and controlled over the past century to where the major newspapers, the new services and the television and radio networks were all owned by a small (inaudible 24:16) of globalists, one-worlders, those who support the United Nations and movement toward a world government. We’ve particularly focused on one of the main organizations, the Council on Foreign Relations, which has been at the heart of all of these terrible developments in the United States, in domestic and foreign policy for over a century. However, in the past decade, particularly, but going back a decade and a half, with the advent of the internet, finally there was a technological breakthrough which allowed those of us who did not have access to the huge capital required for a mass media presence to break through and begin reaching millions of people around the world and around the country. So there is a huge difference right now, and we are seeing a vast awakening.
The real question, as it always has been, will the awakening be big enough, soon enough? I’m very heartened when I see all of the new media coming out, breaking through on stories that never used to break through. We’re able to break through. The New American is really a small, tiny news organization compared to still most of the major media. However, I’m very heartened that The New American is still being printed as a print magazine, but we publish probably 20 times as many stories on time. But we’re still publishing a print magazine. Meanwhile, Newsweek magazine has folded. U.S. News and World Report, most of the other print magazines have folded. The New York Times is on the ropes. The Washington Post is. All of these, the L.A. Times, many of the major newspapers have either folded or dropped most of their news and gone to entertainment tabloid style. So, we’re seeing many more people now reaching out to alternative media to get their news and to get their commentary. So that’s a very good thing.
Brian: And would you say then, Bill, when you think of The New American that a portion of it I would imagine great management, but could our listeners take away from the fact that you all are still in print and that your readership grows every month, can we take from that that it’s a part of the awakening? That in addition to great management, people are really starting to kind of shed some of the opaque and really starting to get their head back in the game?
Bill: Well, I think so, and we’ve been on the cutting edge of a lot of that. We’ve seen a lot of – thanks to shows like yours and many others – we’ve been able to reach out to a lot more people and let them know about things that they’re not getting that are either buried or completely suppressed in the major media. Yes, I think that is one of the things we saw in the past, a couple of Presidential election cycles, with Ron Paul’s break through on the fed and auditing the fed, which we’d never seen happen before. With the rise of the Tea Party and so many other populist groups like that that are just saying, “Hey, wait a second. This old paradigm of the rhino Republicans and the so-called progressive Democrats, is not working.” We keep getting bigger and bigger government. More and more in debt. More and more destructive policies. More and more invasion of privacy and our rights. So, there is definitely an awakening there. We’re trying to encourage that and we’re really appreciative of programs like yours that are pointing people in the right direction.
Brian: Well, Bill, I promised that we would get you out before the top of the hour, so unfortunately – I’m sitting here kind of leaning over the microphone listening to everything – we’re going to go ahead and suggest to people to obviously reach out to The New American magazine. Is there another website in addition to that one you’d like our listeners to know?
Bill: Yes. First of all I should point out that it is www.thenewamerican.com. Three words, The New American. Also, our parent organization, www.jbs.org, we have many things there that do not appear on the New American website. Videos, we have a lot of videos. We’re doing a whole lot more videos on both of those websites. I am regularly interviewing folks on video as are many of our other reporters, and one of these days we’ll have a full-fledged television network.
Brian: Oh, very cool. Then we’ll hold you to it! When you have that full-fledged television network, we’d love for you to come back on and talk to us about that and we could team efforts because I think you have a great message. Obviously you’ve done a great job over the years as an investigative journalist, and I think it’s tough. As you mentioned earlier, the mainstream media, I think it’s information people need to learn so they can at least make their own informed decisions. So Bill, thank you so very much. Ladies and gentlemen, we’ve been with William F. Jasper, from The New American magazine, for the full 30 minutes. The close of Off the Grid News Radio. Thank you so much, as always. We know an hour is a huge chunk of your day. It really is an honor to have you here with us at Off the Grid News Radio. On behalf of Mr. Bill Heid and the whole team at Off the Grid News, I need to tell you, please keep hitting us on Facebook, on Twitter. Send us the emails. We really do take a lot of that critique and turn it into our next show. Thank you so very much. Have a fantastic day.
