Sunday, April 10, 2016

FBI Surveillance Planes, or FBI Torture Planes?

Last year, some very disturbing articles appeared regarding mysterious low-flying aircraft over U.S. cities.

The following articles were re-posted here on this website.

(From June 2, 2015)
"Scores of low-flying planes circling over American cities are part of a civilian airforce operated by the FBI and obscured behind fictitious companies, the Associated Press has learned."


(From June 5, 2015)

(From June 12, 2015)
From Fortress America

Now, in April, 2016, another disturbing article has appeared.
From BuzzFeed comes this article:
"Each weekday, dozens of U.S. Government aircraft take to the skies and slowly circle over American cities.
Piloted by agents of the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the planes are fitted with high-resolution video cameras, often working with "augmented reality" software that can superimpose onto the video images everything from street and business names to the owners of individual homes.
At least a few planes carried devices that can track the cell phones of people below.
Most of the aircraft are small, flying a mile or so above ground, and many use exhaust mufflers to mute their engines - making them hard to detect by the people they're spying on."

But are the investigative journalists who have reported on these "secretive spy aircraft" missing an important point?

They are assuming that the only purpose of these "mysterious aircraft" owned  by fictitious companies is to "spy" on Americans, which is bad enough.
But what if at least some of these aircraft are doing more than just surveillance?

From the article cited above by "Fortress America":
"The planes' surveillance equipment is generally used without a judge's approval, and the FBI said the flights are used for specific, ongoing investigations.
The FBI said it uses front companies to protect the safety of the pilots and aircraft.
It also shields the identity of the aircraft so that suspects on the ground don't know they're being watched by the FBI.
In a recent 30-day period, the agency flew above more than 30 cities in 11 states, an AP review found.
Details confirmed by the FBI track closely with published reports since at least 2003 that a government surveillance program might be behind suspicious-looking planes slowly circling neighborhoods."

What if these "surveillance planes" are actually flying over the homes of whistle-blowers, anti-war activists, and other targeted individuals not to "spy" on them, but to "punish" them?

What if these "surveillance planes" are actually  "torture" planes?

"Since counterintelligence stalking goes far beyond surveillance -- into the realm of psychological terrorism, it is essentially a form of extra judicial punishment.
As such, the harassment is illegal -- even when done by the government.
It clearly violates, for example, the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unwarranted searches, and the Sixth Amendment -- which guarantees the right to a [speedy] trial.
Such operations also violate similar fundamental rights defined by state constitutions.
Stalking is also specifically prohibited by the criminal codes of every state in America.'

My contention is that at least "some" of these low-flying spy planes are, indeed, "psy-ops torture planes',
operating as part of a vast organized stalking & terror campaign, run by certain high-ranking intelligence agency officials with the objective of punishing targeted individuals to make them feel real "terror".

After all, isn't "terror" the real objective of so-called "gang stalkers"?

COINTELPRO's aim wasn't to merely "watch" certain targeted individuals.
COINT4ELPRO's aim was much more sinister than that.
COINTELPRO's aim was to systematically "torture" the people they were targeting, using proven psychological torture techniques such as sleep deprivation, isolation from friends & family, slander campaigns, noise campaigns, annoyance calls, break-ins, vandalism, and other psychological torture techniques.

So it should come as no surprise to anyone that the "powers that be" in the intelligence community who run the many organized stalking "cells" all across America are using aircraft as part of the TI's "punishment."

I know for a fact that these secretive "stalkers in the sky" do often "torture" targeted individuals.
"Mysterious" low-flying aircraft that circle a TI's home at 6AM aren't doing "surveillance, they're doing torture, pure and simple.
Sleep deprivation is torture!

I hope the investigative journalists who are covering the story of secret, low-flying  U.S. Govt. aircraft, (which are owned by "dummy companies") will begin to ask themselves if the ultimate goal of these sinister, illegal, "surveillance" planes isn't much more than just surveillance.

I hope the investigative journalists at BuzzFeed, AP, Wired Magazine, ABC News, Huffington Post and other news organizations covering this story will at least look into the possibility that these secretive, low-flying aircraft are actually engaging in extra-judicial punishment, not just surveillance.

Tuesday, January 26, 2016

Gang Stalking Is Real

January 26, 2016


In 2009, the United States Department of Justice published a Special Report titled
"Stalking Victimization in the United States" (NCJ 224527)

The total number stalking victims who participated in this DOJ survey was 3,424,110.
61.7 percent, or 2,111,220  of respondents reported only one stalker.
18.1 percent, or 619,300 of respondents reported two stalkers.
6.2 percent, or 213,770 of respondents reported three stalkers.
2.9 percent, or 98,290 of respondents reported four stalkers
1.7 percent, or 59,370 of respondents reported five stalkers
6.5 percent, or 221,330 of respondents didn't know how many stalkers they had
0.7 percent, or 25,470 were reported by DOJ as "missing"

DOJ Freedom Of Information Act documents show that the U.S. Justice Department
"misled the American public by omitting material facts about gang stalking."(In the 2009 Stalking Survey)
"Furthermore, there were several survey methodology errors that grossly underestimated the extent of the problem."
FOIA Request # 10-00169 by attorney Keith Labella
(Google: "Gang Stalking; New DOJ FOIA Documents Prove DOJ Knows The Truth")

The importance Mr. Labella's FOIA results is that he received enough detail to show beyond all doubt that contrary to denials by officials, stalking by organized groups shows substantially in official statistics.
Of the 446,790 episodes of stalking committed by three or more persons, 4 in 10 were committed by the offenders working together
"The study shows that at least 185,050 group stalking victims exist in the U.S."
When viewing the table on page 4 of the documents Mr. Labella received from DOJ regarding his FOIA
Request, note carefully that even at group stalking levels of 20, 30 or 50 stalkers cooperating, there are still thousands of reports.
(For example, from the 2009  DOJ Stalking Survey, the number of survey respondents reporting 12 stalkers was 20, 790).

(Source: Keith Labella)
"On or about October 29, 2008, I called the national Center for Victims of Crime (NCVC) telephone
help-line and spoke to a victim advocate employee.
I asked her if she was aware of gang stalking and if she offered any help.
During that conversation she told me she was aware of gang stalking, but that it was not a crime that NCVC  provided any referral or help for.
She also acknowledged that a large number of calls were regularly coming through the hot-line regarding gang stalking from all around the United States.
Upon being asked to estimate the number of gang stalking calls she received, she said 10 percent of the average call volume during her shift.
She also admitted that NCVC kept "tallies" on the different types of complaints it received over the hot-line from victims.
Shortly thereafter I called back and spoke with another hot-line advocate and she also estimated that 10 percent of the calls she received were gang stalking complaints.
She admitted that this meant thousands of calls per month
(Google: "Who's Getting Thousands Of Gang Stalking Reports A Month")

About 3 years ago, I myself contacted the Justice Department-funded Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) via e-mail and asked if  they offered any assistance to stalking victims with "multiple stalkers."
I received an e-mail reply stating that "OVC does not provide any direct assistance to victims of multi-stalker incidents."

"No direct assistance to victims of multi-stalker incidents."

WHY doesn't the taxpayer-funded Office for Victims of Crime "provide any direct assistance to victims of multi-stalker incidents?"

"Single stalker" victims get assistance from OVC; but "multi-stalker" victims get no assistance whatsoever.

Not only is "gang stalking" real; it is also deliberately NOT being addressed by the National Center for Victims of Crime (NCVC) or the taxpayer-funded Office for Victims of Crime (OVC)

Gang stalking is the most ignored crime in America!

Anyone who has gone down to their local police station asking for help because they are being stalked and harassed by an organized group of total strangers is dismissed as being "crazy."

Gang stalking victims who make phone calls or send letters or e-mails to local, state or national political leaders are either totally ignored or else they get back "form letters' thanking them for their question; or they are told to "report the incident to their local police."

If you are a victim of this type of stalking, here is what I suggest you do.

1) Notify your local police, in person.
First, using your computer (or a library computer) prepare a "statement" to give to the police (make a copy for yourself)..In the statement, in as few words as possible, coherently describe what your stalkers have done to you..Include any names or addresses or license plate numbers you may have that help identify those criminals who are stalking and/or harassing you.
If you can, bring along with you anybody who can verify your claims, like a friend or family member who actually witnessed the acts committed by the stalkers, because multiple eyewitnesses are much better than just "your word against theirs."
Don't include any phrases like "I am being stalked by a group of strangers" or "I am being gang stalked"..because, if you do, the police will probably not take your statement seriously.
Bring along with you any evidence you have collected, such as cell phone photos or videos, or any other tangible evidence.
The more evidence you have to show to the police, the better are your chances of getting the police to take you seriously.
Make your statement plain & simple, using proper English and make sure all words are spelled correctly.
Even if the police don't believe you, and think you're crazy to even think that a group of total strangers would be stalking & harassing you, politely ask them to at least take your written statement and keep it in their files.
Being very polite and respectful when talking to the police is very important!
While they may not believe you, they at least will know that you are a credible person, especially if you have gathered evidence to prove that you are, indeed, being stalked & harassed.

2) If you get no help at all from your local police, or if they dismiss you as "crazy", contact the nearest FBI office and tell them that you are a stalking victim with multiple stalkers, and ask them if you can send them a copy of the statement you gave to the police.
Again, it's very important that you be patient and polite when talking to any type of law enforcement official.
(You can find the number for the FBI field office nearest you in the White Pages of your telephone book)

3) Contact the National Center for Victims of Crime "Victim Connect" and ask them for help.
Telephone: 855-4-VICTIM or e-mail them at
Ask them if you can send them a copy of the statement you gave to the police.

4) Contact the Office for Victims of Crime at
Ask them if you can send them a copy of the police statement.

5) Call your local representatives and ask them for help.
(Local representatives include city council members, your county Board of Supervisors member,  or the office of the Mayor of your city.
Ask him or her if you could send them a copy of the statement you gave to the police.

6) Call, write or e-mail your state representatives,
Their telephone numbers and addresses are located in the White Pages of your telephone book under "Government"
If you choose to write them, include a copy of the statement you gave to the police.

7) Call, write or e-mail your Congressperson,
 his or her local office address and phone number can be found in your telephone White Pages under
Again, if writing to them, include a copy of the statement you gave to the police.
(To contact him or her by e-mail, do a web search and find their website, then just click on "contact" or

8) Call, write or e-mail your two U.S. Senators, their local office address and telephone numbers are also located in the White pages under "Government"
Again, include a copy of the statement you gave to the police.
To contact them by phone or letter, check the "Government" section of your telephone White Pages.
(To send an e-mail, Google them by name and go to their websites & click on "contact" or "e-mail")

9) Contact your local newspapers, either by writing a "Letter To the Editor" or phoning them, (ask for the "News Department") or sending them an e-mail.

This is very important!
-- Ask your friends or relatives to help you by being eyewitnesses to the stalking and/or harassment.
"Multiple eyewitnesses" is much better than "your word against theirs"
-- Use your cell phone to take pictures of your stalkers WHILE THEY ARE STALKING YOU
This will be helpful to show to the prove that you are, indeed, being stalked.
Cam-Corders are also a good way to "prove" that you are being stalked, especially if you've been able to videotape your stalkers actually watching your house, or sitting in cars near your house etc
-- If you can afford it, have surveillance cameras installed on the front of your home, as well as the side and rear.
-- Get a home security system ....This will discourage your stalkers from entering your home while you are out, and it will help protect you when you're home as well.
--If you are getting annoyance calls, write down the numbers...if you get calls that do not show on your caller ID, don't answer them....If it is a legitimate phone call, it will show on your "caller ID"
(If you have a land line with "Caller ID", keep records of all annoyance calls on the unit itself.
Annoyance calls on your land line are illegal, so if you are getting such calls, contact your telephone company and report this to them.
-- Write down license plate numbers of suspicious vehicles parked near your home, especially if someone is sitting in the vehicle; but be careful, and NEVER "ever confront: anyone, even if you're sure that they are following you or are harassing you.
NEVER try to follow a suspicious vehicle or person; they will call the police on YOU.
-- When walking, be aware of your surroundings, and, if someone is following you, cal the police on your cell phone or ask for help.
Remember, the more evidence you collect on these criminals the better.
If you go to the police with real evidence, they will be more likely to take you seriously.

I strongly suggest that all victims of organized stalkers (gang stalkers) learn how to defend themselves.
This applies to both men and women.
Choose a martial art and take lessons.
It doesn't matter which martial art you choose.
Karate, Tae Kwon Do, Kung Fu, Judo, and Aikido are all fine.
Learning how to defend yourself will give you a confidence that will be reflected in your day to day activities.
Some martial arts teachers charge more for lessons than others.
Shop around...Use the phone book under the listing "Martial Arts" or "Self Defense"
My experience in martial arts has included Shaolin Kung Fu and Aikido.
Aikido is usually very affordable, and you can usually take Aikido lessons for a set amount per month which will enable you to visit the Aikido dojo as many times per month as you want to (on days the dojo is open)
Another advantage in taking Aikido is that you will also be taught how to meditate, because meditation is part of the teaching.

Learning how to meditate is very important for victims of gang stalking.
The criminals who engage in gang stalking want you to be in constant fear.
They want you to feel anxious, helpless and depressed, because these & other negative emotions will negatively affect your health.
The goal of gang stalkers is to constantly harass, stalk and even torture their victims using proven "psychological operations" (Psy Ops) and other subtle "torture" techniques including sleep deprivation.
Learning how to meditate will enable you to better withstand the daily "attacks" that your stalkers inflict on you.
If you are in a state of constant anxiety, depression, sleeplessness and/or other negative states of mind, they will take advantage of this, and will do all they can to increase the negative aspects of your life.
Daily meditation will not only calm you down and decrease anxiety, it will enable you to live a better life.

Also important is daily exercise.
It doesn't matter what type of exercise...daily walks, runs, playing with your kids, playing tennis, swimming, badminton, softball etc. all can be very helpful in maintaining good health, and exercise also can help with depression,,,...It's hard to feel depressed while you are running or swimming or doing some other physical exercise.
Even long walks are good for depression, and if the stalkers follow you, take photos of them with your cell phone.

Don't just sit around the house feeling sorry for yourself.....get outside and try to have fun.
Having fun is vital for survival as a gang stalking victim, and you should try to do things that make you happy every single day, whether it be exercise, taking PE classes at your local Junior College, learning crafts like photography or candlemaking or whatever... going to lectures, visiting friends, playing with your dog.....anything, as long as it makes you feel good when you do it.....Gardening can be very enjoyable.

Don't let the gang stalkers get you down!
Do whatever you need to do to put some enjoyment in your life...every day.
If you are seriously depressed, go see a professional.
Depression can be cured.
Whether it be by medications proscribed by a doctor, or one-on-one therapy sessions, or "group therapy" sessions, do whatever you need to do to deal with the depression; and don't "self-medicate".
Drinking alcohol will not help your depression.
Doing illegal drugs will not help your depression.
Sitting around your home all day feeling sorry for yourself will not help your depression.'
Don't be afraid to ask for help.
Ask your family for help.
Ask your friends for help.
Ask your doctor for help.
Don't feel "ashamed" to ask for help.
There is nothing wrong with getting professional help in dealing with depression,
You don't need powerful "anti-depression" drugs like Zoloft or Prozac.
Ask your doctor if he or she thinks that a mild sedative might help.
Also, there are medications for depression that don't have the negative side-effects of the SSRI-type anti-depression drugs like Prozac....
.One medication that helps with depression, but doesn't have the side effects other anti-depression medications have is "Elavil" (Amitriptyline)..Ask your doctor about it.

Using your computer, make a copy of "The Desiderata" and put it up on your wall.
Whenever you feel "down" "Desiderata"

(From The Desiderata)
"You are a child of the universe no less than the trees and the stars;
You have a right to be here
And whether or not it is clear to you
No doubt the universe is unfolding as it should
Therefore, be at peace with God, whatever you conceive him to be
And whatever your labors and aspirations,  in the noisy confusion of life
Keep peace in your soul
With all it's sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world
Be cheerful....Strive to be happy."

Wednesday, November 25, 2015

Why The New Boss Is Just Like The Old Boss -- Part Four

By Jeff Schechtman
November 13, 2015

(Continued From Part Three of Jeff Schechtman's Interview with Professor Michael Glennon)

"Not to make this political but in a general sense as you look at this, are we better off as a nation electing presidents who understand this double government, who understand the system and who are walking into something that they know, as opposed to those who are more naive about it?"

"I'm not sure it makes much difference, and the reason is -- and I hate to sound so pessimistic -- that I don't know that there is a whole lot that any president can do about it.
I'm not sure that for national security double government purposes it makes a whole lot of difference whether the next president is Hillary Clinton or name the Republican.
Yes, at the margins, the choices will be different, but the momentum that is created by this structure is so great that it would require an extraordinarily unusual and highly improbable confluence of events to lead to the election of a president.
You can hypothesize, look in the past....Maybe somebody like say, for example, a Bobby Kennedy, who was tremendously popular with the public, who understood the national security bureaucracy from the inside out, who was tough-minded, who would not take no for an answer, who would stand up to the managerial network, maybe somebody like that who could grab these institutions by the lapels and tell them 'look, this is what you're going to do,'  maybe somebody like that could turn things around.
It would be a very difficult task.
You wouldn't have Congress or the courts behind him and the public is fearful that these institutions are protecting them and fearful of taking their power away.
The ultimate answer is that in a democracy, people get the quality of government that they deserve and they've got to pick a leader who is able to stand up to it, and I don't see any evidence that they're prepared to do that."

"When Eisenhower talked about the military-industrial complex, is this what he was talking about?"

"Yes, but it's evolved since then.
Eisenhower gave this incredibly important speech - his farewell address - which was overshadowed by the euphoria of John F. Kennedy's inaugural address.
Eisenhower gave this speech you refer to only a few days before Kennedy's inauguration, and so it's been largely forgotten.
But Eisenhower very precisely warned of the emergence of a military-industrial complex.
He suggested a serious threat to democracy and Eisenhower, as I say, having been in a position to know having spent his life in the military, since he graduated from West Point,  presided over all this.
As President he knew better than anybody what the risk was that the nation was confronting, and that risk, I must say, if anything, has expanded since January 1961 when Eisenhower gave that speech
Because the agencies in the intelligence and law enforcement community now operate with far less accountability, and the manpower and payrolls are far, far beyond anything Eisenhower could have imagined, so his warning, of course, was not taken seriously."

Professor Michael Glennon's book is "National Security and Double Government"

To hear the podcast of Jeff Schechtman's  interview with Profesor Michael Glennon or to read the complete transcript, go to:

Tuesday, November 24, 2015

Why The New Boss Is Just Like The Old Boss -- Part Three

(Continued from Part Two of Jeff Schechtman's interview with Professor Michael Glennor, author of "National Security and Double Government")

How can this institution of double government with such size move in such consistent lockstep?

That's the $64 million dollar question.
Why does it persist, even in the face of an electoral mandate that insists upon change we can believe in.
The short answer is that there is a series of incentives baked into the American political system that is responsible for this continuity.
You look at one element of the system after the next and you can see what those incentives are.
Members of Congress, for example, secretly have an incentive to please very powerful constituencies and their incentive is to seek reelection above all else.
Judges are inclined to decide in favor of the people who appointed them.
The President and his staff defer to the expertise of the military and intelligence communities.
They don't want another terrorist attack to happen on their watch so the bureaucracy tends to define national security and military terms.
And it's not just the military, it's the civilian appointees as well.
Madeleine Albright famously turned to Colin Powell - when Powell was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff - and said: "Why do we have this marvelous military if we don't use it?"
That is the incentive that the civilian employees have because the military - let's face it - is widely respected and extremely proficient at what it does.
The press has an incentive to pull punches rather than lose access.
Access for the presses is everything.
And the people themselves have an incentive to remain uninformed and passive because there's nothing that they can do  to effect these policies.
So this pervasive political ignorance continues, and at the same time there is a negative feedback loop.
The national security apparatus therefore has less and less incentive to want the people to participate because they don't know, the people in government think the people don't know enough about policies to make intelligent recommendations.
Therefore, the bottom line is all these different structural incentives come together in a kind of perfect storm.
There's an overarching incentive not to challenge the status quo, not to change things, to acquiesce to what the intelligence and military and law enforcement bureaucracy want to do.
The result is double government.
It's more complicated than that but that's basically the dynamic.

JEFF SCHECHTMAN: "We talk about World War II, post-World War II 1947 National Security Act is really an inflection point in this: To what extent was 9/11 and the actions post 9/11 another inflection point?"

PROFESSOR GLENNON: "Well, that's a good question...It was a public inflection point.
In fact, many of the programs that were instituted after 9/11 were in the works before 9/11, and the bureaucracy, frankly, was just looking for an opportune moment to push them.
A bulk surveillance by the National Security Agency of the sort that was revealed in the Snowden leaks, is one of those examples of this.
It's not a new idea that was hatched after 9/11, but 9/11 tended to accelerate all these programs and the reason is obvious.
You know, when people feel threatened, when danger is the principal public motivator, the incentive is to short-cut democratic procedures and move to a streamlined efficient way of needing threats.
It's this element and combination of fear and emergency and shortcutting democratic procedures that is as much as anything responsible for the great acceleration of the movement towards double government."


Saturday, November 21, 2015

Why The New Boss Is Just Like The Old Boss -- Part Two

By Jeff Schechtman
November 13, 2015

(Continued From Part One of Jeff Schechtman's interview with Prof. Michael Glennon)

It was the liberal Democrats who were behind (the build up of the  huge national security apparatus).

It didn't take long for this apparatus to begin to take on a life of it's own.
The Hoover Commission in 1949 talked about the Joint Chiefs of Staff being virtually unaccountable.

According to Professor Glennon, Truman recognized exactly what he had created.
As Clark Clifford, his aide and later to become Defense Secretary said, Truman was profoundly distrustful of the FBI and J. Edgar Hoover.
But he thought this was the best way of both ensuring the security of the American people and protecting civil liberties.

Nonetheless, at the end of his presidency after Eisenhower was elected, before Eisenhower was sworn in, Truman recognized what had happened.
He said Eisenhower, the great architect of the invasion of Normandy, the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO in Europe, Eisenhower's going to be so surprised.
He's going to say: "Do this, 'do that' and nothing will happen. He'll be so disappointed."

That was Truman's experience, and of course, that's the experience of presidents today.
Somebody asked the second President Bush what most surprised him about being President and he said at the end of his term, "how little authority I actually have."

Most Americans have an image of the presidency that is anachronistic.
They have a Jeffersonian image of the presidency.
They think of the President as sitting at the top of the pyramid giving orders that trickle down.

Jefferson, when he was President of the United States in 1802 presided over an Executive Branch that included a staff of 132 non-military people.
The whole Executive Branch outside of the military in 1802 consisted of 132 federal employees and the White House staff consisted of one person beyond Jefferson.
So we still have this image of the President giving orders, and those orders being picked up and carried out immediately.

The presidency today is vastly more complicated than that.
The President of course now presides over an Executive Branch of millions of people, but out of those millions of people, there are only 3,000 to 4,000 presidential appointees.
And in the realm of national security that number is down to roughly 600 individuals, people who run the military intelligence, security, and law enforcement agencies in the United States, and instead rely very, very heavily on their subordinates, who of course continue in the same positions from one administration to the next.

That more than anything else is what accounts for the strange continuity in American national security policy.

Look at the number of drone strikes, offensive cyber weapons, whistle-blower prosecutions, the non-prosecution of torturers, CIA covert operations, NSA intelligence, claiming the State Secret's privilege, and on and on.

Virtually nothing has changed from the Bush administration to the Obama administration, 
It is the result of the structure of double government and the reliance of necessarily the presidency itself on the bureaucracy that has come to gargantuan proportions over the past fifty years.


Friday, November 20, 2015

Why The New Boss Is Just Like The Old Boss -- Part One

By Jeff Schechtman
November 13, 2015

Yesterday, November 19, 2015, I posted a review of Professor Michael Glennon's book, "National Security and Double Government".

Today, I will expound on what Professor Glennon wrote in "National Security and Double Government."

In earlier posts on this Blog, I tried to provide victims of organized stalking (aka gang stalking) with some basic information about the "who, what, why where and how' of organized stalking, including the Church Committee Report on US Intelligence Agencies and the FBI's COINTELPRO  counter-intelligence program of the 1950s & 1960s, which was declared to be illegal by Congress during the 1970s, but which continues to this day.

I named some names of intelligence agency officials who became whistle-blowers after finding themselves being "targeted" by the same intelligence agencies they used to work for.

For anyone who truly wants to know more about organized stalking, I would suggest that they read the previous posts on this website.

Reading what former intelligence agency officials such as M. Wesley Swearingen, Bob Levin and others have to say about how they became targeted individuals (TIs) is extremely important for anyone who might be interested in just what the hell organized stalking is all about, whether they are a victim of this type of stalking or not.

I won't repeat what was written in previous posts on this website;
 however, if one wants to see the "patterns' of this type of stalking, one needs to go back and see what I posted before, as it ties in directly with what I'm posting here today.

The following  excerpts are from Jeff Schechtman's interview with Professor Michael Glennon, presented here in four parts.

To read a transcript of the entire interview, go to:


Candid Academic Admits Democracy Thwarted By Unseen Security Elite

The "Double Government" was "born" during the post-war period of the late 1940s under President Truman.

It was Truman who, in a secret executive order, established the National Security Agency.

It was Truman who presided over the National Security State with the enactment of the National Security Act of 1947, which set up the National Security Council.

The National Security Act established the Central Intelligence Agency, and consolidated the powers of the military and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which was intended to cut down on intra service internecine warfare, but really had quite the opposite effect.

And this little national security apparatus -- little in 1947 -- became in the fullness of time a behemoth that now consists of 46 different intelligence agencies, that are located at 2,000 places around the country with 10,000 different private entity corporations that participate as private contractors, and oversees a budget that is probably around $1 trillion a year - the exact amount is classified.

Over 5 million people in the United States now have security clearances - about 3 million of them top-secret clearances - so that the manpower and budgets of these agencies are enormous.

The politics were very much reversed in the 1940s during the Truman administration than they are today.

Warnings were sounded not by liberal Democrats but by conservative Republicans.

The conservative Republican leaders in the Senate and House of Representatives warned that Truman's reforms would lead to what they said the establishment of an American Gestapo, of a general staff at the head of the armed forces comparable to that of the Wehrmacht that we had just defeated, of the Pentagon that was out of control with the objective of padding it's budget's and manpower.
They warned of the United States moving into what they called a garrison state, and it was liberal Democrats like Paul Douglas, the Senator from Illinois, and Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, who sided with Truman and said:
"we've got to be on guard of the Soviet Union and recognize that Stalin could strike at any moment...Democracy threatened anywhere in the world is a threat to the United States and we've got to build up this huge national security apparatus."

It was the liberal Democrats who were behind that.


Thursday, November 19, 2015

"National Security and Double Government" - by Michael J. Glennon

After World War II,  with the Soviet Union a serious threat from abroad and a growing domestic concern about weakened civilian control over the military, President Truman set out to create a separate security structure.

Book Review

"National Security and Double Government" by Michael J. Glennon
(Oxford University Press)

Boston Globe
October 18, 2014
By Mickey Edwards (Globe Correspondent)

It has long been the province of conspiracy theorists to claim that the real power of government is not wielded by the obvious practitioners of statecraft --- presidents, members of Congress, the judiciary --- but by secret or semi-secret entities, real wizards whose hidden machinations send us to war, sell us out to enemies, siphon public treasure into private hands.
Depending on your talk show or paranoia of choice, these are the bankers, oil-barons, one-worlders, war profiteers, Bilderbergers, Masons, Catholics, Jews, or Trilateralists.
Our formal institutions, in this scenario, are stage sets, Potemkin villages; our officials are puppets, we are an unsuspecting audience.

Michael Glennnon, a respected academic, is hardly the sort to engage in such fantasies.
And that makes the picture he paints in "National Security and Double Government" all the more arresting.

Considering Barack Obama's harsh pre-election criticisms of his predecessor's surveillance policies, for example, Glennon notes that many of those same policies -- and more of the same kind -- were continued after Obama took office.
"Why," he asks, "does national security policy remain constant even when one President is replaced by another, who as a candidate repeatedly, forcefully and eloquently promised fundamental changes in that policy?"

The answer Glennon places before us is not reassuring: "a bifurcated system -- a structure of double government -- in which the President now exercises little substantive control over the overall direction of US national security policy."
The result, he writes, is a system of dual institutions that have evolved "toward greater centralization, less accountability, and emergent autocracy."

If this were a movie, it would soon become clear that some evil force, bent on consolidating power and undermining democratic governance, has surreptitiously tunneled into the under-structure of the nation.

Not so.

In fact, Glennon observes, this hyper-secret and difficult-to-control network arose in part as an attempt to head off such an outcome.

In the aftermath of World War II, with the Soviet Union a serious threat from abroad and a growing domestic concern about weakened civilian control over the military 
(in 1949, the Hoover Commission had warned that the Joint Chiefs of Staff had become "virtually a law unto themselves"), President Truman set out to create a separate national security structure.

By 2011, according to the Washington Post, there were 46 separate federal departments and agencies and 2,000 private companies engaged in classified national security operations with millions of employees and spending roughly a trillion dollars a year.

As Glennon points out, presidents get to name fewer than 250 political appointees among the Defense Department's nearly 700,000 civilian employees, with hundreds more drawn from a national security bureaucracy that comprise "America's Trumanite network" -- in effect, on matters of national security, a second government.

Or Google:..
 "National  Security and Double Government" by Michael Glennon...Boston Globe review by Mickey Edwards, Globe Correspondent, October 18, 2014

Michael Glennon is a Professor of Internationale Law at Tuft's University, and was Legal Council to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.