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.

Monday, November 16, 2015

Targeted Individuals - TELL YOUR STORY!

We who are victims of organized stalking, group stalking, gang stalking, multi-stalking or whatever you wish to call it, need to TELL OUR STORIES to newspapers, magazines, talk shows, news websites, Hollywood actors, producers, & directors, and, most importantly, to JOURNALISTS and INVESTIGATIVE REPORTERS, because they have the power to tell the world about the horror we go through every day, 24/7..365 days a year.

Here is a list of some of the  most influential journalists of today, as reported by the New York Film Academy

Write to them (Most of them have written books & you can write to them via the book's publisher)

Send them e-mails..make them as brief as possible, provide references to any articles you think are important, include links to any articles, books or websites you think are important.

"The 12 Most Influential Journalists Of Today"

New York Film Academy
April 16, 2015

 Robert Fisk

British journalist who was one of the very few people to ever interview Osama Bin Laden, and who was the Middle east correspondent for The Independent (UK) for 20 years.

 Christiane Amanpour

Currently the Global Affairs Editor for ABC News as well as the Chief International Correspondent for CNN International (Organized stalking is taking place all over the world)

Bob Woodward

Investigative reporter who, along with Carl Bernstein, won the Pulitzer Prize fro Public Service Reporting for the Washington Post in 1972 by exposing the Watergate scandal.
Woodward also contributed towards the 2002 Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting on the 9/11 Attacks.
(If we could get him to begin an investigation of organized stalking, the world would finally know about "America's Most Ignored Crime")

Anderson Cooper

Former anchor on CNN, Cooper currently host of  his own show "Anderson Cooper 360", he has won numerous awards for journalism, including The Peabody Award and four Emmy Awards.

Diane Sawyer

Host of numerous ABC new shows, she has won two Emmy Awards, the Peabody Award, and the
Robert F. Kennedy Journalism Award.
(Most organized stalking victims are women, so she might be willing to investigate OS)

Glenn Greenwald

He won the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service in 2014 along with numerous other international awards for excellence in journalism.
He is a co- founders of The Intercept, a privately-financed investigative journalism venture.
If we could get The Intercept to launch it's own investigation of organized stalking, the whole world would finally become aware of this type of stalking.
Other co-founders of The Intercept are journalists Jeremy Scahill and Laura Poitras.

Jon Stewart

Although technically not a "journalist" perse, Stewart is considered one of media's most influential personalities amongst the younger demographic, through his coverage on pressing social and political issues.
With Stewart at the helm for 20 seasons,  "The Daily Show" won two Peabody Awards.
Besides being a political satirist, he is also a director, producer, actor, comedian, and media critic
If we could get Jon Stewart to "look into" America's Most Ignored Crime, that would be outstanding.
If he chose to, Jon Stewart could produce and/or direct and/or act in a movie about organized stalking; something that the low-life scumbags who engage in this type of stalking would not like at all.
Jon Stewart left "The Daily Show", but you can do a Google search on him and find a way to contact him, perhaps through his book publisher.

Thursday, November 5, 2015



Those of us who are victims of organized stalking, aka "gang stalking"..know that very few reporters, newspapers or magazines have the courage to publish any stories about this insidious type of stalking,

Thus, we are victims of "America's Most Ignored Crime." has done some excellent stories about organized stalking, as has the now-defunct "Now"

With those two exceptions, the media has totally ignored organized stalking.

We can do something about this.

We MUST do something about this; or we will have to endure the daily horror of being a "targeted individual" (TI) or victim of this type of stalking

Google :"Investigative Reporters" and contact any and all you come across.

E-mail them at their websites and politely ask them to "please investigate organized stalking".

If you prefer to use one of the other terms used to describe this type of stalking & harassment, then please do so...e.g. "Please investigate gang stalking" or "Please investigate Multi-Stalking"

The more concise your e-mail, the better.

The shorter it is, the better your chance of having someone actually read it.

You don't need to tell your life story, just try to summarize in a few words what you go through every day at the hands of the criminals who engage in this type of stalking, including any attempts you may have had to get help from your local police.

Jack Anderson was a great investigative journalist; but he's dead; so is I. F. "Izzy" Stone.
However, there are many other investigative journalists around, as well as many colleges and universities that have Journalism Departments.

Write to all of them!
Download  printed information on this type of stalking and then send it everywhere!

E-mail as many magazines, newspapers radio and TV shows that you can think of.

Don't just sit there and put up with the harassment and "psy ops torture' that we as TIs have to endure every single day, 365 days a year, 24/7/

Don't be a martyr.

Don't be an "easy target" for these low-life thugs who like to terrorize you every day.

Use Google searches a lot.

Do your own "investigative work" and send e-mails to all the newspapers, magazines and news websites that you can think of.

Hare  are some places where you can start.

1) The Nation Institute has a website called: "The Investigative Fund"

2) Investigative Reporters and Editors

3) International Consortium of Investigative Journalists

4) The Guardian

5) The Intercept

6) Rolling Stone Magazine\

7) The Huffington Post

8) The New York Times

8) The Washington Post

9) The Los Angeles Times

Also write letters to the editor of your local newspapers, or even to national newspapers, they may not publish your letter, but it's worth a try.

Write or e-mail your favorite magazines as well, and ask them to please investigate the untold story of organized stalking, or multi-stalking, or gang stalking....use whichever term you prefer to use.

Write or call your local, state and federal representatives, including your Congressperson and both of your U.S. Senators.

If you e-mail them, ask for a reply.

Ask them to please consider Congressional action to hold bi-partisan hearings on the Intelligence community, something that is long overdue.

Use your creativity to "get the word out" about organized stalking.

Call in to talk shows.

Go to your favorite talk show websites, and leave a message there.

Some syndicated radio and.or TV talk shows who may want to investigate this type of stalking include:

-- The Thom Hartmann Show (You can post your own Blog here...Tell your own story about being a victim of this type of stalking)

-  The Rachel Maddow Show (E-mails)

    to send letters, articles etc:

    If you have photos or videos to upload, send them to:

   Or Google: The Rachel Maddow Show

-- The Stephanie Miller Show

-- The Ed Schultz Show

The point here is to get the word out that this type of stalking is REAL; and yet it is being ignored by the police, the media, Congress, The White House, local, state and federal politicians etc.

Get hold of a copy of the Justice Department's 2009 Special Report on Stalking:
"Stalking Victimization in the United States" (Pub # NCJ 224527)
You can Google it.

Also Google:
"Gang Stalking: New DOJ-FOIA Documents Prove DOJ Knows Truth"

Also Google:
"Who's Killing All The Good Guys?" (

Read all of the previous posts on this website, and use them in your e-mails & letters; don't forget to include all references and sources.

Don't just sit back and take it!

Don't let the criminals who stalk, harass & torture you with psi-ops torture techniques every day get away with it!

Tell the world what it's like to be a Targeted Individual (TI)

Tell everyone who will listen what these low-life cowards do to you every single day, and if surveillance aircraft are being used against you, tell them about that too.

Write letters!

Send E-mails!

Make phone calls!


Good luck!