WWIII – Israeli Lobbyist Advocates False Flag Attack To Start A War With Iran

Original date of the speech was 9/21/12

Patrick Clawson on crisis escalation advises a “traditional” False Flag to instigate war with Iran. (From The Washington Institute Policy Forum luncheon: “How to Build U.S.-Israeli Coordination on Preventing an Iranian Nuclear Breakout” September 21, 2012)

Advertisements

Turkish Political and Military Leaders ADMIT to Planning False Flag Terror to Justify a War with Syria

washingtonsblog.com

Posted on by WashingtonsBlog

Painting by Anthony Freda

Turkey Admits Plan to Carry Out False Flag

Zero Hedge reports:

As we noted here, Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan had blocked Twitter access to his nation ahead of what was rumored to be a “spectacular” leak before this weekend’s elections. Then this morning, amid a mad scramble, he reportedly (despite the nation’s court ruling the bans illegal) blocked YouTube access. However, by the magic of the interwebs, we have the ‘leaked’ clip and it is clear why he wanted it blocked/banned. As the rough translation explains, it purports to be a conversation between key Turkish military and political leaders discussing what appears to be a false flag attack to launch war with Syria.

Among the most damning sections:

Ahmet Davutolu: “Prime Minister said that in current conjuncture, this attack (on Suleiman Shah Tomb) must be seen as an opportunity for us.”

Hakan Fidan: “I’ll send 4 men from Syria, if that’s what it takes. I’ll make up a cause of war by ordering a missile attack on Turkey; we can also prepare an attack on Suleiman Shah Tomb if necessary.”

Feridun Sinirliolu: “Our national security has become a common, cheap domestic policy outfit.”

Ya?ar Güler: “It’s a direct cause of war. I mean, what’re going to do is a direct cause of war.”

Feridun Sinirolu: There are some serious shifts in global and regional geopolitics. It now can spread to other places. You said it yourself today, and others agreed… We’re headed to a different game now. We should be able to see those. That ISIL and all that jazz, all those organizations are extremely open to manipulation. Having a region made up of organizations of similar nature will constitute a vital security risk for us. And when we first went into Northern Iraq, there was always the risk of PKK blowing up the place. If we thoroughly consider the risks and substantiate… As the general just said…

Yaar Güler: Sir, when you were inside a moment ago, we were discussing just that. Openly. I mean, armed forces are a “tool” necessary for you in every turn.

Ahmet Davutolu: Of course. I always tell the Prime Minister, in your absence, the same thing in academic jargon, you can’t stay in those lands without hard power. Without hard power, there can be no soft power.

A full translation can be found here

And just in case you had faith that this was all made up and Erdogan is right to ban it… he just admitted it was true!

To summarize: a recording confirming a NATO-member country planned a false-flag war with Syria (where have we seen that before?) and all the Prime Minister has to say is the leak was “immoral.”

Erdogan is not amused:

Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan described the leaking on YouTube on Thursday of a recording of top security officials discussing possible military operations in Syria as “villainous” and the government blocked access to the video-sharing site.

“They even leaked a national security meeting. This is villainous, this is dishonesty…Who are you serving by doing audio surveillance of such an important meeting?” Erdogan declared before supporters at a rally ahead of March 30 local polls that will be a key test of his support amid a corruption scandal.

In other words, the Turkish Prime Minister has admitted that the tape is authentic .. and is between top Turkish military and political leaders.

Good Morning Turkey names names as to who was involved in the discussion:

Turkey’s foreign minister, intelligence chief and a top army general …. Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu, National Intelligence Organization (MİT) Undersecretary Hakan Fidan, Foreign Ministry Undersecretary Feridun Sinirlioğlu and Deputy Chief of General Staff Gen. Yaşar Güler ….

Indeed, Turkey has been sheltering and training Syrian rebels for man years, and there have been allegations for years that Turkey was instigating false flag attacks and blaming Syria.

Nothing New … Governments from Around the World Admit They Carry Out False Flag Terror

Sadly, this is common, since governments from around the world admit they carry out false flag terror:

  • A major with the Nazi SS admitted at the Nuremberg trials that – under orders from the chief of the Gestapo – he and some other Nazi operatives faked attacks on their own people and resources which they blamed on the Poles, to justify the invasion of Poland. Nazi general Franz Halder also testified at the Nuremberg trials that Nazi leader Hermann Goering admitted to setting fire to the German parliament building, and then falsely blaming the communists for the arson
  • Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev admitted in writing that the Soviet Union’s Red Army shelled the Russian village of Mainila in 1939, and declared that the fire originated from Finland as a basis launching the Winter War four days later
  • Israel admits that an Israeli terrorist cell operating in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including U.S. diplomatic facilities, then left behind “evidence” implicating the Arabs as the culprits (one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to identify the bombers, and several of the Israelis later confessed) (and see this and this)
  • The CIA admits that it hired Iranians in the 1950′s to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected prime minister
  • As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in the 1960′s, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. See the following ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC’s World News Tonight with Peter Jennings.
  • 2 years before, American Senator George Smathers had suggested that the U.S. make “a false attack made on Guantanamo Bay which would give us the excuse of actually fomenting a fight which would then give us the excuse to go in and [overthrow Castro]“.
  • And Official State Department documents show that – only nine months before the Joint Chiefs of Staff plan was proposed – the head of the Joint Chiefs and other high-level officials discussed blowing up a consulate in the Dominican Republic in order to justify an invasion of that country. The 3 plans were not carried out, but they were all discussed as serious proposals
  • A U.S. Congressional committee admitted that – as part of its “Cointelpro” campaign – the FBI had used many provocateurs in the 1950s through 1970s to carry out violent acts and falsely blame them on political activists
  • The South African Truth and Reconciliation Council found that, in 1989, the Civil Cooperation Bureau (a covert branch of the South African Defense Force) approached an explosives expert and asked him “to participate in an operation aimed at discrediting the ANC [the African National Congress] by bombing the police vehicle of the investigating officer into the murder incident”, thus framing the ANC for the bombing
  • An Algerian diplomat and several officers in the Algerian army admit that, in the 1990s, the Algerian army frequently massacred Algerian civilians and then blamed Islamic militants for the killings (and see this video; and Agence France-Presse, 9/27/2002, French Court Dismisses Algerian Defamation Suit Against Author)
  • Senior Russian Senior military and intelligence officers admit that the KGB blew up Russian apartment buildings and falsely blamed it on Chechens, in order to justify an invasion of Chechnya (and see this report and this discussion)
  • According to the Washington Post, Indonesian police admit that the Indonesian military killed American teachers in Papua in 2002 and blamed the murders on a Papuan separatist group in order to get that group listed as a terrorist organization.
  • The well-respected former Indonesian president also admits that the government probably had a role in the Bali bombings
  • As reported by BBC, the New York Times, and Associated Press, Macedonian officials admit that the government murdered 7 innocent immigrants in cold blood and pretended that they were Al Qaeda soldiers attempting to assassinate Macedonian police, in order to join the “war on terror”.
  • Former Department of Justice lawyer John Yoo suggested in 2005 that the US should go on the offensive against al-Qaeda, having “our intelligence agencies create a false terrorist organization. It could have its own websites, recruitment centers, training camps, and fundraising operations. It could launch fake terrorist operations and claim credit for real terrorist strikes, helping to sow confusion within al-Qaeda’s ranks, causing operatives to doubt others’ identities and to question the validity of communications.”
  • United Press International reported in June 2005:

    U.S. intelligence officers are reporting that some of the insurgents in Iraq are using recent-model Beretta 92 pistols, but the pistols seem to have had their serial numbers erased. The numbers do not appear to have been physically removed; the pistols seem to have come off a production line without any serial numbers. Analysts suggest the lack of serial numbers indicates that the weapons were intended for intelligence operations or terrorist cells with substantial government backing. Analysts speculate that these guns are probably from either Mossad or the CIA. Analysts speculate that agent provocateurs may be using the untraceable weapons even as U.S. authorities use insurgent attacks against civilians as evidence of the illegitimacy of the resistance.

  • Undercover Israeli soldiers admitted in 2005 to throwing stones at other Israeli soldiers so they could blame it on Palestinians, as an excuse to crack down on peaceful protests by the Palestinians
  • Quebec police admitted that, in 2007, thugs carrying rocks to a peaceful protest were actually undercover Quebec police officers (and see this)
  • At the G20 protests in London in 2009, a British member of parliament saw plain clothes police officers attempting to incite the crowd to violence
  • A Colombian army colonel has admitted that his unit murdered 57 civilians, then dressed them in uniforms and claimed they were rebels killed in combat
  • U.S. soldiers have admitted that if they kill innocent Iraqis and Afghanis, they then “drop” automatic weapons near their body so they can pretend they were militants
  • The highly-respected writer for the Telegraph Ambrose Evans-Pritchard says that the head of Saudi intelligence – Prince Bandar – recently admitted that the Saudi government controls “Chechen” terrorists

So Common … There’s a Name for It

This tactic is so common that it was given a name for hundreds of years ago.

“False flag terrorism” is defined as a government attacking its own people, then blaming others in order to justify going to war against the people it blames. Or as Wikipedia defines it:

False flag operations are covert operations conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations, which are designed to appear as if they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is, flying the flag of a country other than one’s own. False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations, and have been used in peace-time; for example, during Italy’s strategy of tension.

The term comes from the old days of wooden ships, when one ship would hang the flag of its enemy before attacking another ship in its own navy. Because the enemy’s flag, instead of the flag of the real country of the attacking ship, was hung, it was called a “false flag” attack.

Indeed, this concept is so well-accepted that rules of engagement for naval, air and land warfare all prohibit false flag attacks.

Leaders Throughout History Have Acknowledged False Flags

Leaders throughout history have acknowledged the danger of false flags:

“This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.”
– Plato

“If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”
– U.S. President James Madison

“A history of false flag attacks used to manipulate the minds of the people! “In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche

“Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death”.
– Adolph Hitler

“Why of course the people don’t want war … But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship … Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
– Hermann Goering, Nazi leader.

“The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. [The public] will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened”.
– Josef Stalin

People Are Waking Up to False Flags

People are slowly waking up to this whole con job by governments who want to justify war.

More people are talking about the phrase “false flag” than ever before.

CONFIRMED: NATO’s Plans for False Flag Attack on Turkey Revealed

landdestroyer.blogspot

March 28, 2014 (Tony Cartalucci – LD) – It has been revealed that NATO has been planning a false flag attack against Turkey to justify the Turkish invasion of northern Syria, the International Business Times reported in its article, “Turkey YouTube Ban: Full Transcript of Leaked Syria ‘War’ Conversation Between Erdogan Officials.”

Image: While the West obsesses solely on Turkey’s ban of Twitter and Facebook in what it claims are attempts to “cover up corruption,” in reality, leaks from the top of Turkish leadership revealed NATO’s ongoing plans to carry out a false flag attack to trigger a destructive, premeditated war with neighboring Syria – in what appears to be one final, desperate gambit to steal victory in the West’s proxy war against Damascus. (photo by Reuters)
It released the full transcript of a leaked conversation between the head of Turkish intelligence Hakan Fidan and Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu. The Times reported:

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s ban of YouTube occurred after a leaked conversation between Head of Turkish Intelligence Hakan Fidan and Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu that he wanted removed from the video-sharing website.
The leaked call details Erdogan’s thoughts that an attack on Syria “must be seen as an opportunity for us [Turkey]”.

In the conversation, intelligence chief Fidan says that he will send four men from Syria to attack Turkey to “make up a cause of war”.

Deputy Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Yaşar Güler replies that Fidan’s projected actions are “a direct cause of war…what you’re going to do is a direct cause of war”.

Turkey’s foreign ministry said the leaked recording of top officials discussing the Syria operation was “partially manipulated” and is a “wretched attack” on national security.

In the leaked video, Fidan is discussing with Davutoğlu, Güler and other officials a possible operation within Syria to secure the tomb of Suleyman Shah, grandfather of the founder of the Ottoman empire.

The Western media has purposefully obsessed myopically over Turkey’s ban of Twitter and Facebook and leaks regarding “corruption,” in an attempt to sidestep conversations revealing Turkey, a NATO member for decades, planning a false flag attack that would lead to an intentionally provoked war with neighboring Syria.

This comes as Turkey provides air support, logistics, and artillery cover for members of the US State Department designated terrorist group Al Nursa who have been leading an ongoing offensive from Turkish territory into Syria’s northwestern province of Latakia.

Since the operation began days ago, Turkey has fired on and shot down a Syrian warplane that was targeting Al Nusra militants in Syrian territory. While Turkey claims the warplane violated Turkish airspace, the plane crashed in Syrian territory, and the pilot ejected and was recovered on Syrian soil. The incident has been used by Turkey to lay the rhetorical groundwork to further escalate tensions between Ankara and Damascus, most likely in an attempt to serve as an impetus for war instead of NATO’s riskier false flag operation.

Turkey’s belligerent posture in the north of Syria is matched by a joint US-Saudi offensive in the south, near the Syrian-Jordanian border city of Daraa. Called the “Southern Front,” the offensive appears to already have been neutralized by Syrian security forces.

Regarding the creation of the “Southern Front,” the US corporate-funded policy think tank, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, even stated in its post, “Does the “Southern Front” Exist?,” that:

Rather than an initiative from the rebels themselves, word is that it was foreign officials that called on rebel commanders to sign a statement declaring their opposition to extremism, saying it was a precondition for getting more guns and money. Since beggars can’t be choosers, the commanders then collectively shrugged their shoulders and signed—but not so much to declare a new alliance as to help U.S. officials tick all the right boxes in their reports back home, hoping that this would unlock another crate of guns.

With the “Southern Front” arriving on the battlefield stillborn, and NATO resorting to false flag attacks in blatant support of Al Qaeda-affiliated terror organizations, the West’s desperation in what appears to be a strategic “last gasp” is palpable.

Feminism: The Real War on Women

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Infowars.com
March 19, 2014

Image: WW2 Propaganda Poster.

Feminism is a top down social movement controlled by the political class which is exploited to promote cultural marxism, confuse gender roles, denigrate men and mislead women – all while completely ignoring genuine women’s rights issues. Here are ten ways in which true feminism is under attack.

1) Feminism Was Hijacked by the Political Class to Exploit Women

When the average person thinks of feminism, they don’t differentiate between first wave feminism and second wave feminism. First wave feminism was primarily centered around giving women the right to vote and the right to own property…  However, second wave feminism was quickly hijacked the the elite as a tool for social engineering and has little to do with women’s rights. A quote often attributed to Adolf Hitler is, “First you get the women, then you’ve got the children, so follow the men.” By hijacking feminism and making it about subjugating men, the establishment succeeded to a great extent in making women more dependent on the state.

As the late Aaron Russo revealed, the women’s liberation movement was also hijacked by the elite as a method of revenue generation. Russo was told directly by Nick Rockefeller that the Rockefellers bankrolled feminism not because they had any interest in women’s rights but because it meant that by getting more women in employment quicker, the state could collect more tax dollars. Rockefeller also told Russo that this served the dual purpose of getting children in school at an earlier age, enabling them to be indoctrinated into accepting the state as the guardian, breaking up the traditional family model.

2) The CIA Played a Key Role in Hijacking Feminism

The Central Intelligence Agency played a key role in hijacking second wave feminism via the work of Gloria Steinem, who is still a noted feminist icon today. Steinem admitted that she was recruited by the CIA to infiltrate youth counter-culture movements in the late 1950′s, and subsequently emerged as a leading icon of second wave feminism in the 1960′s. Steinem subsequently received funding from the CIA and the Rockefeller foundation to set up Ms. Magazine, a feminist publication.

The CIA’s role in steering and managing second wave feminism again underscores the fact that feminism is not a grass roots “people” movement, it is a top down system of control used to divide and conquer and is run by powerful individuals who care little for actual women’s rights.

3) Cultural Marxism: Divide and Conquer

Second wave feminism serves to advance cultural marxism, which posits that culture and language, not the state, is responsible for oppressing women. This is why the establishment constantly promotes second wave feminism, because by blaming contrived women’s rights issues on language, culture and patriarchy, the state absolves itself of blame. By characterizing complete non-issues, such as the recent “ban bossy” campaign, as critical feminist causes, the state distracts from real women’s rights abuses, such as those committed by the governments of US allies around the world.

Cultural marxism also impugns patriarchy and the middle class as being the source of oppression, thereby enflaming class and gender wars and allowing the state to engage in divide and conquer. While people of different races and genders are trained to pick fights with each other, they are prevented from uniting against their common enemy and the only entity that can truly inflict genuine oppression – the state.

4) Mainstream Feminism Ignores Real Women’s Rights Issues

Mainstream feminism serves to deflect attention away from countries where genuine women’s rights abuses and atrocities against women are taking place, by advancing meaningless causes that have nothing to do with women’s rights and everything to do with social engineering. A recent example is the “ban bossy” campaign, which is being funded by some of the largest western banks, oil companies and PR firms on the planet.

While celebrity feminists such as Beyonce were recruited as part of lucrative public relations campaign to ban a word, the Iraqi parliament was preparing to pass a new law that would legalize rape, prohibit women leaving home without the permission of their husband, and legalize marriage for 9-year-old girls. There was no multi-million dollar feminist media blitz to bring light to this desperate situation, nor did Beyonce appear in any PSAs to put pressure on the government of Saudi Arabia over their characterization of female drivers as potential terrorists.

By misdirecting money and attention into causes that only serve to restrict free speech, establishment feminism sidelines real women’s rights issues.

5) Feminists Ignore the Plight of Muslim Women

Fearing being labeled racist, politically correct left-wing feminists will rarely if ever campaign against some of the most egregious human rights abuses committed against women in the Muslim world. This again underscores the fact that mainstream feminism is not what it purports to be.

While there are innumerable examples of women being persecuted in the Muslim world, from their characterization as terrorists simply for driving in Saudi Arabia, to genital mutilation in African countries, to stonings in places like Afghanistan, establishment feminists are too busy pursuing inane and offbeat causes such as Wikipedia being too “masculine” in order to focus on actual examples of oppression.

While western feminists continue to contrive pointless arguments about “sexism” in western culture that are almost half a century out of date, the feminist movement is virtually AWOL when it comes to voicing fierce criticism of Muslim societies whose treatment of women is at least 200 years behind acceptable modern standards.

“It is a curious fact that our courageous feminists leaders, women who attack mild-mannered American men at the slightest sign of sexism, often grow oddly silent when confronted with the more fundamental abuse of women in Muslim societies,” writes Charlotte Hays, noting how feminists attack people who speak out against FGM (female genital mutilation) by scorning them at “culturally insensitive”.

6) Advertising Targets Women

In the United States, women buy more than 80% of all goods and services. This is why the majority of advertising is aimed at women. Advertisers routinely hijack feminist sentiment to push products that are not even beneficial and in some cases harmful to women, such as paraben-laden cosmetic products. This can be traced right back to the very foundation of modern advertising when Edward Bernays, the “father of public relations,” was hired to sell cigarettes to women, who had previously been banned from smoking in public. By marketing Lucky Strike cigarettes as “torches of freedom” and connecting them with the suffrage movement, Bernays convinced millions of women to take up the habit, undoubtedly leading to chronic illnesses and deaths in many cases.

Today’s advertising targets women by making them feel inadequate about their appearance and lifestyle. Studies have shown that just looking at an object intended to enhance beauty makes women feel worse about themselves. Advertising teaches women that the only way to combat feelings of inadequacy is to endlessly consume beauty products and clothing. This in turn objectifies women as little more than pretty things to be looked at and dissuades them from spending their time and money on far more worthy activities like self-improvement, education and creative pursuits.

7) Mainstream Feminism is About Hating & Denigrating Masculinity

As dissident feminist Camille Paglia has expertly identified, mainstream feminism’s obsession with denying biological differences between men and women is to blame for many of modern society’s relationship troubles. “What you’re seeing is how a civilization commits suicide,” asserts Paglia, noting that the emancipation of masculine virtues is psychologically neutering boys and creating a toxic gender imbalance.

This is part of the reason why many women now complain that it is increasingly difficult to find “real men,” in other words emotionally stable men who are comfortable in their masculinity and are not afraid to express it. Feminism has frightened an entire generation of young men into being confused about how they should behave around women lest they be labeled a misogynist. This deliberate attempt to confuse gender roles undoubtedly contributes to many relationship breakdowns and soaring divorce rates.

8) Women are Being Brainwashed that Femininity and Motherhood are Dirty Words

Despite motherhood being one of the most difficult and crucial roles any woman could undertake – nurturing a child from birth and attempting to help it grow into a stable and happy individual – mainstream feminism habitually disparages women taking on traditional gender roles as somehow being a form of bondage to a patriarchal society. Women are also erroneously told that they can put having children on hold until their late 30′s or 40′s without there being a substantial risk of complications.

The feminist dogma of gender as a social construction and not as an innate biological science serves to confuse gender roles, straining relationships between men and women and eroding the very foundation of society.

As the Independent Women’s Forum asserts, “While environment and socialization do play a significant role in human life, a growing body of research in neuroscience, endocrinology, and psychology over the past 40 years suggests there is a biological basis for many sex differences in aptitudes and preferences. In general, males have better spatial reasoning skills; females better verbal skills. Males are greater risk takers; females are more nurturing.”

9) The Real War on Women: Plunging Fertility Rates

Just as sperm counts for men are plunging worldwide, female fertility rates are showing a similar decline. America’s total fertility rate is now below the replacement rate, at 1.93 for the average woman. This figure hasn’t been above the replacement rate of 2.1 children since the early 70′s.

While second wave feminism has framed women’s reproductive rights around the issue of abortion, concerns about plunging fertility rates have gone unaddressed. There are numerous health and environmental factors which are contributing to declining fertility, including genetically modified foods and vaccines.

10) Estrogen Mimickers Causing Cancer

Growing concern over how estrogen mimickers pose a huge health threat to women is also another issue that mainstream feminism has failed to address. Many of the transnational corporations that bankroll feminism would be directly impacted if estrogen mimickers, found in pharmaceuticals, pesticides, cosmetic products and industrial by-products, were banned, which is a primary reason why establishment feminism sidelines the problem.

Last year, researchers at Duke University linked environmental exposure to bisphenol A, a common plastic, with disruption of a gene necessary for proper functioning of nerve cells. Estrogen mimickers are causing cells to rapidly grow out of control, leading to the formation of cancerous tumors. Breast cancer amongst women is surging. “15 million years of ‘healthy life’ were lost worldwide in 2008 due to women dying early or being ill with the disease,” according to scientific studies.

Conclusion

The good news is that many women are losing faith in second wave feminism. Recent polls show that a minority of women – 38 per cent – consider themselves feminists, while 72 per cent of Americans as a whole do not consider themselves to be feminists.

An increasing understanding of the fact that establishment feminism is a political dogma exclusively designed to achieve social engineering while ignoring real women’s rights issues has led to many former feminists renouncing their involvement in feminism, which is increasingly becoming a fringe movement that has succeeded only in discrediting itself.

Putting Electronics in People

By Glenn Zorpette

Posted 10 Mar 2014 | 19:14 GMT

spectrum.ieee.org

A baby born five to 10 years from now in a developed country may get a tattoo not long after her first feeding. It would be an integrated circuit, a discreet and flexible affair, smaller than a postage stamp and probably placed on the chest. It would monitor such biometric parameters as electrocardiogram (EKG), physical activity, nutritional status, sleep duration, breathing rate, body temperature, and hydration. By the time the child is two years old, she will have generated and stored in the cloud more biometric data than has anyone alive today, says Leslie Saxon, chief of the division of cardiovascular medicine at the University of Southern California’s Keck School of Medicine.

The data, possibly collected from one or more sensors in the body, would be transmitted to cellphones or tablets where apps would give parents and pediatricians insights into the baby’s health and condition in real-time. 

And it won’t be just children who are sensored up, Saxon says. Athletes, soldiers, and just about everybody else would benefit. It’s part of a future in which “patients own their data and have the resources to interact with it,” Saxon says. “They’ll manage symptoms and medication, food and physical activity,” she predicts. “You’ll be able to curate your own body metrics.” And that’s not all. Noting that the deluges of data will be valuable to pharmaceutical, biomedical, and other companies, Saxon suggested that “maybe you should be paid for your data.”

Saxon, addressing a standing-room-only crowd of about 500 people, was the first speaker at the IEEE Technology For Humanity series at the SXSW Interactive conference in Austin, Texas, on Saturday.

She acknowledged the potential pitfalls that have fueled apprehension about such schemes, such as concerns about privacy. With a piece of hardware in your body that can identify you uniquely and unequivocally, and with sensitive data flowing from your body continuously, the potential for tracking or misuse of the data are worrisome, she conceded. “Maybe there has to be a virtual UN [United Nations], to make sure individuals’ rights are safeguarded,” she said. She also acknowledged that many people don’t want to know data that could reveal critical aspects about their long-term health prospects.

It will only work, she says, if people are “using machines to amplify their humanity, not to scare the heck out of them.” Clever apps could let people “discover revelatory stuff about themselves,” she pointed out. “It should be fun–like cinematic arts, it should engage me, and be on-demand.” An avid popular music fan, Saxon noted how she became a believer in Spotify, the music streaming and recommending service, after it steered her to the rapper Lil Wayne. She had never been a rap fan, but Spotify “decided I’d like him, and I do!” she exclaimed.

To underscore the point, Saxon set up a Spotify playlist, which is described on her YouTube channel.

Already, she said, 27 percent of Americans use some sort of gear that measures biometric data, such as a wristband that records timing of physical activity and sleep. These will evolve into “incredible sensors that can change the human-machine interface,” she predicted. They’ll be implantable, networked, and durable, and become a part of our leisure and personal lives. Imagine “merging sensors from our bodies to those of, say, a high-end car, to enhance the experience of driving the car.” Or, “suppose you’ve had a fight with your husband. How does digital data inform you and help you move beyond it?”

One coming application will be tiny, ingestible sensors, which will be taken with pills. The sensors will affirm that a patient has taken a correct dosage, and then monitor physiological reactions to the dose, enabling doctors to fine-tune it. Thirty to 50 percent of patients don’t take drugs in the dosages prescribed, Saxon said. In fact, Saxon noted, an ingestible-sensor scheme developed by Proteus Digital Health has already been FDA approved, and is being rolled out for heart-failure related drugs.

Getting back to the children, Saxon noted that widespread use of sensors in young people could be particularly invaluable in developing countries, where outbreaks of disease are more common and often difficult to analyze and trace. Undernourishment, too, could be better understood. “Major public health concerns could be addressed in these ways,” Saxon said. And the benefits would accrue in some surprising places—some 2 million children live in poverty and are undernourished in her home state of California, according to Saxon.

The Future of Brain Implants

How soon can we expect to see brain implants for perfect memory, enhanced vision, hypernormal focus or an expert golf swing?

By Gary Marcus and Christof Koch

March 14, 2014 7:30 p.m. ET

online.wsj.com

What would you give for a retinal chip that let you see in the dark or for a next-generation cochlear implant that let you hear any conversation in a noisy restaurant, no matter how loud? Or for a memory chip, wired directly into your brain’s hippocampus, that gave you perfect recall of everything you read? Or for an implanted interface with the Internet that automatically translated a clearly articulated silent thought (“the French sun king”) into an online search that digested the relevant Wikipedia page and projected a summary directly into your brain?

Science fiction? Perhaps not for very much longer. Brain implants today are where laser eye surgery was several decades ago. They are not risk-free and make sense only for a narrowly defined set of patients—but they are a sign of things to come.

Unlike pacemakers, dental crowns or implantable insulin pumps, neuroprosthetics—devices that restore or supplement the mind’s capacities with electronics inserted directly into the nervous system—change how we perceive the world and move through it. For better or worse, these devices become part of who we are.

Neuroprosthetics aren’t new. They have been around commercially for three decades, in the form of the cochlear implants used in the ears (the outer reaches of the nervous system) of more than 300,000 hearing-impaired people around the world. Last year, the Food and Drug Administration approved the first retinal implant, made by the company Second Sight.

Both technologies exploit the same principle: An external device, either a microphone or a video camera, captures sounds or images and processes them, using the results to drive a set of electrodes that stimulate either the auditory or the optic nerve, approximating the naturally occurring output from the ear or the eye.

Another type of now-common implant, used by thousands of Parkinson’s patients around the world, sends electrical pulses deep into the brain proper, activating some of the pathways involved in motor control. A thin electrode is inserted into the brain through a small opening in the skull; it is connected by a wire that runs to a battery pack underneath the skin. The effect is to reduce or even eliminate the tremors and rigid movement that are such prominent symptoms of Parkinson’s (though, unfortunately, the device doesn’t halt the progression of the disease itself). Experimental trials are now under way to test the efficacy of such “deep brain stimulation” for treating other disorders as well.

Electrical stimulation can also improve some forms of memory, as the neurosurgeon Itzhak Fried and his colleagues at the University of California, Los Angeles, showed in a 2012 article in the New England Journal of Medicine. Using a setup akin to a videogame, seven patients were taught to navigate a virtual city environment with a joystick, picking up passengers and delivering them to specific stores. Appropriate electrical stimulation to the brain during the game increased their speed and accuracy in accomplishing the task.

But not all brain implants work by directly stimulating the brain. Some work instead by reading the brain’s signals—to interpret, for example, the intentions of a paralyzed user. Eventually, neuroprosthetic systems might try to do both, reading a user’s desires, performing an action like a Web search and then sending the results directly back to the brain.

How close are we to having such wondrous devices? To begin with, scientists, doctors and engineers need to figure out safer and more reliable ways of inserting probes into people’s brains. For now, the only option is to drill small burr-holes through the skull and to insert long, thin electrodes—like pencil leads—until they reach their destinations deep inside the brain. This risks infection, since the wires extend through the skin, and bleeding inside the brain, which could be devastating or even fatal.

External devices, like the brainwave-reading skull cap made by the company NeuroSky (marketed to the public as “having applications for wellness, education and entertainment”), have none of these risks. But because their sensors are so far removed from individual neurons, they are also far less effective. They are like Keystone Kops trying to eavesdrop on a single conversation from outside a giant football stadium.

A boy wearing a cochlear implant for the hearing-impaired. A second portion is surgically implanted under the skin. Barcroft Media/Getty Images

Today, effective brain-machine interfaces have to be wired directly into the brain to pick up the signals emanating from small groups of nerve cells. But nobody yet knows how to make devices that listen to the same nerve cells that long. Part of the problem is mechanical: The brain sloshes around inside the skull every time you move, and an implant that slips by a millimeter may become ineffective.

Another part of the problem is biological: The implant must be nontoxic and biocompatible so as not to provoke an immune reaction. It also must be small enough to be totally enclosed within the skull and energy-efficient enough that it can be recharged through induction coils placed on the scalp at night (as with the recharging stands now used for some electric toothbrushes).

These obstacles may seem daunting, but many of them look suspiciously like the ones that cellphone manufacturers faced two decades ago, when cellphones were still the size of shoeboxes. Neural implants will require even greater advances since there is no easy way to upgrade them once they are implanted and the skull is sealed back up.

But plenty of clever young neuro-engineers are trying to surmount these problems, like Michel Maharbiz and Jose Carmena and their colleagues at the University of California, Berkeley. They are developing a wireless brain interface that they call “neural dust.” Thousands of biologically neutral microsensors, on the order of one-tenth of a millimeter (approximately the thickness of a human hair), would convert electrical signals into ultrasound that could be read outside the brain.

The real question isn’t so much whether something like this can be done but how and when. How many advances in material science, battery chemistry, molecular biology, tissue engineering and neuroscience will we need? Will those advances take one decade, two decades, three or more? As Dr. Maharbiz said in an email, once implants “can be made ‘lifetime stable’ for healthy adults, many severe disabilities…will likely be chronically treatable.” For millions of patients, neural implants could be absolutely transformative.

Assuming that we’re able to clear these bioengineering barriers, the next challenge will be to interpret the complex information from the 100 billion tiny nerve cells that make up the brain. We are already able to do this in limited ways.

Based on decades of prior research in nonhuman primates, John Donoghue of Brown University and his colleagues created a system called BrainGate that allows fully paralyzed patients to control devices with their thoughts. BrainGate works by inserting a small chip, studded with about 100 needlelike wires—a high-tech brush—into the part of the neocortex controlling movement. These motor signals are fed to an external computer that decodes them and passes them along to external robotic devices.

Almost a decade ago, this system was used by a tetraplegic to control an artificial hand. More recently, in a demonstration of the technology’s possibilities that is posted on YouTube, Cathy Hutchinson, paralyzed years earlier by a brainstem stroke, managed to take a drink from a bottle of coffee by manipulating a robot arm with only her brain and a neural implant that literally read (part of) her mind.

For now, guiding a robot arm this way is cumbersome and laborious, like steering a massive barge or an out-of-alignment car. Given the current state of neuroscience, even our best neuroscientists can read the activity of a brain only as if through a glass darkly; we get the gist of what is going on, but we are still far from understanding the details.

In truth, we have no idea at present how the human brain does some of its most basic feats, like translating a vague desire to return that tennis ball into the torrent of tightly choreographed commands that smoothly execute the action. No serious neuroscientist could claim to have a commercially ready brain-reading device with a fraction of the precision or responsiveness of a computer keyboard.

In understanding the neural code, we have a long way to go. That’s why the federally funded BRAIN Initiative, announced last year by President Barack Obama, is so important. We need better tools to listen to the brain and more precise tools for sending information back to the brain, along with a far more detailed understanding of different kinds of nerve cells and how they fit together in complex circuits.

The coarse-grained functional MRI brain images that have become so popular in recent years won’t be enough. For one thing, they are indirect; they measure changes not in electrical activity but in local blood flow, which is at best an imperfect stand-in. Images from fMRIs also lack sufficient resolution to give us true mastery of the neural code. Each three-dimensional pixel (or “voxel”) in a brain scan contains a half-million to one million neurons. What we really need is to be able to zero in on individual neurons.

Zooming in further is crucial because the atoms of perception, memory and consciousness aren’t brain regions but neurons and even finer-grained elements. Chemists turned chemistry into a quantitative science once they realized that chemical reactions are (almost) all about electrons making and breaking bonds among atoms. Neuroscientists are trying to do the same thing for the brain. Until we do, brain implants will be working only on the logic of forests, without sufficient understanding of the individual trees.

One of the most promising tools in this regard is a recently developed technique called optogenetics, which hijacks the molecular machinery of the genes found inside every neuron to directly manipulate the brain’s circuitry. In this way, any group of neurons with a unique genetic ZIP Code can be switched on or off, with unparalleled precision, by brief pulses of different colored light—effectively turning the brain into a piano that can be played. This fantastic marriage of molecular biology with optics and electronics is already being deployed to build advanced retinal prosthetics for adult-onset blindness. It is revolutionizing the whole field of neuroscience.

Advances in molecular biology, neuroscience and material science are almost certainly going to lead, in time, to implants that are smaller, smarter, more stable and more energy-efficient. These devices will be able to interpret directly the blizzard of electrical activity inside the brain. For now, they are an abstraction, something that people read about but are unlikely to experience for themselves. But someday that will change.

Consider the developmental arc of medical technologies such as breast surgery. Though they were pioneered for post-mastectomy reconstruction and for correcting congenital defects, breast augmentation and other cosmetic procedures such as face-lifts and tummy tucks have become routine. The procedures are reliable, effective and inexpensive enough to be attractive to broad segments of society, not just to the rich and famous.

Eventually neural implants will make the transition from being used exclusively for severe problems such as paralysis, blindness or amnesia. They will be adopted by people with less traumatic disabilities. When the technology has advanced enough, implants will graduate from being strictly repair-oriented to enhancing the performance of healthy or “normal” people. They will be used to improve memory, mental focus (Ritalin without the side effects), perception and mood (bye, bye Prozac).

Many people will resist the first generation of elective implants. There will be failures and, as with many advances in medicine, there will be deaths. But anybody who thinks that the products won’t sell is naive. Even now, some parents are willing to let their children take Adderall before a big exam. The chance to make a “superchild” (or at least one guaranteed to stay calm and attentive for hours on end during a big exam) will be too tempting for many.

Even if parents don’t invest in brain implants, the military will. A continuing program at Darpa, a Pentagon agency that invests in cutting-edge technology, is already supporting work on brain implants that improve memory to help soldiers injured in war. Who could blame a general for wanting a soldier with hypernormal focus, a perfect memory for maps and no need to sleep for days on end? (Of course, spies might well also try to eavesdrop on such a soldier’s brain, and hackers might want to hijack it. Security will be paramount, encryption de rigueur.)

An early generation of enhancement implants might help elite golfers improve their swing by automating their mental practice. A later generation might allow weekend golfers to skip practice altogether. Once neuroscientists figure out how to reverse-engineer the end results of practice, “neurocompilers” might be able to install the results of a year’s worth of training directly into the brain, all in one go.

That won’t happen in the next decade or maybe even in the one after that. But before the end of the century, our computer keyboards and trackpads will seem like a joke; even Google Glass 3.0 will seem primitive. Why would you project information onto your eyes (partly occluding your view) when you could write information into your brain so your mind can directly interpret it? Why should a computer wait for you to say or type what you mean rather than anticipating your needs before you can even articulate them?

By the end of this century, and quite possibly much sooner, every input device that has ever been sold will be obsolete. Forget the “heads-up” displays that the high-end car manufactures are about to roll out, allowing drivers to see data without looking away from the road. By the end of the century, many of us will be wired directly into the cloud, from brain to toe.

Will these devices make our society as a whole happier, more peaceful and more productive? What kind of world might they create?

It’s impossible to predict. But, then again, it is not the business of the future to be predictable or sugarcoated. As President Ronald Reagan once put it, “The future doesn’t belong to the fainthearted; it belongs to the brave.”

The augmented among us—those who are willing to avail themselves of the benefits of brain prosthetics and to live with the attendant risks—will outperform others in the everyday contest for jobs and mates, in science, on the athletic field and in armed conflict. These differences will challenge society in new ways—and open up possibilities that we can scarcely imagine.

Dr. Marcus is professor of psychology at New York University and often blogs about science and technology for the New Yorker. Dr. Koch is the chief scientific officer of the Allen Institute for Brain Science in Seattle.

Some Thoughts On The Article V Issue

by Tom DeWeese
February 25, 2014
newswithviews.com

I’ve written many articles in the past concerning my opposition to a Constitutional Convention (Con Con). I’ve also helped in successful fights in Ohio and Kansas to stop Con Con Resolutions. But recently there is a new twist in the effort to amend the Constitution to preserve freedom. It’s called an Article V Convention of the States.

Proponents say it answers my concerns over the dangers of a Con Con, and so many activists have asked me where I stand on this new effort. So here are a few thoughts.

I certainly feel the pain of patriotic Americans over the state of our Constitution. The original document has been basically put in a museum on Connecticut Ave. in Washington, DC and forgotten. We are told it is old and outdated. Not relevant to today’s age of technology, and moral reality. Old guys in powdered wigs wrote it. They knew nothing about instant communications, international terrorists, and besides, they were slave owners. How could their ideas possibly be relevant to us today? I’m sure Nancy Pelosi never read the Constitution because she would have had to pass it through Congress before she could find out what’s in it. For Obama, it’s just a road block keeping him from his need to change the country.

Well, you’ve all heard those arguments. The result is a government out of control. Spending is skyrocketing. Gun rights are under siege. Obamacare…right! Property rights, American industry, the dollar, personal privacy, and even our ability to choose the foods we want to eat, are all disappearing under an out-of-control government.

Something has to be done. There are those who argue that we can’t wait to try to elect the right kind of representatives in Congress and the White House. We have to take matters into our own hands immediately.

We have to see that the Constitution is strengthened to assure a balanced budged. Some have gone so far as to declare 10 Amendments for Freedom, including a plan to repay the national debt, enforce legislative transparency, a line item veto, term limits, immigration control, English as the national language, only U.S. laws over America, no socialism and a government bound by “In God we Trust.” And there are amendment ideas floating around to assure the Constitution is sound and strong for future generations.

Few of us would disagree with most of these ideas. They are put forth by respected leaders who have a record of promoting limited and Constitutional government. But how do we put these plans into action?

Radio host Mark Levin wrote a compelling book suggesting that there is a pressure valve written into Article V of the Constitution that shows us the way, through a convention of the states – an Article V Convention, as it is called. And we are assured that this is not a Constitutional Convention (Con Con) through which states call on Congress to convene. Too dangerous they tell us – and I agree.

No, an Article V Convention is different. We are told that the term Constitutional Convention or Con Con is inaccurate. That an Article V Convention is designed to precisely avoid the need for a Con Con. Specifically an Article V Convention is a meeting of the states -out of the control of Congress and the Pelosis of the nation. Each state will get one vote, and that will prevent a runaway convention that could result in the gutting of the Constitution. And through such a process, the states can control the agenda of the convention and therefore pass Mark Levin’s freedom amendments. It’s that simple. Moreover, the idea has captured the support of major Conservative leadership, including Sean Hannity, Home School leader Michael Farris, former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, commentator Tim Baldwin, the Goldwater Institute, and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), and many more. All well respected leaders and advocates of limited government and Constitutional law.

I won’t begin to question them, their integrity, or their honorable intentions. I believe most are sincere in their concern and desire to save our Republic. But I have a few questions and observations.

First, what is the real issue here? What is the real reason why we have to even consider trying to redefine what the Founders meant our government to be? After all, it’s all in the Constitution already. Article V advocates, and Conservative movement in general, will readily tell you that the real issue is that our government, from the White House, to Congress, to the Supreme Court, are failing or refusing to follow Constitutional Law. They ignore it. So, say Article V proponents, that’s why we must amend the Constitution to assure our freedoms are guaranteed.

But, here is my real question for Article V advocates: If government today refuses to follow the Constitution, what will change once it is amended with the Articles of Freedom? What motivation will suddenly drive the Obamas and Pelosis to say “oh, the Constitution is the law of the land and we must follow it?” Especially when they oppose those freedom amendments for the same reasons they today ignore the entire Constitution. The Progressives who are in charge simply do not believe in balanced budgets, gun rights, and control of our borders. In addition, they really don’t care what a majority of Americans want, either. So an argument that the passage of the amendments will confirm that Americans want such a government cuts no ice with them.

Frankly, I believe that if we don’t change the atmosphere and mind set in the nation to one that supports the ideas behind our Constitution (free markets, individual liberty, limited government, and private property rights), then all the amendments in the world aren’t going to change the drive toward more and more government. The place to start that effort is by working to take back control of our local school systems, out of the clutches of the Federal Department of Education. Then, if we do first succeed in changing the mind-set of the nation to accept our ideas, a convention won’t be needed, We will have the necessary support around the nation to elect the right kind or representatives to restore Constitutional law through their legislative action. That, I believe, is the real task that lies ahead of us. There is no short cut or silver bullet around it.

Second. As I listen to Article V proponents make their arguments about how they’re going to bring about change – that they are going to bring all of these states together, hold a convention and pass their amendments, they seem to ignore the very existence of the Progressive movement that today controls nearly every aspect of our governing process. What do Article V proponents think these forces are going to do while the convention process is going on? Here’s what my research has found. Progressive groups like the Open Society Institute, the Center for American Progress, and the American Constitutional Society, to name a few, all groups funded by George Soros, are behind a movement for a more “Progressive Constitution.” They are simply not going to let conservatives have the playing field to themselves. They will use every trick, spending every dollar in their bulging war chests, to assure they control the process. Tim Baldwin has written with great vigor in support of the Article V Convention. But I think it is interesting to note that his father, Chuck Baldwin, former Constitution Party presidential candidate, author, columnist and a personal friend of mine, was quoted in a World Net Daily column in 2009, entitled “Globalists ‘Salivating’ over Collapse of America,” said, “The globalists who currently control Washington, D.C., and Wall Street are, no doubt, salivating over the opportunity to officially dismantle America’s independence and national sovereignty, and establish North American Union — in much the same way that globalists created the European Union. A new Constitutional Convention is exactly the tool they need to cement their sinister scheme into law.” Yes, Chuck was talking about a Con Con, but what will be different in an Article V Convention of the States if the Progressives get into the process?

Third I have a great concern over how the Article V Convention is being promoted. I have been an activist all of my life. I have seen pretty much every tactic used by powerful forces who are trying to railroad the people. The tactics always seem to be the same. Use the facilitation process to bring people into the fold, control the debate, and attack the opposition with accusations of deceit and fringe ideas. I have many times been awarded a tin foil hat by such forces for advocating ideas contrary to their vision for America. So, I’m a little sensitive to such tactics when I see them. And I know that the Tea Party is well aware of such tactics. That, in fact, is one of the things that motivates true Tea Party patriots to take action against rich, powerful, DC based groups which try to usurp or control the Tea Party. Yet, these are exactly the tactics I see being employed today by Article V proponents. Some of my associates have attempted to speak out at meetings where Article V is being promoted, and are not allowed the floor. That should sound familiar to Ron Paul supporters who have had microphones yanked out of their hands or turned off at state conventions. A couple of my friends have even been asked to represent the anti-Article V position. But, while the Article V proponent is given all the time he wants, the opposition is usually allowed only a few minutes to make their case. If the TeaParty is opposed to such tactics by County Commissioners, legislative committees, or Republican leadership at state conventions – then why don’t they question it at their own meetings? A full, open debate is always healthy in a free society. A deliberate attempt to silence opposition should cause people to question the motives of the perpetrators.

Finally, the proponents of Article V take great comfort in reciting the powerful names of those supporting their efforts. As I said, many are very respected leaders of the Conservative movement. But, how dare they deride in such nasty fashion, those who oppose them? They’ve called Phyllis Schlafly an old lady and out of touch. Phyllis was fighting for the Constitution when most of these Article V proponents were still in school. She risked everything she had to stop the Progressives’ Equal Rights Amendment. Home school advocate Mike Farris has called the John Birch Society evil. JBS has been unwavering in its dedication to the Constitution through the dark days of Communist infiltration of the 1950’s to today’s fight against Agenda 21.

The fact is, I was forced to part ways with Mike Farris and his tactics in the 1990s [bold italics added] . At the time I was heavily engaged in a three year war to stop the destruction of our public school system through the “reforms” known as Goals 2000, School-to-Work and The Work Force Development Act. Today, these “reforms” have morphed onto Common Core. When we had a chance to stop them in the 1990s, Mike Farris refused to support my efforts against the Work Force Development Boards, saying they didn’t affect home schoolers! I considered that a betrayal to every student in the nation.

It is with great pain that I acknowledge that some people I really respect have joined the Article V effort. But I can’t join them because, to me, something really smells about this Article V movement. Its arguments don’t past scrutiny. Its tactics are underhanded. Its source of funding is not in the open. I think honest Tea Party members and dedicated freedom activists should ask a lot of questions before risking our precious Constitution to their lot.

© 2014 Tom DeWeese – All Rights Reserved 


Tom DeWeese is one of the nation’s leading advocates of individual liberty, free enterprise, private property rights, personal privacy, back-to-basics education and American sovereignty and independence.

A native of Ohio, he’s been a candidate for the Ohio Legislature, served as editor of two newspapers, and has owned several businesses since the age of 23. In 1989 Tom led the only privately-funded election-observation team to the Panamanian elections. In 2006 Tom was invited to Cambridge University to debate the issue of the United Nations before the Cambridge Union, a 200 year old debating society. Today he serves as Founder and President of the American Policy Center and editor of The DeWeese Report

For 40 years Tom DeWeese has been a businessman, grassroots activist, writer and publisher. As such, he has always advocated a firm belief in man’s need to keep moving forward while protecting our Constitutionally-guaranteed rights.

The DeWeese Report , 70 Main Street, Suite 23, Warrenton Virginia. (540) 341-8911

E-Mail: admin@americanpolicy.org

E-Mail: ampolicycenter@hotmail.com
Website: www.americanpolicy.org