The Banality of ‘Don’t Be Evil’ & the CFR

clinton and schmidt.png

Google Chairman CFR member Eric Schmidt shares a joke with  Hillary Clinton, wife of CFR member Bill Clinton, during a special “fireside chat” with Google staff. The talk was held on 21 Jul 2014 at Google’s headquarters in Mountain View, California.

Julian Assange’s article The Banality of Don’t Be Evil appeared in the New York Times on June 1, 2013. It is about Google, Google Chairman Eric Schmidt and Google’s director of Google Ideas Jared Cohen. Missing from the article are connections to the Council on Foreign Relations. Both Schmidt and Cohen are members. Just about every other person mentioned in the article is also a CFR member.

Assange’s book Google Met Wikileaks makes the connection clear. I have modified the article to make the connection clear in The Banality of ‘Don’t Be Evil’ too.

The golden rule of CFR members is the ends justify the means. CFR member Madeleine Albright gives a disturbing illustration of this in a video where she rationalizes the murder of 500,000 women and children.

The CFR took control of the government of the U.S. in 1921`and has kept the world in a state of endless war ever since. They are now in the process of developing a new kind of war – cyberwar. They will add a new cyberwar branch to the military which will become another CFR military industrial complex profit center. The CFR membership is evil and is the rat in RATionalization. Read all about them.

SundayReview | Opinion

The Banality of ‘Don’t Be Evil’

By JULIAN ASSANGE JUNE 1, 2013

picture-1

“THE New Digital Age” is a startlingly clear and provocative blueprint for technocratic imperialism, from two of its leading witch doctors, [CFR member] Eric Schmidt and [CFR member] Jared Cohen, who construct a new idiom for United States global power in the 21st century. This idiom reflects the ever closer union between the [CFR run] State Department and Silicon Valley, as personified by [CFR member] Mr. Schmidt, the executive chairman of Google, and [CFR member] Mr. Cohen, a former adviser to [CFR member] Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton [wife of CFR member Bill Clinton & mother of CFR member Chelsea Clinton] who is now director of Google Ideas.

cohen.jpg

Director of Google Ideas, and “geopolitical visionary” CFR member Jared Cohen shares his vision with US Army recruits in a lecture theater at West Point Military Academy on 26 Feb 2014 (Instagram by Eric Schmidt) The vision includes censoring the internet using his new software being developed in project Jigsaw. Do you think the NSA/CIA might be helping Jared develop jigsaw?

The authors met in occupied Baghdad in 2009, when the book was conceived. [Could the authors met long before at the CFR and been sent to Baghdad by the CFR run NSA/CIA to try and help shape things?]  Strolling among the ruins, the two became excited that consumer technology was transforming a society flattened by United States military occupation. They decided the tech industry could be a powerful agent of American foreign policy.

The book proselytizes the role of technology in reshaping the world’s people and nations into likenesses of the world’s dominant superpower, whether they want to be reshaped or not. The prose is terse, the argument confident and the wisdom — banal. But this isn’t a book designed to be read. It is a major declaration designed to foster alliances.

“The New Digital Age” is, beyond anything else, an attempt by Google to position itself as America’s geopolitical visionary — the one company that can answer the question “Where should America go?” It is not surprising that a respectable cast of the world’s most famous warmongers has been trotted out to give its stamp of approval to this enticement to Western soft power. The acknowledgments give pride of place to [CFR member] Henry Kissinger, who along with [Chatham House member] Tony Blair and the former C.I.A. director [CFR member] Michael Hayden provided advance praise for the book.

kiss

Google’s Chairman,  CFR member Eric Schmidt, photographed in a New York elevator, carrying CFR member Henry Kissinger’s new book, “World Order”, 25 Sep 2014

In the book the authors happily take up the white geek’s burden. A liberal sprinkling of convenient, hypothetical dark-skinned worthies appear: Congolese fisherwomen, graphic designers in Botswana, anticorruption activists in San Salvador and illiterate Masai cattle herders in the Serengeti are all obediently summoned to demonstrate the progressive properties of Google phones jacked into the informational supply chain of the Western empire.

The authors offer an expertly banalized version of tomorrow’s world: the gadgetry of decades hence is predicted to be much like what we have right now — only cooler. “Progress” is driven by the inexorable spread of American consumer technology over the surface of the earth. Already, every day, another million or so Google-run mobile devices are activated. Google will interpose itself, and hence the United States government, between the communications of every human being not in China (naughty China). Commodities just become more marvelous; young, urban professionals sleep, work and shop with greater ease and comfort; democracy is insidiously subverted by technologies of surveillance, and control is enthusiastically rebranded as “participation”; and our present world order of systematized domination, intimidation and oppression continues, unmentioned, unafflicted or only faintly perturbed.

The authors are sour about the Egyptian triumph of 2011. They dismiss the Egyptian youth witheringly, claiming that “the mix of activism and arrogance in young people is universal.” Digitally inspired mobs mean revolutions will be “easier to start” but “harder to finish.” Because of the absence of strong leaders, the result, or so [CFR member] Mr. Kissinger tells the authors, will be coalition governments that descend into autocracies. They say there will be “no more springs” (but China is on the ropes).

hills.jpg

CFR member Eric Schmidt’s Instagram of CFR spouse Hillary Clinton and CFR member David Rubinstein, taken at the Holbrooke Forum Gala, 5 Dec 2013. CFR member Richard Holbrooke (who died in 2010) was a high-profile US diplomat, managing director of Lehman brothers, a board member of NED, CFR, the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg steering group and an advisor to Hillary Clinton and CFR member John Kerry. CFR member Schmidt donated over $100k to the the Holbrooke Forum

The authors fantasize about the future of “well resourced” revolutionary groups. A new “crop of consultants” will “use data to build and fine-tune a political figure.”

“His” speeches (the future isn’t all that different) and writing will be fed “through complex feature-extraction and trend-analysis software suites” while “mapping his brain function,” and other “sophisticated diagnostics” will be used to “assess the weak parts of his political repertoire.”

The book mirrors State Department institutional taboos and obsessions. It avoids meaningful criticism of Israel and Saudi Arabia. It pretends, quite extraordinarily, that the Latin American sovereignty movement, which has liberated so many from United States-backed plutocracies and dictatorships over the last 30 years, never happened. Referring instead to the region’s “aging leaders,” the book can’t see Latin America for Cuba. And, of course, the book frets theatrically over Washington’s favorite boogeymen: North Korea and Iran.

Google, which started out as an expression of independent Californian graduate student culture — a decent, humane and playful culture — has, as it encountered the big, bad world, thrown its lot in with traditional Washington power elements, from the State Department to the National Security Agency.

Despite accounting for an infinitesimal fraction of violent deaths globally, terrorism is a favorite brand in United States policy circles. This is a fetish that must also be catered to, and so “The Future of Terrorism” gets a whole chapter. The future of terrorism, we learn, is cyberterrorism. A session of indulgent scaremongering follows, including a breathless disaster-movie scenario, wherein cyberterrorists take control of American air-traffic control systems and send planes crashing into buildings, shutting down power grids and launching nuclear weapons. The authors then tar activists who engage in digital sit-ins with the same brush.

I have a very different perspective. The advance of information technology epitomized by Google heralds the death of privacy for most people and shifts the world toward authoritarianism. This is the principal thesis in my book, “Cypherpunks.” But while [CFR members] Mr. Schmidt and Mr. Cohen tell us that the death of privacy will aid governments in “repressive autocracies” in “targeting their citizens,” they also say governments in “open” democracies will see it as “a gift” enabling them to “better respond to citizen and customer concerns.” In reality, the erosion of individual privacy in the West and the attendant centralization of power make abuses inevitable, moving the “good” societies closer to the “bad” ones.

The section on “repressive autocracies” describes, disapprovingly, various repressive surveillance measures: legislation to insert back doors into software to enable spying on citizens, monitoring of social networks and the collection of intelligence on entire populations. All of these are already in widespread use in the United States. In fact, some of those measures — like the push to require every social-network profile to be linked to a real name — were spearheaded by Google itself.

THE writing is on the wall, but the authors cannot see it. They borrow from William Dobson the idea that the media, in an autocracy, “allows for an opposition press as long as regime opponents understand where the unspoken limits are.” But these trends are beginning to emerge in the United States. No one doubts the chilling effects of the investigations into The Associated Press and Fox’s James Rosen. But there has been little analysis of Google’s role in complying with the Rosen subpoena. I have personal experience of these trends.

The Department of Justice admitted in March that it was in its third year of a continuing criminal investigation of WikiLeaks. Court testimony states that its targets include “the founders, owners, or managers of WikiLeaks.” One alleged source, Bradley Manning, faces a 12-week trial beginning tomorrow, with 24 prosecution witnesses expected to testify in secret.

This book is a balefully seminal work in which neither author has the language to see, much less to express, the titanic centralizing evil they are constructing. “What [CFR member Corporation] Lockheed Martin was to the 20th century,” they tell us, “technology and cybersecurity companies will be to the 21st.” Without even understanding how, they have updated and seamlessly implemented George Orwell’s prophecy. If you want a vision of the future, imagine Washington-backed Google Glasses strapped onto vacant human faces — forever. Zealots of the cult of consumer technology will find little to inspire them here, not that they ever seem to need it. But this is essential reading for anyone caught up in the struggle for the future, in view of one simple imperative: Know your enemy.

Julian Assange is the editor in chief of WikiLeaks and author of “Cypherpunks: Freedom and the Future of the Internet.”

A version of this op-ed appears in print on June 2, 2013, on page SR4 of the New York edition with the headline: The Banality of ‘Don’t Be Evil’. Today’s Paper|Subscribe

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

TRAITORS WITHIN THE GATES: CFR’S MILITARY MEMBERSHIP ROSTER by Charleston Voice

Charleston Voice

Somehow the text on the Charleston Voice web page has become hidden. Go to the page and it appears blank. Type ctrl-A to select the page and the text appears. Wonder how that happened. Since it did I am posting a copy of the page here.

NOPE. YOU WON’T FIND ANY SMEDLEY BUTLERS AMONGST THESE TRAMPS.
AMERICA’S CFR-led US Military:

Once a Marine, always a Marine until 

you betray your countrymen.

image: http://www.cfr.org/content/bios/Buhl_dl.jpg
Colonel Willard Buhl

buhl-pic

“I am currently a military fellow,
U.S. Marine Corps, at the Council
on Foreign Relations (CFR) in New York.
I joined CFR after the great privilege
and honor of commanding the “Fighting”
Fifth Marine Regiment for the past two
years.”

GEN David Petraeus – Director CIA (Aug. 2011) Resigned 11/9/12 Admitted Adulterer present Commander of U.S. and Coalition forces in Afghanistan, 

former Commander of Central Command (CENTCOM), former Commander of U.S. and Coalition forces in Iraq, former Commander of 101st Airborne Division

                                      http://en.wikipedia.org

 

GEN Stan McChrystal – former Commander of U.S. and Coalition forces in Afghanistan[ “spent (a) year as a military fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.”]

                                             http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_A._McChrystal

 

GEN John Abizaid – former Commander of Central Command (CENTCOM)

 

GEN John Shalikashvili – former Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff (1993-1997)

 

GEN Colin Powell – former Secretary of State (2001-2005); former Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff (1989-1993)

 

GEN Richard Myers – former Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff (2001-2005)

 

GEN Wesley Clark – former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe under Clinton; a Rhodes Scholar; “Clark commanded Operation Allied Force in the Kosovo War during his term as the Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATOfrom 1997 to 2000.” US Presidential candidate 2004

                                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark

 

GEN Alexander Haig Jr. – former Secretary of State (1981-1982); former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe (1974-1979)

                                                http://www.christianlifeandliberty.net/2010-02-28-Gen-Alexander-Haig-dead-at-85-CFR-Bilderberg-RC-       Knight-of-Malta-Newsmax-NWO-servant.doc

 

GEN Carl Vuono – former Army Chief of Staff (1987-1991)

 

ADM William Crowe – USN – former Ambassador to Great Britain (1994-1997); former Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff (1985-1989)

 

GEN John Wickham – former Army Chief of Staff (1983-1987)

 

GEN Fred Woerner – former Commander of U.S. Southern Command (1987-1989)

 

GEN Larry Welch – former Air Force Chief of Staff (1986-1990)

 

MAJ GEN William Usher – former Air Force general

 

GEN Andrew Goodpaster – former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe (1969-1974), former Superintendent of U.S. Military Academy at West Point (1977-1981)

 

GEN William Westmoreland – Chief of Staff of the United States Army (1968-1972), commanded US military operations in the Vietnam War (1964-1968), former Superintendent of U.S. Military Academy at West Point (1960-1963)

 

LT GEN Bernard Trainor – United States Marine Corps

 

ADM Harry Train II – former Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic (1978-1982); former Commander of Sixth Fleet (1976-1978)

 

GEN Gordon Sullivan – former Army Chief of Staff (1991-1995)

 

MAJ GEN Perry Smith – United States Air Force – former Commandant of National War College (1983-1986)

 

GEN Eric Shinseki – former Army Chief of Staff (1999-2003)

 

LTG Brent Scowcroft – USAF – former National Security Advisor (1989-1993, 1975-1977)

 

GEN Norton Schwartz – USAF – Commander of U.S. Transportation Command (begin 2005)

 

GEN Michael Ryan – former Air Force Chief of Staff (1997-2001)

 

VICE ADM Ann Rondeau – Director of Navy Staff; former Commander of Naval Training Center Great Lakes

 

BG Frederick Roggero – USAF – Deputy Director of Operations at the Air Mobility Command Headquarters

 

GEN Dennis Reimer – former Army Chief of Staff (1995-1999)

 

ADM William Owens – former Vice Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff (1994-1996)

 

COL Lee Olvey – former Head of Department of Social Sciences at U.S. Military Academy at West Point (at some point promoted to rank of BG)

 

COL Douglas Murray – USAF – Head of Department of Political Science at Air Force Academy

 

GEN Carl Mundy – former Commandant of the Marine Corps (1991-1995)

 

GEN Teed Moseley – USAF – Air Force Chief of Staff (begin 2005)

 

GEN Edward Meyer – former Army Chief of Staff (1979-1983)

 

GEN Merrill McPeak – USAF – former Air Force Chief of Staff (1990-1994)

 

GEN Barry McCaffrey – former Commander of U.S. Southern Command (1994-1996); Clinton’s “drug czar”

 

CPT David Marquet – United States Navy (O-6) – former Commander of Submarine Squadron Three

 

COL Thomas Lynch – former Commander, U.S. Army Forces Central Command at Qatar

 

LTG William Lennox – former Superintendent of U.S. Military Academy at West Point (2001-2006)

 

ADM Charles Larson – USN – former Superintendent of U.S. Naval Academy under Reagan and Clinton

 

LTG James Lampert – former Superintendent of U.S. Military Academy at West Point (1963-1966), Lampert was a member of the Board of Director[s] of West Point’s Association of Graduates (AOG) and became AOG’s president in 1978.

 

MG William Knowlton – former Superintendent of U.S. Military Academy at West Point (1970-1974)

 

LTG Frank Klotz – USAF – Vice Commander of Air Force Space Command (begin 2005); a Rhodes Scholar

 

LTG Jack Klimp – USMC – former Commander of Task Force Mogadishu in 1993

 

GEN Paul X. Kelley – USMC – former Commandant of the Marine Corps (1983-1987)

 

GEN John Jumper – USAF – former Air Force Chief of Staff (2001-2005)

 

LTG Bradley Hosmer – USAF – former Superintendent of U.S. Air Force Academy (1991-1994)

 

GEN Joseph Hoar – USMC – Marine Corps general; former CENTCOM commander (1991-1994)

 

COL Peter Henry – former Chief of Staff of Multinational Security Transition Command in Iraq and former Deputy Commander of Civilian Police Assistance Training Team in Baghdad, Iraq.

 

ADM Thomas Hayward – USN – former Chief of Naval Operations (1978-1982)

 

LTG Michael Hamel – USAF – Commander of Space and Missile Systems Center, Air Force Space Command

 

MG Craig Hackett – Commander, U.S. Army Security Assistance Command at Fort Belvoir, Virginia

 

REAR ADM Jeffrey Fowler – USN – Commander, U.S. Navy Recruiting Command

 

ADM Robert Foley Jr. – USN – former Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet (1982-1985); former Commander of Seventh Fleet

 

GEN Ronald Fogleman – USAF – former Air Force Chief of Staff (1994-1997)

 

BG George Flynn – USMC – Chief of Staff, U.S. Special Operations Command under [ President George W. Bush ]

 

GEN Ralph Eberhart – USAF – former Commander of Northern Command and NORAD (2000-2004)

 

LTG Daniel Christman – former Superintendent of U.S. Military Academy at West Point (1996-2001)

 

GEN Burwell Bell – Commander, U.S. Forces Korea; former Commander of U.S. Army Europe (USAREUR)

 

LTG Sid Berry – former Superintendent of U.S. Military Academy at West Point (1974-1977) – USMA Superintendent when U.S. Congress ruinously forced admission of females into the U.S. Service Academies for the first time in 1976.

 

GEN Donald Bennett – former Superintendent of U.S. Military Academy at West Point (1966-1968)

 

GEN Lew Allen Jr. – USAF – former Air Force Chief of Staff (1978-1982); director of National Security Agency (1973-1977)

 

ADM Charles “Steve” Abbot – USN – former Deputy Commander of U.S. European Command; a Rhodes Scholar
Source is doc file& is dated March 2011

Labels: betrayals CFR Conspiracy Military Treason VA Veterans
Read more at http://chasvoice.blogspot.com/2011/12/cfrs-military-membership-roster.html#MhJYYJk2xzy5QvFC.99

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Hannity-Gingrich Interview A Limited Hangout

hannity-gingrich

 A ‘limited hangout’ is spy jargon for a favorite and frequently used gimmick of the clandestine professionals. When their veil of secrecy is shredded and they can no longer rely on a phony cover story to misinform the public, they resort to admitting–sometimes even volunteering–some of the truth while still managing to withhold the key and damaging facts in the case. The public, however, is usually so intrigued by the new information that it never thinks to pursue the matter further.

 On October 27th Sean Hannity, who works for FOX news interviewed Newt Gingrich.  Newt’s topic was Newt Gingrich on Clinton corruption, liberal bias.  FOX news is owned by Council on Foreign Relations member Rupert Murdoch. Newt Gingrich is a CFR member and a paid contributor to FOX news. The Gingrich interview attacks CFR spouse Hillary Clinton whose daughter Chelsea is also a CFR member. The story faults a liberal main stream media run by the “elite” as misleading the American people. What is never discussed in the interview is that the CFR runs all the media  – conservative and liberal. What is never discussed in the interview is that CFR member Walter Lippmann and his sidekick Bernay’s are the fathers of modern propaganda. What is left out of the interview is that 22 Secretaries of State, 18 CIA directors and 18 NSA directors are members of the CFR.  By leaving out the CFR role in the story, in main stream media and in our government Hannity and Gingrich are doing exactly what they accuse the liberal elite media of doing – mis-directing their audience and participating in a limited hangout.

CFR Lippmann quote

 CFR member Newt tells us “… it’s almost unpatriotic to have the level of deliberate disinformation and deliberate censorship that we’re getting out of the elite media. And I think it’s something the average American gets…”  What the average American doesn’t seem to get, largely because the news media doesn’t make it known, is that the problem is the CFR shadow government that moves from administration to administration. What the average American doesn’t seem to get is that they must insist the Justice department investigate the CFR and their connection to the JFK assassination, Iran Contra affair, the FED, the Economic Crisis, the Endless Wars, Main Stream Media, the Intelligence Department, The Banks, the Defense Industry, the Universities and insist all members be tried for treason and caged for the rest of their lives.

cfr-edward-r-murrow-lippmann

Below is the Hannity-Gingrich transcript. The transcript has been modified to clarify CFR connections in the story.

Newt Gingrich on Clinton corruption, liberal bias

gingrich

Here with reaction, the author of the best-seller “Treason,” former speaker of the House, Fox News contributor [CFR member] Newt Gingrich is with us.

We’re talking about $116 million. I want to put these revelations next to an AP story that said, remember, 55 percent of individuals that got to see [CFR spouse] Hillary when she was secretary of state were either donors or people committing money to the foundation.

Now add that to the Haiti story. They raise this money, separate list for foundation donors and friends of [CFR member] Bill so they can cash in on the contracts after 150,000 people died and they raised money and they would be first in line to make more money so they could funnel it back to the[CFR run] Clinton Foundation.

How does this not get picked up — how is this not Watergate in the minds of the rest of the media?

[CFR member] NEWT GINGRICH, R, FMR. HOUSE SPEAKER, FOX CONTRIBUTOR: Well, it’s beginning to get picked up. You know, I think somebody pointed out that on [CFR member Joe Scarbourgh’s] “Morning Joe,” they spent 13 minutes attacking the [CFR member] Clintons [yet never made reference to their CFR affiliations]  this morning.
Now, that’s unheard of. That’s a breakdown in [CFR member run aka] elite media discipline that is hard to imagine. [BTW CFR member Gingrich is a paid contributor to CFR member Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News]

 

And I’ll be interesting to see by tomorrow, where is The Washington Post [Founded by the CFR member Graham family], where’s [The CFR run] The New York Times. This stuff’s getting so big and smelling so bad that I think they’re going to have a very hard time hiding from it.

You know, if the Federal Bureau of Investigation was still a law enforcement agency, we would have a grand jury impaneled to be taking testimony right now and not negotiating but issuing subpoenas.

HANNITY: Well, wait a minute. I beg to differ. On, no, they’re a law enforcement organization because if you did it, they would have impaneled that grand jury right now. If I did it, that grand jury would be impaneled right now. Therein lies a big problem with have with our Justice Department.

[CFR member] GINGRICH: Right because — because that’s not law enforcement. That’s selective prosecution. Law enforcement says that all of us are under the law. All of us have to obey the law. All of us have to face the same consequences.

We know for a fact from all this stuff that you have the head of the [CFR family] Clinton campaign, John Podesta, going off to dinner with the Justice Department. You have weird negotiations with various Clinton officials, things nobody gets from the FBI. You have the president — the former president [CFR member Bill Clinton] and the attorney general meeting on a plane in secret the same week they’re going to interrogate Hillary.

I mean, this is the kind of stuff that in a place like Venezuela, you would understand because they don’t have the rule of law. [ This is the kind of stuff orchestrated by a CFR run government]

But what we’re seeing right now — and WikiLeaks, in a sense, is ripping the scar off of the largest amount of corruption in American history. This beats any prior corruption scandal I know of, including the 1868 period where Grant was president, including the Harding administration, I mean, including some of the things that happened under Truman. None of those things were like this.

This is the largest scandal affecting a senior American politician I think in the history of the United States. And it’s as you yourself just pointed out, you have Hillary Clinton clearly trading on the office of secretary of state in a way which has to be — I’m not a lawyer, but my guess is you’ve got probably 60 or 70 counts against her just in terms of scheduling people to come into her office…[ What CFR member Gingrich fails to point out is that the Office of secretary of state was taken over officially by the CFR and the scandal and the failure to explore the CFR role in the scandle is due to him and other CFR members in the media and government leaving the CFR connection out of the story]

HANNITY: And yet she could be elected president.

[CFR MEMBER] GINGRICH: … who they knew…

HANNITY: And yet according to polls, she’s in this race.

[CFR MEMBER] GINGRICH: And she might (INAUDIBLE)

HANNITY: In 12 days, she could possibly win this election. What does that say?[It says the American people’s reality world is being tampered with by a CFR run government and main stream media – of which you Sean and Newt are a part of]

[CFR MEMBER] GINGRICH: That’s right. Well, it says that our country is a culture in crisis. Our country has got to decide, does the rule of law apply to everyone, or are we now going to be a country where some people are above the law, and no matter how corrupt they are — you know, putting [CFR member] Bill Clinton back in the White House, given everything we’re learning, I think would be almost a sign of sickness.

And I [also a member of the CFR just like Bill, his daughter Chelsea, 22 Secretaries of State 18 CIA directors and 18 NSA directors] personally — this is why I’ve always told you I thought that she would lose and Donald Trump would win. In the end, I don’t think the majority of American people are going to put somebody who is a liar and a crook in the White House. I just — I have enough faith in the American people that when they get down to voting — I’ve had several people say this to me this week, that when they got right down to it, they simply couldn’t vote for her.

HANNITY: All right, we’ll take a break. We’ll come back. We have more with Newt Gingrich right after this break.

HANNITY: And we continue with former speaker of the House [CFR member] Newt Gingrich.

“The greatest pile-on in history” — in many ways, you know, we’ve discussed, for example, last night we’ve learned Wikileaks that a lot of these reporters, mainstream media, they’re being wined and dined by the [CFR run] Clinton campaign. And this is from [CFR run] ABC, the Associated Press, Bloomberg, CBS, CNBC, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, Politico, The Hill, The Wall Street Journal!

I never got the invitation. Did you get one? Because I’ve never been invited to any of these things.

[CFR MEMBER] GINGRICH: Well, I don’t think you’re going to be, either. [says CFR member Newt Gingrich who avoided the answer to the question because he has a tight relationship with CFR member Bill Clinton ]

HANNITY: I don’t want to be. I really don’t want it!

(LAUGHTER)

[CFR MEMBER] GINGRICH: I don’t think — I don’t think the Clintons have you on their list of possible allies. [ where as Bill and Newt not only are fellow CFR members but have a lot in common in the way they treat their women ]

HANNITY: But let me tell you one other thing! I’ve never been to Mar-a- Lago. I’ve never stayed in a Trump hotel. I’ve never been to a Trump golf course, and never been invited there, either. Everyone hates me, I guess!
You know, what’s up with that? I’m beginning to get a complex.

[CFR MEMBER] GINGRICH: Well, I don’t know. I think — you know, I’m confident that if you ask, Donald will get you on a golf course.

HANNITY: I’ll pay my way. I don’t need anything for free.

[CFR MEMBER] GINGRICH: I don’t know. I don’t know — I don’t know — that’s right.
You’re (INAUDIBLE) Look, a couple quick things just so the audience gets the full flavor of this. And let me say, by the way, because I know you’re going to cover later on on a very important part of this show, the “New Deal” for African-Americans and for the black community is a really big idea.

Donald Trump has done more to communicate concern and to communicate solutions to the African-American community than any Republican presidential candidate in my lifetime. And the speech yesterday was a big deal.

I know it’s going to be on later on in the show, and I just want to tell you — I think people should note how many things he’s saying and doing that are substantive, his contract with the American voter, which, again, as a guy who wrote the “Contract With America,” I’m very sympathetic to contracts. It’s a great contract. Everybody should go look at it and should see at the Web site for the contract, that in fact, this is something that’s real. It is specific. It is totally different from where Hillary Clinton would take us. And I think these are big breakthroughs, but you’re not going to see much of it in the elite media because it’s all positive.

HANNITY: I actually have — and this is actually signed by Trump. This is his “Contract With America.” Now, he talks about six measures to clean up corruption, drain the swamp, as he calls it, special interests, seven actions to protect American workers, five actions to restore security and constitutional rule of law, middle class tax simplification, Ending the Offshoring Act, American Energy and Infrastructure Act, School Choice and Education Opportunity Act, Repeal and Replace “Obama care” Act, Affordable Child Care and Elder Care Act, Illegal — End the Illegal Immigration Act, Restoring Community Safety Act, Restoring National Security Act and cleaning up corruption in Washington.

There are two pages. I’ve put it up on my Web site, Hannity.com, and people say he’s not substantive. They don’t want to cover the substance of Donald Trump. They don’t want to cover this. And maybe he needs to do what you did when you were running, pull it out of his pocket in every interview and say, This is what I’m going to do. I don’t want to talk about A, B and C, what you want to talk about.

[CFR MEMBER] GINGRICH: Look, I mean, I think he should probably hold it up at every single rally and tell people that they can go to his Web site and they can sign up and they can be part of this contract between him and the American people, and I think — you know, because we did it and he knows how we did it, he knows we kept our word, he knows we voted on every single thing in the 1994 “Contract With America.”

And I think he’s trying to make a case here that he is really committed to very, very dramatic change. I think it’s pathetic that The New York Times, The Washington Post, et cetera, NBC, CBS, ABC — none of these guys can serve America by letting them see that there is a real alternative.

I mean, it’s almost unpatriotic to have the level of deliberate disinformation and deliberate censorship that we’re getting out of the elite media.[Which is run by the CFR – the organization Newt and Fox News owner Murdoch belong & like Newt and Murdoch leave the CFR out of story – a lie of omission and same mis-direction technique used by the CFR run liberal media and the CFR run intelligence community. The technique even has a name – Limited Hangout.]

And I think it’s something the average American gets. And one of the reasons you’re getting these huge voter turnouts, I think, is to send a signal to the news media, You’re not going to dictate to us that we have to vote for some corrupt left-winger. We’re going to show you. And I think you’re going to find some very surprising results this fall.[  What the average American doesn’t seem to get, or which the news media doesn’t make known is that the problem is the CFR shadow government that moves from administration to administration. What the average American doesn’t seem to get is that they must insist the Justice department investigate the CFR and their connection to the JFK assassination, Iran Contra affair, the FED, the Economic Crisis, the Endless Wars, Main Stream Media, the Intelligence Department, The Banks, the Defense Industry, the Universities and insist all members be tried for treason and caged for the rest of their lives.]

HANNITY: All right, can only hope so. Twelve days to go, Mr. Speaker.
Appreciate you being with us.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Nitze’s Not-Sees – Johns Hopkins SAIS

 nitze1Council on Foreign Relations Member Paul Nitze

In “A DIFFERENT FORM OF CAPITALISM” for Johns Hopkins Magazine, Dale Keiger wrote:

“In working on his latest book, CHALLENGE TO AMERICA, Pulitzer Prize winner Hedrick Smith has been observing the enormous rise in power of the East Asian economy. “Not just Japan,” he says, “but the ‘mini-dragons’ [Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong], and beyond them Malaysia, Indonesia, and, the biggest of all, China..

“Their economies operate differently from ours,” notes Smith, an editor-in-residence at Hopkins’s Nitze School of Advanced International Studies. “They have a different form of capitalism. They operate from Confucian standards.” Smith contrasts the Confucian ideal with standard American capitalism. The traditional American belief has been that each person working for individual gain will result in the greatest common good. A good American is supposed to work hard for his or her own aggrandizement; a good American corporation for the immediate profit of the shareholders..

Confucianism, he says, emphasizes hard work “as an obligation to society, not just to personally getting ahead.” In the Confucian tradition, a worker feels strong social pressure to work hard as a form of respect to ancestors, the company, and the broader society. Professional obligations are mutual, Smith points out; for example, companies in Confucian societies go to great lengths to retain their workers. –DK”

nitzes-not-sees-sais

Paul Henry Nitze, and Hedrick Smith are Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) members. Not many people heard of the CFR or know how they operate. The group has purposely maintained a low profile while controlling public opinion throughout the world for over 100 years. Branches in Western European and Commonwealth nations are called Institutes of International Affairs (Britain (R(oyal)IIA, Canadian(CIIA), New Zealand(NZIIA), Australian(AIIA), South African(SAIIA),. India(IIIA), and Netherlands(NIIA)). Branches in Eastern European and East Asian Nations are called Institutes of Pacific Relations (Japanese (JIPR), Chinese (CIPR), and Russian (RIPR)).

Nitze has been a fixture in Washington since 1946 and has served in the State Department and as Secretary of the Navy. In 1989 Nitze founded the Paul H. Nitze School for Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at Johns Hopkins University. In 1993 Nitze published a book titled TENSION BETWEEN OPPOSITES: REFLECTIONS ON THE PRACTICES AND THEORY OF POLITICS.

nitze2CFR member Paul Nitzie Paul Nitze served as a national security adviser to the 1960 presidential campaign of Senator John F. Kennedy.

When a CFR member tries to make a difference it is a difference designed to create tension between two or more target groups. Nitze’s targets have been the US, Russia, and Asia. When nuclear weapons made their ominous debut at the end of World War II, Nitze was there. As Vice-Chairman of the US Strategic Bombing Survey, Nitze witnessed first-hand the effects of the A-bomb at the sites of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

nitze3Deputy Secretary of Defense CFR member Paul H. Nitze, third from left, at a National Security Council meeting with President Lyndon B. Johnson and Secretary of Defense CFR member Robert S. McNamara. February 7, 1968.

Hadley Cantril and Lloyd Free were Princeton University Social Psychologists; researchers; and members of the intelligence community. CFR member Nelson Rockefeller funded them to develop psycho-political policy strategies and techniques. In “How Nations See Each Other.” (1953) Cantril writes about a tool, developed prior to 1939, to investigate people’s perception of their nationality and other nationalities. The tool became known as the Buchanan-Cantril “Adjective Check List.” [1]

The “Adjective Check List”, contained twelve adjectives: Hard-working; Intelligent; Practical; Generous; Brave; Progressive; Self-Controlled; Peace-Loving; Conceited; Cruel; Domineering; Backward. It was based on the observation people tend to ascribe to their group a set of characteristics different from the character traits ascribed to other groups. The resulting self-image is predominantly flattering, while their picture of “others” is strongly influenced by how much they perceive those others to be like themselves. The relative “similarity” or dissimilarity” between group stereotypes is a useful indicator of the degree of like or dislike between groups or nations. [2]

The adjective check-list is used to help script and test the effectiveness of psycho-political operations focused at entire nations. Groups are tested to determine the degree of like/dislike between them. The Information is used to script the PSYOP. The PSYOP is carried out without the groups knowledge. The groups are tested again. The increase or decrease of like/dislike indicates the PSYOP’s effectiveness.

Adolph Hitler, and his propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels warped History by ignoring it completely, and stressing favorable and unfavorable truths to cause tension and hate between different groups of people. Goebbels’ work fascinated CFR member Edward R. Murrow. The Rockefeller Foundation funded Murrow to perform a systematic analysis of Nazi radio propaganda techniques and the political use of radio.

cfr-edward-r-murrow-lippmann

Murrow, with help from Cantril and Free, began the project at Princeton in 1940. The Princeton Listening Center was set up in an old house on Alexander Street, belonging to Princeton’s Institute of Advanced Study (IASP). IASP was a reasonable copy of the Royal Institute of International Affairs chief Oxford headquarters, All Souls College. CFR member Abraham Flexner of Rockefeller’s General Education Board and foundation administrator, organized it from plans drawn by Tom Jones, one of the Royal Institute of International Affairs most active intriguers and foundations administrators. [3]

Hadley Cantril

This project resulted in a worldwide monitoring and broadcasting Government agency called the Foreign Broadcast Intelligence Service (FBIS). Monitoring stations sprang up near Washington DC, Portland, San Francisco, Texas, Puerto Rico, and a London office in liaison with the British Broadcasting Corporation. FBIS would 1. broadcast our propaganda; 2. monitor enemy propaganda; 3. provide special reports analyzing propaganda, ours and the enemies; and 4. collect and disseminate intelligence to predict Axis moves, both military and political. FBIS collected around 500,000 words a day in 15 languages from 25 transmitters. Daily reports and analyses of the information were furnished to over 500 government officials. FBIS became a regular part of the Government’s intelligence service.

FBIS was a Psychological Warfare machine. FBIS became the United States Information Agency (USIA). The USIA was established to achieve US foreign policy by influencing public attitude at home and abroad using psycho-political policy strategies. The USIA Office of Research and reference service prepares data on psychological factors and propaganda problems considered by the Policy Planning Board in formulating psycho-political information policies for the National Security Council. Murrow would subsequently be named head of the USIA. Murrow became the Propaganda minister for the US — America’s Joseph Goebbels. [4]

In his book The Human Dimension (Rutgers Univ. Press 1967), Cantril recommends learning about people’s wants, desires and beliefs. He recommends using this information to manipulate people’s reality worlds so they perceive their own best interests are being served, while in fact, some other plan and policy are carried out. The NSC, the CIA. the USIA, and the Department of State would decide the policy. Cantril writes about a special group, called the Psychological Strategy Board, tasked with coordinating this effort.

Cantril doesn’t tell the reader the CFR controls the NSC, the CIA, the USIA and the State Department. Or, that the Psychological Strategy board was designed and directed by CFR member Gordan Gray and his consultant CFR member Henry Kissinger. Or, that the Psychological Strategy board, would later became the Operations Coordinating Board, and then the “Special Group.” This small group was helped by a “Secret Team” of about 3000 Council of Foreign Relations members within the administration and spread throughout private industry. Cantril doesn’t tell the reader the CFR is a branch of an International Group of co-conspirators.

CFR Gordon Gray Psychological Strategy Board

Cantril’s misinformation is an example of a tactic of deception called a “Limited Hangout.” “Limited Hangouts” are used to shape public opinion to support the aims of well planned psychological operations. Stories are carefully crafted to contain some of the truth while withholding key information. “Tactics of Deception” are nothing more than a sophisticated form of lying.

CFR Kissinger Napalm 2

The Psychological Strategy Board became the renamed super-powered Operations Coordinating Board (OCB). The OCB had a vague ambiguous name that didn’t provoke curiosity. It had more members than the Psychological Strategy board. It had the same mission, to use psychological strategy, propaganda, and mass media, to manipulate huge groups of individuals. It had a psychological warfare machine — the United States Information Agency at its disposal. The USIA would be responsible for foreign policy propaganda for the NSC.

nitze4After taking office in 1981, incoming President Ronald Reagan appointed CFR member Paul Nitze to lead the U.S. delegation to the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF) talks in Geneva.

The National Security Council is responsible for recommending national security policy. The President for having the policy approved. The Operations Coordinating Board for coordinating interdepartmental aspects of operational policy plans to insure their timely and coordinated execution.

The National Security Council’s recommended national security policy is the de facto foreign policy of the United States.The Department of State’s Policy Planning Board scripted the policy for the NSC. The USIA Office of Research and Reference service prepared data on psychological factors and propaganda problems. The Policy Planning Board used the data in formulating psycho-political information policies for the NSC. In 1955 the Director of the USIA became a voting member of the Operations Coordinating board; USIA representatives were invited to attend meetings of the NSC Planning Board; and the USIA Director was invited to Cabinet meetings. [5]

lippmann pic public opinion

In 1947 Council on Foreign Relations members George Kennan, Walter Lippmann, Paul Nitze, Dean Acheson, and Walter Krock took part in a psycho-political operation forcing the Marshall Plan on the American public. The PSYOP included an “anonymous” letter credited to Kennan which appeared in the Council on Foreign Relations magazine FOREIGN AFFAIRS. The letter opened the door for the CFR controlled Truman administration to take a hard line against the threat of Soviet expansion.

nitze5

At the State Department’s Office of International Economic Affairs, CFR member Paul H. Nitze, CFR member James Stillwell, George McGhee, Ernest A. Gross and C. H. Bonesteel drawing up the European Recovery Plan, known as the Marshall Plan. April 1, 1948.

Paul Nitze Profile
Paul Nitze Biography
Paul Nitze Interview
Paul Nitze Photo Gallery

The Council on Foreign Relations controls public opinion by controlling both sides of an argument. The winning argument costs the American taxpayer billions of dollars. The billions are funneled into CFR controlled medicine, munitions, food, and media industries at home and abroad. The billions are used to create and deliver massive psycho-political operations that manipulate people’s reality worlds so they perceive their own best interests are being served, while in fact, some other plan and policy are carried out. The billions are used to keep the American’s and people in other nations throughout the world in a state of controlled insanity and eternal war.

CFR members are placed on each side of the debate. The outcome is decided in advance. The side meant to lose withholds key information that would cause public opinion to go against Council plans. In the Marshall Plan PSYOP Kennan was for the plan and Lippmann against it. Kennan’s side won. Years later in his memoirs Kennan would say that upon reflection Lippmann was right.

In 1950 another PSYOP resulted in NSC-68, a key cold war document. The National Security Council didn’t write it — the Department of State Policy Planning Staff did. The cast of characters included CFR members George Kennan, Paul Nitze, and Dean Acheson. CFR member Kennan took the losing position, CFR members Acheson and Nitze the winning position. CFR engineered policies such as NSC-68 and the Marshall Plan have more to do with shaping Western and East Asian economies then Confucian or Judeo/Christian ethics ever did.

In September 1949 the Soviets exploded an atom bomb. Four months latter President Truman ordered the Atomic Energy Commission to begin H-bomb development. He also directed the NSC to reappraise American policies. The reappraisal was National Security Council Document 68 (NSC-68). According to NSC-68, “Events since the end of World War II have created a new power relationship in the world which must be viewed not as a temporary distortion but as a long-range fundamental realignment among nations…The US and USSR are the terminal poles of this new international axis.”[6]

NSC-68 was a document of dire expectations. It said the Soviet Union, was “animated by a new fanatical faith, antithetical to our own, and seeks to impose its absolute authority over the rest of the world.” NSC-68 set up three premises — (1) the Soviets wanted to conquer the world (2) there was a growing Soviet military superiority, and (3) it was impossible to negotiate with Soviet Leadership. NSC-68 warned, “Based on these premises an indefinite period of tension and danger is foreseen for the United States and for the West — a period that should be defined less as a short-term crisis than as a permanent and fundamental alteration in the in the shape of international relations.”[7]

Acheson, the hard-liner in the PSYOP, laid the foundations for increased mobilization. Kennan took the other side arguing the end result would be exclusively a plea for military buildup, resulting in the virtual elimination of diplomacy. Acheson prevailed. CFR member Kennan asked to be relieved as chairman of the Policy Planning Staff early in 1950. CFR member Paul Nitze replaced him. Kennan was sent on a mission to South America — some punishment! [8]

George Kennan.PNGGeorge Kennan

Under Nitze’s direction, the State Department’s drafts of NSC-68 became increasingly warlike. Acheson took to the road “preaching the premise of NSC-68.” Since NSC-68 was conducted under the guise of the National Security Council — Acheson didn’t have to reveal its exact content. This made for lots less nosy and distracting questions from elected representatives of the people. [9]

NSC-68 set up and struck down three straw men: (1) a retreat to isolationism, (2) another preventive war, (3) a continuation of the status quo of reduced defense budgets and limited capabilities. NSC-68 called for America to “strike out on a bold and massive program of rebuilding the West’s defensive potential to surpass that of the Soviet world, and of meeting each fresh challenge promptly and unequivocally.” NSC-68 was a psycho-political operation to change the two hundred year old way Americans thought about war and taxes — NSC-68 concluded:

“This means virtual abandonment by the United States of trying to distinguish between national and global security. It also means the end of subordinating security needs to the traditional budgeting restrictions; of asking ‘How much security can we afford?’ In other words, security must henceforth become the dominant element in the national budget, and other elements must be accommodated to it.

The wealth potential of the country is such that as much as 20 per cent of the gross national product can be devoted to security without causing national bankruptcy. This new concept of the security needs of the nation calls for annual appropriations of the order of $50 billion, or not much below their former wartime levels.” [10]

NSC-68 was given to Truman on April 7, 1950. NSC-68 was a practical extension of the Truman doctrine. It had the US assume the role of world policeman and use 20 per cent of its gross national product ($50 billion in 1953) for arms. NSC-68 provided the justification — the WORLD WIDE COMMUNIST THREAT! CFR member Under Secretary of State James Webb sent a memo to Truman warning he would face “the problem of how to get up enough public steam to support … starting to build up our strength, and at the same time … not get up so much as to look provocative.” [11]

An Ad Hoc Committee met on May 2nd. William Schaub of the Budget Bureau started asking some basic questions: Wouldn’t the buildup force the Russians into military action? What were the commitments, and at what point would the US fight to defend them? What would everything cost? Did it make sense to reduce complex world problems to a clash between the “free world” and a “slave society?” Were there no valid reasons why people under despotic governments turned to communism? Why did the research group minimize, “economic and social change as a factor in the underlying conflict?” Schaub’s questions never saw the light of day. On the 25th of June 1950 tanks and troops of the Soviet Puppet State of North Korea crossed the border into the American protectorate of South Korea. The United Nations authorized the United States to repel the invasion. It was not hard to get the national support needed for NSC-68 to become reality.[12]

NSC-68 realized a major Council on Foreign Relations aim — building the largest military establishment in Peace Time History. Within a year of drafting NSC-68, the security-related budget leaped to $22 billion, armed forces manpower was up to a million — CFR medicine, munitions, food, and media businesses were humming again. The following year the NSC-68 budget rose to $44 billion. In fiscal 1953 it jumped to $50 billion. Today (1997) we are still running $300 billion dollar defense budgets despite our enemy giving up because it went bankrupt. America would never turn back from the road of huge military spending. Spending that included the purchase of radioactive fallout on American citizens in the 50’s, and buying thermonuclear waste from the Russians as we approach the year 2000. Spending resulting in a national debt of $5 Trillion Dollars that continues to grow, and interest payments of over $270 billion a year. Is the Council on Foreign Relations trying to make the United States economically vulnerable to influence from outside sources? Isn’t that treason?[13]

In 1953 Dean Acheson gave a seminar at Princeton, home of the Council on Foreign Relations Institute for Advanced Study (IASP). Acheson talked about NSC-68. Acheson was questioned as to how resistance to the policy was overcome. Acheson explained “Korea came along and saved us.” What Acheson didn’t explain was how Korea came along, and who made it happen — the Council on Foreign Relations, the Institutes of International Affairs, and the Institutes of Pacific Relations.

In CHALLENGE TO AMERICA, Hedrick Smith targets Americans and Chinese and people of faith. Attacking your targets faith is an effective psychological warfare technique for demoralizing an enemy. Legalizing and encouraging immoral actions is one way of attacking a target groups faith. The CFR controls the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial systems. Encouraging witnesses to lie under oath encourages people to take the Lords name in vain; condones bearing false witness against ones neighbors; and allows the guilty to go free while encouraging people to steal and murder. Legalizing divorce legalizes and encourages adultery and promiscuity. Legalizing abortion legalizes and encourages murder. Smith attacks his targets faith by creating tension between followers of Western and Eastern religions. Smith creates the false impression that Western and Eastern religions are based upon different ethical theisms. This is misinformation. The ethical and moral foundations of Western and Eastern religions are remarkably similar. They are founded upon the God’s algorithm for intelligently designed morality, the golden rule.

smith1

Hedrick Smith is a Pulitzer Prize-winning correspondent who worked for The New York Times for 26 years. He worked in Washington, Moscow, Cairo, Saigon and Paris. Smith authored several national bestselling books, including THE RUSSIANS (1976), THE POWER GAME: HOW WASHINGTON WORKS (1988), THE NEW RUSSIANS (1990) and AND RETHINKING AMERICA: A NEW GAME PLAN FROM AMERICAN INNOVATORS (1995).

Smith produced more than 20 documentaries. “INSIDE GORBACHEV’S USSR,” provided viewers with candid, close-up portraits of the Soviet people, as they grappled with Mikhail Gorbachev’s efforts to transform the Soviet political and economic system. “RETHINKING AMERICA” expanded on Smith’s PBS documentary series, “CHALLENGE TO AMERICA” which showed how innovators in America, Japan and Germany are making schools, businesses, jobs and people work more effectively to meet the challenge of the new global economy.

smith2

Smith’s documentaries are globalony. Smith’s propaganda shifts the focus away from the America’s Council on Foreign Relations, Western European/Commonwealth Institutes of International Affairs, and Eastern European/East Asian Institutes of Pacific Relations — the real reason for the enormous rise in power of the East Asian economy. Smith’s propaganda implies the East Asian economic system is somehow better than the American system. Meanwhile in East Asia psycho-political operations with an opposite spin are taking place. The East Asian people are being told the American system is superior to the East Asian system. By creating tension, confusion, and hate between Americans and East Asians the CFR fraternity of international co-conspirators can control trade and industry in both countries without competition. Pretty slick!

Smith’s arguments confuse and misled. We are told the East Asian economic system,including Communist China, is a form of capitalism. We are told East Asian Capitalism is based upon Confucian ethics, which emphasize “an obligation to society, not just to personally getting ahead.” We are told the American economic system emphasizes workers who work for their own aggrandizement and corporations that work for the profit of the shareholders. Smith is creating the perception that the American system is based upon selfishness and the East Asian system upon self-sacrifice.

smith3

If you feel anger toward East Asians Smith’s propaganda effectively manipulated you. The truth is neither economic system is driven by the ethical and moral codes of the people of East Asia or America. The economic systems in East Asia and America are driven by a group of greedy, avaricious cheats and liars like Hedrick Smith, that belong to the CFR and its fraternal organizations throughout the world.

The Chinese Institute of Pacific Relations runs Chinese government and industry. In April of 1989 the Chinese Government demonstrated the great lengths it would go to to retain its workers. Students camped out in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square protesting economic and political corruption in Chinese Government. Over 100,000 students and workers marched. Twenty other cities in China saw similar protests. Martial law was imposed. Army troops crushed protests in Tiananmen Square. Death toll estimates were between 500-7000. Ten thousand people were injured. Ten Thousand dissidents were arrested. Thirty-one dissidents were tried and executed.

CFR member Congressman Richard Gephardt (D-MO), recently informed the TV audience America will soon have to relinquish control to an “International Regime.” Are we approaching the day when students and workers marching in the United States will be crushed by UN Peacekeeping Forces under the control of this International Regime? Who will control the Regime? The Council on Foreign Relations?

Are documentaries and books such as Smith’s used to brainwash the American public while informing knowledgeable intelligence operatives about the climate of public opinion the Council on Foreign Relations wishes to achieve? Are historians and economists who try and present an accurate picture blacklisted by members of the CFR who pick and choose what to present the Public through Newspapers, Radio, and TV? Are they in competition with trained operatives who lead double lives and work for the USIA, State Department, and various intelligence organizations?

Suppressing opponents views is as important a propaganda technique as getting your side of the story out. Ignoring history is a “tactic of deception” used to warp historical truth. Conspicuously absent from Pulitzer Prize winner Hedrick Smith’s books and documentaries are the CFR role in world economic affairs. CHALLENGE TO AMERICA warps historical truth by failing to include the Council on Foreign Relations role in engineering the East Asian Rise to power. This is no accident. If the public is ignorant of the group responsible for instigating tension, it can’t prevent that group from archiving its aims.

Is failure to report accurately a criteria for winning a Pulitzer? Is being a CFR member or insider a criteria for winning a Pulitzer?

In his book CLOAK & GOWN, CFR member Robin Winks explores the underlying bonds between the university and intelligence community. Winks, warps historical fact in the same manner as Smith. What Winks fails to explore is the underlying bonds between the Council on Foreign Relations and the Intelligence Community.

Is the Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, a training ground for CFR controlled State Department and Intelligence Organization operatives specializing in economic warfare? Is Yale University a Spy School? Do University Professors and students connected with intelligence organizations use their University status as a cover for the parts they play in well planned CFR State Department run psycho-political operations? Are unwitting Teachers and Students used as extras and set up as decoys and bait in well planned psycho-dramas? Do Smith and members of his documentary crew also work for the CIA, NSC, USIA, State Department, or other intelligence agencies?

In America the Council on Foreign Relations controls the State Department, the Intelligence Agencies, the Federal Reserve, the Executive office, and both houses of Congress. In East Asian countries, the Governments and Economic systems are run by Institutes of Pacific Relations — CFR fraternal organizations. It is the CFR members and their fraternity brothers in other nations who work for their own aggrandizement while at the same time making sure corporations at home and abroad maximize their profits at the expense of their fellow countrymen.

In the late 1960’s and early 1970’s Council leaders Zbigniew Brzezinski, and David Rockefeller created the Trilateral Commission (TC), which included 60 members from Japan and 60 from Western Europe and 205 Americans. Almost all the American members belong to the Council on Foreign Relations. The Trilateral Commission’s publicized goal was to develop closer economic and political cooperation among the industrialized democracies in dealing with economic competition among themselves and with challenges from underdeveloped countries. Its real goal was exactly the opposite — to control the global economy through well planned psycho-political operations creating tension between peoples of different nations and faiths resulting in an eternal state of conflict and war.

zbig1

 

The CFR and the Trilateral Commission dominate key positions in America’s government, military, industries, media outlets and educational foundations and institutions. The CFR’s membership is limited to 3,000, and the Trilateral Commission to 325 members. The Council on Foreign Relations propaganda machine manipulates American Citizens to accept the particular climate of opinion the CFR seeks to achieve in the world. CFR members working in an ad hoc committee called the “Special Group” and through a vast intragovernmental undercover infrastructure called the “Secret Team” formulate this opinion in the US. The CFR, has methodically taken over the Department of State, The Federal Reserve, and the CIA.

CFR member Zbigniew Brzezinski is also employed by Hopkins’s Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). CFR members Brzezinski (Public Law and Government Professor, Columbia ); Frederick C. Barghoorn (Political Science Professor, Yale ); and George A. Kelly (Politics Professor, Brandeis ); contributed to THE ART AND SCIENCE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL OPERATIONS. The book contains a series of case studies sponsored by the US Department of the Army.

Other CFR members and insiders employed by SAIS are Christian Herter, and Council on Foreign Relations Fellows Andrew J. Bacevich and Wilford L. Kohl.

Missing from the numerous articles, books, and documentaries of SAIS faculty members Nitze, Smith, Brzezinski , Herter, Bacevich, and Kohl is a connection between the Council on Foreign Relations and their influence in world affairs. Such oversight can hardly be coincidental. CFR member Nitze’s “Not-Sees” are using American Tax payer dollars to create and deliver massive psycho-political operations that manipulate the American publics reality worlds so they perceive their own best interests are being served, while in fact, some other plan and policy is carried out to profit CFR members and their coconspirators in other nations. CFR member Nitze’s “Not-Sees” are using American Tax-payer dollars to keep the American’s in a state of controlled insanity and eternal war. Senator, that is treason.

Senator, Council on Foreign Relations members are a group of subtle fascists intent on creating one world order under their control. It is time to investigate the members of the Council on Foreign Relations, The Institutes of International Affairs, and the Institutes of Pacific Relations.

roundtable

 

[1] Pollock, Daniel C Project Director & Editors De Mclaurin,Ronald, Rosenthal, Carl F., Skillings, Sarah A., The Art and Science of Psychological Operations: Case Studies of Military Application Volume One, Pamphlet No. 725-7-2, DA Pam 525-7-2, Headquarters Department of the Army Washington, DC, 1 April 1976 Vol 2 pg 806 – The Hungarian Self-Image And The Hungarian Image of Americans and Russians by Radio Free Europe, Audience and Public Opinion Research Department, February 1970 Excerpts from “The Hungarian Self-Image and the Hungarian Image of Americans, Russian, Germans, Rumanians, and Chinese”; Buchanan, W. Cantril, H. “How Nations See Each Other,” University of Illinois Press, Urbana 1953; Cantril H. and Strunk M.: “Public Opinion 1935-1946” Princeton University Press

[2] IBID

[3] Hadley Cantril, The Human Dimension: Experiences in Policy Research, Rutgers The State University, 1967 pg 32-34, 30-31; he War and Peace Studies of The Council On Foreign Relations 1939-1945, The Harold Pratt House 58th E. 68th Street, NY, 1946, pg. 24; Quigley, Carroll, Tragedy and Hope, Macmillan, New York 1966, p. 953

[4 ]Hadley Cantril, The Human Dimension: Experiences in Policy Research, Rutgers The State University, 1967 pg 32-34, 30, 33-34

[5]Henderson, John W.,The United States Information Agency, 1966, pg. 52-53 Frederick A. Praeger, Publishers, New York, Washington, London, Book 14 in the Praeger Library of US Government Departments and Agencies series, consulting editors Ernest S. Griffith, former Dean and Professor Emeritus, School Of International Service, American University. Hugh Langdon Elsbree, former Chairmen, Department of Political Science, Dartmouth College. Both editors are formed directors, Legislative Reference Service, Library of Congress.

[6] Bernard A. Weisberger, Cold War Cold Peace The United States and Russia Since 1945, American Heritage 1984, Forbes Building, 60 Fifth Avenue, NY, NY 10011, Houghton Mifflin Company 1987 pg. 98; George J.A. O’Toole, Honorable Treachery, A History of US Intelligence, Espionage, and Covert Action from the American Revolution to the CIA, A Morgan Entrekin Book The Atlantic Monthly Press, New York (1991) pgs 301; Ronald Steel, Walter Lippmann and the American Century, Boston: Little Brown, 1980 p 448-449

[7]Bernard A. Weisberger, Cold War Cold Peace The United States and Russia Since 1945, American Heritage 1984, Forbes Building, 60 Fifth Avenue, NY, NY 10011, Houghton Mifflin Company 1987 pg. 99

[8] IBID 99

[9] IBID 99

[10] IBID 101

[11] IBID 103

[12] IBID 103

[13] IBID 103
 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Hegelian Dialectic

Chief Editors note:

The following article is from The Daily Bell. If you click the link you will find it is no longer there.  It is an important article and is a technique used by the Council on Foreign Relations to shape the mind of the herd. CFR founding father Walter Lippmann and his sidekick Edward Bernays, the fathers of propaganda, used it well.

The Daily Bell At (TCP)CHICAGO

 

Hegelian Dialectic

The Hegelian Dialectic is a philosophical approach that in principle explains how human beings progress toward a better and more egalitarian condition but in practice provides the power elite with a strategy for controlling society.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (August 27, 1770 – November 14, 1831) was among the most consequential philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment. His was heavily influenced by Plato, whose social ideal was rule by an elite composed of philosopher-kings. Though Hegel may not have intended to provide a Platonic methodology for the modern-day control of the many by the few, that is how his insights have been used.

The Platonic influence on Hegel was reinforced by the age in which he worked. Hegel accepted that “enlightened” human beings are responsible for their own destiny, and that culture and history are a product of human development, which in turn is driven by reason. Hegel subscribed to the Rousseauian notion that humans are a blank slate, a tabula rasa. In fact, Hegel was a big fan of the French, in cluding the authoritarian leader Napoleon and the French Revolution itself, a bloodbath he described as the realization of more perfect freedom.

Today most behavioral scientists see human beings not as purely rational or perfectly elastic but as complex creatures many of whose behaviors are instinctual or biologically programmed. This has not hindered the practical application of Hegel’s conceptual tools, however, which have been used as an effective methodology of control for at least the past century.

It is necessary to examine the dialectic in a little more detail to understand this. Hegel postulated that each stage of human advance – and the course of history itself – was driven by an argument (thesis), a counterargument (anti-thesis) and finally a synthesis of the two into a more advanced argument – at which point the process restarted. For Hegel, the dialectic could explain everything – art, culture, history, even nature.

From our more modern vantage point, Hegel’s dialectic may not seem so persuasive as an explanation of all things – and in fact, it probably is not. But for the elite of his day, and for the monetary elite today, the Hegelian dialectic provides tools for the manipulation of society.

To move the public from point A to point B, one need only find a spokesperson for a certain argument and position him or her as an authority. That person represents Goalpost One. Another spokesperson is positioned on the other side of the argument, to represent Goalpost Two.

Argument A and B can then be used to manipulate a given social discussion. If one wishes, for instance, to promote Idea C, one merely needs to promote the arguments of Goalpost One (that tend to promote Idea C) more effectively than the arguments of Goalpost Two. This forces a slippage of Goalpost Two’s position. Thus both Goalpost One and Goalpost Two advance downfield toward Idea C. Eventually, Goalpost Two occupies Goalpost One’s original position. The “anti-C” argument now occupies the pro-C position. In this manner whole social conversations are shifted from, say, a debate over market freedom vs. socialism to a debate about the degree of socialism that is desirable.

The Hegelian dialectic is a powerful technique for influencing the conversations of cultures and nations, especially if one already controls (owns) much of the important media in which the arguments take place. One can then, as the monetary elite characteristically do, emphasize one argument at the expense of the other, effectively shifting the positions of Goalposts One and Two.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

CFR

Left Hook by Dean Henderson

1989 Hawaii (11)(Excerpted from Chapter 3: The House of Saud & JP Morgan: Big Oil & Their Bankers in the Persian Gulf…)

Bechtel insider George Pratt Schultz is also the current director at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a powerful US foreign policy think tank whose geopolitical imperatives are more often than not adopted by the US State Department.

View original post 856 more words

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

How the Council on Foreign Relations Took Over the U.S. Chamber of Commerce

 

CFR’s Newt Gingrich, Thomas Donohue CFR corporate member U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Author and investigative reporter Mark Dowie published an article in the Washington  Spectator titled Corporate Lobby: The Third Chamber. Dowie’s story is about the transformation of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce into a corporate lobbying group who use their powerful government connections and large corporate donations to influence elections and buy the passage or defeat of legislation. He explains how Newt Gingrich was the architect of the new U.S. Chamber of Commerce and made Thomas Donohue its new leader. What Dowie failed to investigate was the Council on Foreign Relations connection. Gingrich and Donohue are Council on Foreign Relations members. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is a Council on Foreign Relations Member Corporation. Many other influential CFR members worked behind the scenes in government and industry to pull off the transformation. The real story is that the Council on Foreign Relations has taken over the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and is using it to further the interest of member corporations, destroy the sovereignty of the United States and help achieve its goal of global governance.

Corporate Lobby: The Third Chamber

by Mark Dowie

Why do we criticize people for doing  what they’re hired to do? Take [Council on Foreign Relations member] Thomas J. Donohue, for example. Day after day the poor guy gets pummeled by Washing ton non-profits and mainstream media for doing his job. He’s out there challenging health care reform; suing the SEC to stifle the regulation of financial markets; lobbying Congress to reduce punitive damages in product liability litigation; attempting to gut the Foreign Corrupt Practices and False Claims Acts; undermining carbon pollution standards; questioning the causes of climate change; opposing a federal minimum wage; defending high-salt processed foods; attacking “net metering” of solar energy panels; interfering in the election of state supreme court justices; shilling for American tobacco overseas; opposing environmental legislation; fighting paid maternity  leave; persuading -American businesses to fight campaign-finance disclosure: opposing net neutrality; defending high pharmaceutical prices; and laundering large “anonymous” donations from the Koch Brothers’ Freedom Partners and Karl Rove’s American Crossroads Super Pac.

Why, should [Council on Foreign Relations member]  Donohue be rebuked for this very abbreviated list if those tasks were handed to him in 1997, when he began serving as CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce [a Council on Foreign Relations corporate member], whose core mission was then, and still is, “to advance human progress through an economic, political, and social system based on individual freedom. incentive, initiative, opportunity and responsibility-“?

This would be a fair question were [Council on Foreign Relations member] Donohue committed to that mission and doing what he does for all American enterprise, or even for the 150 members of the U.S. Chamber Board of Directors, or the 3 million small businesses, 7,ooo state and local chambers, and 116 overseas American chambers he daims to represent in 103 countries.

But he’s not. He is, in fact, doing the bidding of a few national politicians and their mostly anonymous corporate sponsors who believed in 1996, and evidently still do, that a pragmatic, staid national chamber, founded to be “in touch with business  associations and chambers of commerce throughout the country'” was wasting its time and treasure.

A truly valuable trade association, according to this small group of Republican politicians and their corporate sponsors, could transform itself from a high-minded affinity group (described by a tobacco executive as a “weak sister”) into a fighting force for a few troubled American industries and products-tobacco for one, but also banking, health insurance, pharmaceuticals, firearms. coal. and other fossil fuels. All were threatened by progressive idealists and the excesses of federal regulation, according to a warning from corporate lawyer Lewis Powell. It is time, members of this corporate cabal argued, for “capitalists to carry the banner” of what Powell described as “confrontation politics” and “not to hesitate to attack liberals and push politicians for the support of the free enterprise system.”

Powell made his argument in a “confidential” memorandum written in 1971 at the invitation of his friend Eugene B. Sydnor Jr., chairman of the U.S. Chamber’s Education Committee. Powell, a former American Bar Association president, champion of winner-take-all capitalism, and a member of 11 corporate boards, warned that American business was “under broad attack” from political and social interests and organizations that wanted to institutionalize “socialism or some form of statism.” “We are not dealing with sporadic or isolated attacks from a relatively few, extremists or even from the minority of socialist cadre,” Powell wrote. “Rather the assault on the enterprise system is broadly .based and consistently, pursued. It is gaining momentum and converts.” The enemies of -American enterprise he descried included,  “not unexpectedly’ the Communists. New Leftists, and other revolutionaries who would destroy the entire system  both political and economic. These extremists of the left are far more numerous, better financed, and increasingly are more welcomed and encouraged by other elements of society, than ever before in our history”

Here was a memo from a man who had sought to keep the government from regulating cigarettes Iong after it was known that they’ were killing countless Americans and who one year later would be elevated to the Supreme Court. Powell was whining at full volume.

“Few elements of American society today- have as little influence in government as the American businessman, the corporation, or even the millions of corporate stockholders. .. Business must learn the lesson, Iong ago learned by ‘labor and other self- interest groups, that political power is necessary; that such power must be assiduously [sic] cultivated; and that when necessary it must be used aggressively and with determination.” To silence the “disquieting voices” the national chamber “would require far more generous support from American corporations than it has ever received in the past.” The memo was leaked to investigative columnist Jack Anderson and widely circulated.

The pro-corporate movement it spawned would a few years later elevate men like [Council on Foreign Relations member] Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay,  Dick Armey, and John Boehner to national prominence. Powell’s thinking would ultimately inspire like [Council on Foreign Relations member] Gingrich and his allies to transform the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Richard Lesher was a bright, conservative Pennsylvania gentleman who had been running the chamber for 22 years, when in 1994 he decided to support the [CFR member run] Clinton administration’s health care package. Like [Council on Foreign Relations member]Gingrich, Armey, and DeLay let the Chamber board know that Lesher had to go.

By 1997, [Council on Foreign Relations member]Gingrich had consolidated his power as Speaker of the House, and identified a replacement for Lesher, like [Council on Foreign Relations member]Tom Donohue, a take-no-prisoners Lobbyist for the trucking industry. The chamber, he told like [Council on Foreign Relations member] Gingrich and The Wall Street Journal, was a “sleeping giant, missing in in action from many important political battles.”

The deal was sealed over a three-hour dinner during which [Council on Foreign Relations member] Donohue expressed his opinions on tort reform, workers’ rights, businesses’  bottom lines, and financial regulation.

[Council on Foreign Member] Donohue turned out to be a near-perfect choice.  Not only has he quadrupled the chamber’s annual budget by scaring billions of dollars out of the corporations Powell said should be funding the counter-revolution. he has transformed the organization into the largest business lobby in Washington given the tobacco industry a global reprieve, offered wall  Street protection from Elizabeth Warren. Provided Big Pharma some hope for its future. And he can be credited with creating and maintaining a Republican majority-in both the House and Senate.

Biggest gorilla in town

“My goal is simple-to build the biggest gorilla in this town-the most aggressive and rigorous business advocate our nation has ever seen,” [Council on Foreign Relations member] Donohue wrote to Roy Mardin. the Philip Morris exec who had described the chamber as a weak sister. He then promised Marden to eliminate punitive damages in lawsuits against tobacco companies, who by then, it was clear, were killing and debilitating millions of people around the world.

“If there’s one thing I know, how to do it’s to provide great value to those who really step up to the plate…By agreeing to be a strong supporter, you will always be heard here and always have a voice,” he wrote to Marden . A check for $180,000 from Philip Morris arrived on [Council on Foreign Relations member]   Donohue’s desk a few days later, $100,000 of which immediately paid for TV ads opposing a bill Senator [Council on Foreign Relations member]  John McCain had introduced to increase cigarette taxes to pay for an anti-smoking program for children,

The new chamber president also threatened to “make life miserable” for politicians he didn’t like and promised anonymous deniability to America’s most embarrassing industries.

The chamber’s culture changed overnight, reflecting [Council on Foreign Relations member] Donahue’s announcement that he planned “to build a grass-roots business organization so strong that when it bites you in the butt, you bleed.” In less than two decades, with a chauffeured Lincoln, a private jet, and a $5.5 million annual pay, package, [Council on Foreign Relations member] Donohue became the nation’s most generously compensated American lobbyist.

[Council on Foreign Relations member] Donohue started by, expanding his lobbying team from two to 10. Today the chamber boasts 150 registered lobbyists, 87 of them in-house. It spends more on lobbying Congress ($124 million in 2014) than the next four organizations combined, and provides more election campaign support than either of the political parties, almost all of it for Republican candidates, who receive carefully laundered money from donors seeking the political cover a restructured chamber offers them.

Most of the money [Council on Foreign Relations member] Donohue raises is kept dark and its donors anonymous. “I want to give them all the deniability they need,” he declared as he began telling his donors that “people seem to listen to you more when you’ve got a bagful of cash.” It was an appealing pitch to businesses and industries with questionable conduct to hide. Yet with public anonymity comes private disclosure. Recipients of dark money must eventually be told who their donors are so they will know whom to reward with anti- regulatory law, policy, and other favors. Not long after [Council on Foreign Relations member]  Donohue placed a “show me the money” sign on his desk, he quadrupled the chamber’s annual budget from under $50 million to more than $200 million. He soon became the nation’s largest political campaign contributor, created an entirely new internal legal  subsidiary- and expanded another. He formed the Institute for Legal Reform (ILR)  to fight the power of trial lawyers’. The U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, an in-house, non-profit law firm, files more than 100 suits a year against federal regulatory agencies, mostly the EPA, SEC, and the Departments of Labor (including OSHA), Transportation, and Interior, whose regulations are perceived by [Council on Foreign Relations member] Donohue and his clients to stifle profit.

But his major accomplishment has been the recruitment of reliable, super-generous corporations. In 1997, only a quarter of Fortune 1,000 companies were members, and most of them paid paltry annual dues. Today almost all 1000 are members, and many of them part with very generous sums. Yet only a handful of donors provide the lion’s share of the chamber’s strategic assault funds. In 209 for example, 16 companies provided  55 percent of the chamber’s total budget, most of it targeting the Affordable Care Act.

Health insurers like Aetna, [CFR corporate member] Cigna, Humana, Kaiser, United- Health Group, and Wellpoint, stood to lose billions if the law passed.  A retrospective examination of their charitable contributions showed, they secretly handed the chamber a stunning $86.2 million in August 2009. Aetna alone ponied up more than $7 million. That money accounted for 40 percent of the chambers  $214.6 million expenditures in 2009. These companies are capable of producing their own ads and PR. But they use the chamber as a convenient and compliant front group.

Of the 1523 donations made to the U.S. Chamber in 2012, more than 95 percent were small and inconsequential. But that year more than half the chamber income came from 64 anonymous donors giving $121 million. To its campaign to rewrite the nation’s financial regulations.  Prudential contributed $2 million. [CFR corporate member] Goldman Sachs followed suit with an undisclosed eight-figure donation. When the chamber promised to attack tighter security requirements at chemical plants, Dow contributed $1.7 million. Another donor, to this day anonymous, gave more than $15 million. Donations of that size are not membership dues, they’re protection money.

The chamber claims to represent the “interests of more than three million businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions.” Although that may be accurate, the claim is often made to sound as if three million firms are dues-paying members. While the chamber will not reveal membership numbers, or identities, it has admitted in the past to having fewer than 300,000 dues-paying members, many of them loosely affiliated through membership in state and local chambers that pay dues to the national organization.

[Council on Foreign Relations member] Donahue values his alleged small-firm members because some in Congress are more likely to listen to them than to big business. They’re real people rather than “corporate personhood” fictions that possess free speech and the right to make  unlimited contributions but can’t vote. Moreover, they “provide the foot soldiers, and often the political cover, for issues big companies want pursued,” [Council on Foreign Relations member] Donohue explains.

A bagful of cash

But it’s the money that provides the leverage. By 2010 the chamber was raising five times what it was before [Council on Foreign Relations member]Donohue arrived, almost  $250 million in contributions and grants. Most of the new money has been spent on lobbying, electoral campaigns. and fighting trial lawyers through the ILR, which also contributes dark money to campaigns, mostly to candidates opposing state supreme court justices with an affection for punitive damages against corporate defendants.

While one might expect that amount of money to produce consistently impressive election results, some cycles are better than others. The 2010 elections did bring a Republican majority to the House, thanks largely to chamber support of Tea Party candidates.

The 2012 election didn’t tum out too well for the chamber, which spent nearly $24 million to defeat several high-profile Democrats in Senate races, including Senator Sherrod Brown in Ohio, former governor Timothy Kaine in Virginia, Claire McCaskill in Missouri, and Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts, all of whom are still in office. Of 15 Senate races to which the chamber contributed that year, only two event its way. The results were not much better in the House, where $7 million was pumped into 22 races and only four of [Council on Foreign Relations member] Donohue chosen candidates won.

Chamber spending in 2014, was again aimed at electing Republicans, with, for example, $5,697,144 invested in Thom Tillis’s successful campaign against Democratic Senator Kay Hagan and $3,701,491 to defeat progressive Democratic Senator   Mark Udall in Colorado.

[Council on Foreign Relations member]Donohue promises to commit $100 million to candidates in  2016. He rarely spends as much as he promises, but even half that amount, strategically spent, could keep both houses of Congress in his camp. Three million has already gone to replace retiring Senator Harry Reid in Nevada, and $10 million to support Senators Rob Portman (R_Ohio), Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H), and Pat Toomey, R-Penn. r.

Eroding Support

In 2005, the Council of State Chambers of Commerce commissioned Republican consultant Frank Luntz’s firm [ Luntz is a CFR pollster exposed by Penn and Teller  in 1996 CFR member Grover Norquist and Luntz debated Christopher Hitchens ] to poll 1000 local, state, and national senior corporate executives who are current or prospective chamber members. The survey revealed that chamber members nationwide  overwhelmingly support progressive social and business policies the U.S. Chamber is fighting.

For example, 8o percent of current or prospective members support raising their state’s minimum wage; 73 percent support paid sick- days; 72 percent support increased maternity leave time; and 82 percent support increased paternity-leave time.

In response, Luntz’s firm prepared a web seminar hosted by the Council of State Chambers in February of this year, providing “a few helpful hints on how to combat these reforms in your states.” Several local chambers had already left the national  organization. Luntz’s insulting response to his own survey will , almost  certainly lead to the exodus of others. And corporations I could follow  Apple, Mohawk Paper, Pacific Gas and Electric,  Exelon, and PNM Resources, who pulled out last fall, citing the chamber pro-fossil-fuel climate policy as their reason for leaving.  CVS Health Corporation, with its 7,800 retail drug stores, followed, revolted by the chamber’s overseas promotion, for another hazardous product, tobacco.

More recently, the staffs of about half a dozen U.S. Senators who were curious about the chamber selecting targets and taking positions contrary to the interests of many of its members, in particular regarding tobacco, surveyed the 108 corporations with executive representatives on the U.S. chamber Board of Directors. The Senate investigators found that approximately, half the corporate board members have anti-tobacco and/or pro-climate positions. And not one of their CEOs explicitly supported the chamber’s lobbying actions on tobacco or climate change.

If the chamber board and funders don’t mind the slow but steady exodus of state and local chambers, and the departure of some of the most distinguished corporations in American business, they will keep their consummate Washington fixer at the helm. Yet only a handful the nation’s business and political Ieaders brought [Council on Foreign Relations member]Tom Donohue to Washington. What can be done can be undone.

Mark Dowie is an author and investigative reporter. This article appeared in the Washington Spectator but couldn’t be found on-line at the time I updated it to expose the CFR role in the Chamber of Commerce takeover. (http://washingtonspectator.org)

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Adam Werritty: Liam Fox’s friend ‘bankrolled by corporate intelligence firm and Israel lobbyist’….

18 CIA directors are Council on Foreign Relations 18 NSA directors are CFR – Booze Allen is owned by CFR run Carlyle corporation. Edward Snowden worked for Booze Allen. If you use the CFR membership list ( http://www.cfr.org/about/membership/roster.html ) to look up the people in this article you will find that most of the Americans are CFR members. https://tomjefferson1976.wordpress.com/?s=snowden https://tomjefferson1976.wordpress.com/?s=carlyle

Centurean2\'s Weblog

Adam Werritty: Liam Fox’s friend ‘bankrolled by corporate intelligence firm and Israel lobbyist’
Adam Werritty, the Defence Secretary’s unofficial “adviser”, was funded by a corporate intelligence company and the chairman of an Israeli lobbying organisation, documents have disclosed….

http://www.wirralonline.com/news/item/adam-werritty-liam-foxs-friend-bankrolled-by-corporate-intelligence-firm-and-israel-lobbyist

http://hotterthanapileofcurry.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/liam-fox-adam-werrity-but-no-mention-of-luke-coffey-cia-agent-with-access-all-areas-pass-at-the-mod/

Liam Fox & Adam Werritty, but no mention of Luke Coffey, CIA agent with access all areas pass at the MOD

The big story is of Liam Fox & his special relationship with Adam Werritty, homo-honeytraps aside, the real story here is of another one of Fox’s special advisors Luke Coffey that is going unreported.

Liam “I’m not a homo” Fox hired an American, Luke Coffey to work in the Defence Department as a special advisor.

On 6 June 2010, The Sunday Times reported that Liam Fox, the UK Defence Minister lets a US ‘mole’ roam the Ministry of Defence

According to the Sunday Times in June 2010:

UK Defence…

View original post 7,395 more words

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Why States Should Enact Laws To Challenge & Overturn Supreme Courts Abortion & Gay Marriage Decisions

Why States Should Enact Laws To Challenge & Overturn Supreme Courts Abortion & Gay Marriage Decisions   In October of 2015, Kansas v Carr,  a case involving a particularly heinous crime cam…

Source: Why States Should Enact Laws To Challenge & Overturn Supreme Courts Abortion & Gay Marriage Decisions

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Why States Should Enact Laws To Challenge & Overturn Supreme Courts Abortion & Gay Marriage Decisions

Why States Should Enact Laws To Challenge & Overturn Supreme Courts Abortion & Gay Marriage Decisions

 

In October of 2015, Kansas v Carr,  a case involving a particularly heinous crime came up before the supreme court. The Supreme Court of Kansas vacated the death sentences passed down by a Kansas jury. The reason was the trial violated the Eighth Amendment Rights of the Constitution of the United States. Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsberg, Breyer and Alito. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion.

 

Picture 1

Scalia Opinion of Court:

The Supreme Court of Kansas vacated the death sentences of Sidney Gleason and brothers Reginald and Jona – than Carr. Gleason killed one of his co-conspirators and her boyfriend to cover up the robbery of an elderly man. The Carrs’ notorious Wichita crime spree culminated in the brutal rape, robbery, kidnapping, and execution-style shooting of five young men and women. We first consider whether the Constitution required the sentencing courts to instruct the juries that mitigating circumstances “need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” And second, 2 KANSAS  v. CARR  Opinion of the Court  whether the Constitution required severance of the Carrs’  joint sentencing proceedings.  It is improper to vacate a death sentence based on pure “speculation” of fundamental unfairness, “rather than reasoned judgment,”  Romano , supra , at 13–14.

Only the most extravagant speculation would lead to the conclusion that the supposedly prejudicial evidence rendered the Carr brothers’ joint sentencing proceeding fundamentally unfair. It is beyond reason to think that the jury’s death verdicts were caused by the identification of Reginald as the “corrupter” or of Jonathan as the “corrupted,” the jury’s viewing of Reginald’s handcuffs, or the sister’s re-tracted statement that Reginald fired the final shots.  None of that mattered. What these defendants did—acts of almost inconceivable cruelty and depravity—was described in excruciating detail by Holly, who relived with the jury, for two days, the Wichita Massacre. The joint sentencing proceedings did not render the sentencing proceedings fundamentally unfair.

 

Sotomayor’s dissent :

Picture 2

 

I respectfully dissent because I do not believe these cases should ever have been reviewed by the Supreme Court. I see no reason to intervene in cases like these—  and plenty of reasons not to. Kansas has not violated any federal constitutional right. If anything, the State has overprotected its citizens based on its interpretation of state and federal law. For reasons ably articulated by my predecessors and colleagues and because I worry that cases like these prevent States from serving as necessary laboratories for experimenting with how best to guarantee defendants a fair trial, I would dismiss the writs as improvidently granted… 

The cases here demonstrate yet another cost of granting certiorari to correct a state court’s overprotection of federal rights: In explaining that the Federal Constitution does not protect some particular right, it is natural to buttress the conclusion by explaining why that right is not very important. In so doing, the Court risks discouraging States from adopting valuable procedural protections even as a matter of their own state law. [formatting mine]

 

Sotomayor is wrong. This explanation is essential and affords the needed protection of states rights. In Roe v. Wade (abortion) the states’ rights of protecting the unborn are being discouraged yet there is no adequate explanation of how the life of an unborn child is not protected by the constitution. In Obergefell et al v. Hodges, Director, Ohio (homosexual marriage) there is no explanation of why  the Constitution requires the practice of homosexual marriage, which is contrary to the religious beliefs of many of our citizens and legitimizes and encourages the practice of sodomy despite the fact the Center for Disease Control and Prevention  has found  that the homosexual subculture is less than 2% of the population yet accounts for 72% of the HIV cases.

States should keep passing laws that challenge both Roe v. Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges as violating the Constitution demanding why protecting the right of the Unborn Child and Traditional Marriage are not guaranteed by the Constitution. The decisions do not explain how these rights can be over-ridden by the two decisions.

 

 

 

(Slip Opinion)   OCTOBER TERM, 2015        1

 

Syllabus

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

Picture 3

KANSAS v. CARR

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS  

No. 14–449. Argued October 7, 2015—Decided January 20, 2016*

A Kansas jury sentenced respondent Sidney Gleason to death for killing a co-conspirator and her boyfriend to cover up the robbery of an elderly man.

  A Kansas jury sentenced respondents Reginald and Jonathan Carr, brothers, to death after a joint sentencing proceeding.  Respondents were convicted of various charges stemming from a notorious crime spree that culminated in the brutal rape, robbery, kidnaping, and execution-style shooting of five young men and women.   

  The Kansas Supreme Court vacated the death sentences in each case, holding that the sentencing instructions violated the Eighth Amendment by failing “to affirmatively inform the jury that mitigating circumstances need only be proved to the satisfaction of the individual juror in that juror’s sentencing decision and not beyond a reasonable doubt.”  It also held that the Carrs’ Eighth Amendment right “to an individualized capital sentencing determination” was violated by the trial court’s failure to sever their sentencing proceedings.

Held:

 1. The Eighth Amendment does not require capital-sentencing courts to instruct a jury that mitigating circumstances need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.  Pp. 8–13.

  (a) Because the Kansas Supreme Court left no doubt that its ruling was based on the Federal Constitution, Gleason’s initial argument—that this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear his case because the state court’s decision rested on adequate and independent state-law grounds—is rejected.  See Kansas v. Marsh, 548 U. S. 163, 169.  Pp. 8–9.

——————

*Together with No. 14–450, Kansas v. Carr, and No. 14–452, Kansas

v. Gleason, also on certiorari to the same court.

2                      KANSAS v. CARR

           

Syllabus

  (b) This Court’s capital-sentencing case law does not support requiring a court to instruct a jury that mitigating circumstances need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. See, e.g., Buchanan v. Angelone, 522 U. S. 269, 275. Nor was such an instruction constitution- ally necessary in these particular cases to avoid confusion.  Ambiguity in capital-sentencing instructions gives rise to constitutional error only if “there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way that prevents the consideration of constitutionally relevant evidence,” Boyde v. California, 494 U. S. 370, 380, a bar not cleared here.  Even assuming that it would be unconstitutional to require the defense to prove mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt, the record belies the defendants’ contention that the instructions caused jurors to apply such a standard of proof here. The instructions make clear that both the existence of aggravating circumstances and the conclusion that they outweigh mitigating circumstances must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt but that mitigating circumstances must merely be “found to exist,” which does not suggest proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  No juror would have reasonably speculated that “beyond a reasonable doubt” was the correct burden for mitigating circumstances.  Pp. 9–13.

 2. The Constitution did not require severance of the Carrs’ joint sentencing proceedings. The Eighth Amendment is inapposite when a defendant’s claim is, at bottom, that evidence was improperly admitted at a capital-sentencing proceeding.  The question is whether the allegedly improper evidence “so infected the sentencing proceeding with unfairness as to render the jury’s imposition of the death penalty a denial of due process.” Romano v. Oklahoma, 512 U. S. 1, 12. In light of all the evidence presented at the guilt and penalty phases relevant to the jury’s sentencing determination, the contention that the admission of mitigating evidence by one Carr brother could have “so infected” the jury’s consideration of the other’s sentence as to amount to a denial of due process is beyond the pale.  The Court presumes that the jury followed its instructions to “give separate consideration to each defendant.” Bruton v. United States, 391 U. S. 123, distinguished.  Joint proceedings are permissible and often preferable when the joined defendants’ criminal conduct arises out of a single chain of events. Buchanan v. Kentucky, 483 U. S. 402, 418.  Limiting instructions, like those given in the Carrs’ proceeding, “often will suffice to cure any risk of prejudice,” Zafiro v. United States, 506 U. S. 534, 539, that might arise from codefendants’ “antagonistic” mitigation theories, id., at 538. It is improper to vacate a death sentence based on pure “speculation” of fundamental unfairness, “rather than reasoned judgment.” Romano, supra, at 13–14.  Only the most extravagant speculation would lead to the conclusion that any sup          Cite as: 577 U. S. ____ (2016)       3

 

Syllabus

posedly prejudicial evidence rendered the Carr brothers’ joint sentencing proceeding fundamentally unfair when their acts of almost inconceivable cruelty and depravity were described in excruciating detail by the sole survivor, who, for two days, relived the Wichita Massacre with the jury.  Pp. 13–17.

No. 14–449, 300 Kan. 340, 329 P. 3d 1195; No. 14–450, 300 Kan. 1, 331 P. 3d 544; and No. 14–452, 299 Kan. 1127, 329 P. 3d 1102, reversed and remanded.

SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,

C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, G INSBURG, BREYER, ALITO, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

 


NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

_________________

Nos. 14–449, 14–450, and 14–452

_________________

14–449

 

14–450

 

KANSAS, PETITIONER

v.

JONATHAN D. CARR

KANSAS, PETITIONER

v.

REGINALD DEXTER CARR, JR.

KANSAS, PETITIONER

14–452

v.

SIDNEY J. GLEASON

 

ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF  KANSAS

[January 20, 2016]  

JUSTICE SCALIA delivered the opinion of the Court.

 The Supreme Court of Kansas vacated the death sentences of Sidney Gleason and brothers Reginald and Jonathan Carr.  Gleason killed one of his co-conspirators and her boyfriend to cover up the robbery of an elderly man.  The Carrs’ notorious Wichita crime spree culminated in the brutal rape, robbery, kidnaping, and execution-style shooting of five young men and women.  We first consider whether the Constitution required the sentencing courts to instruct the juries that mitigating circumstances “need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”  And second, whether the Constitution required severance of the Carrs’ joint sentencing proceedings.

I  

A  

 Less than one month after Sidney Gleason was paroled from his sentence for attempted voluntary manslaughter, he joined a conspiracy to rob an elderly man at knifepoint.[1]  Gleason and a companion “cut up” the elderly man to get $10 to $35 and a box of cigarettes. 299 Kan. 1127, 1136, 329 P. 3d 1102, 1115 (2014).  Fearing that their female co-conspirators would snitch, Gleason and his cousin, Damien Thompson, set out to kill co-conspirator Mikiala Martinez. Gleason shot and killed Martinez’s boyfriend, and then Gleason and Thompson drove Martinez to a rural location, where Thompson strangled her for five minutes and then shot her in the chest, Gleason standing by and providing the gun for the final shot.

 The State ultimately charged Gleason with capital murder for killing Martinez and her boyfriend, first-degree premeditated murder of the boyfriend, aggravating kidnaping of Martinez, attempted first-degree murder and aggravated robbery of the elderly man, and criminal possession of a firearm.  He was convicted on all counts except the attempted first-degree murder charge.  Id., at 1134– 1135, 1146, 329 P. 3d, at 1114, 1120.  The jury also found that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of four aggravating circumstances and unanimously agreed to a sentence of death.  Id., at 1146–1147, 329 P. 3d, at 1120–1121.

B

 In December 2000, brothers Reginald and Jonathan

——————

Carr set out on a crime spree culminating in the Wichita Massacre.[2] On the night of December 7, Reginald Carr and an unknown man carjacked Andrew Schreiber, held a gun to his head, and forced him to make cash withdrawals at various ATMs.

 On the night of December 11, the brothers followed Linda Ann Walenta, a cellist for the Wichita symphony, home from orchestra practice. One of them approached her vehicle and said he needed help.  When she rolled down her window, he pointed a gun at her head.  When she shifted into reverse to escape, he shot her three times, ran back to his brother’s car, and fled the scene. One of the gunshots severed Walenta’s spine, and she died one month later as a result of her injuries.

 On the night of December 14, the brothers burst into a triplex at 12727 Birchwood, where roommates Jason, Brad, and Aaron lived.  Jason’s girlfriend, Holly, and Heather, a friend of Aaron’s, were also in the house.  Armed with handguns and a golf club, the brothers forced all five into Jason’s bedroom. They demanded that they strip naked and later ordered them into the bedroom closet. They took Holly and Heather from the bedroom, demanded that they perform oral sex and digitally penetrate each other as the Carrs looked on and barked orders.  They forced each of the men to have sex with Holly and then with Heather. They yelled that the men would be shot if they could not have sex with the women, so Holly— fearing for Jason’s life—performed oral sex on him in the closet before he was ordered out by the brothers.

 Jonathan then snatched Holly from the closet. He ordered that she digitally penetrate herself.  He set his

——————

gun between her knees on the floor.  And he raped her.

Then he raped Heather.

 Reginald took Brad, Jason, Holly, and Aaron one-by-one to various ATMs to withdraw cash.  When the victims returned to the house, their torture continued.  Holly urinated in the closet because of fright.  Jonathan found an engagement ring hidden in the bedroom that Jason was keeping as a surprise for Holly.  Pointing his gun at Jason, he had Jason identify the ring while Holly was sitting nearby in the closet. Then Reginald took Holly from the closet, said he was not going to shoot her yet, and raped her on the dining-room floor strewn with boxes of Christmas decorations. He forced her to turn around, ejaculated into her mouth, and forced her to swallow.  In a nearby bathroom, Jonathan again raped Heather and then again raped Holly.

 At 2 a.m.—three hours after the mayhem began—the brothers decided it was time to leave the house.  They attempted to put all five victims in the trunk of Aaron’s Honda Civic.  Finding that they would not all fit, they jammed the three young men into the trunk. They directed Heather to the front of the car and Holly to Jason’s pickup truck, driven by Reginald.  Once the vehicles arrived at a snow-covered field, they instructed Jason and Brad, still naked, and Aaron to kneel in the snow.  Holly cried, “Oh, my God, they’re going to shoot us.”  Holly and Heather were then ordered to kneel in the snow.  Holly went to Jason’s side; Heather, to Aaron.

 Holly heard the first shot, heard Aaron plead with the brothers not to shoot, heard the second shot, heard the screams, heard the third shot, and the fourth.  She felt the blow of the fifth shot to her head, but remained kneeling.  They kicked her so she would fall face-first into the snow and ran her over in the pickup truck.  But she survived, because a hair clip she had fastened to her hair that night deflected the bullet.  She went to Jason, took off her sweater, the only scrap of clothing the brothers had let her wear, and tied it around his head to stop the bleeding from his eye. She rushed to Brad, then Aaron, and then Heather.

 Spotting a house with white Christmas lights in the distance, Holly started running toward it for help—naked, skull shattered, and without shoes, through the snow and over barbed-wire fences. Each time a car passed on the nearby road, she feared it was the brothers returning and camouflaged herself by lying down in the snow.  She made it to the house, rang the doorbell, knocked.  A man opened the door, and she relayed as quickly as she could the events of the night to him, and minutes later to a 911 dispatcher, fearing that she would not live.

 Holly lived, and retold this play-by-play of the night’s events to the jury. Investigators also testified that the brothers returned to the Birchwood house after leaving the five friends for dead, where they ransacked the place for valuables and (for good measure) beat Holly’s dog, Nikki, to death with a golf club.

 The State charged each of the brothers with more than 50 counts, including murder, rape, sodomy, kidnaping, burglary, and robbery, and the jury returned separate guilty verdicts.  It convicted Reginald of one count of kidnaping, aggravated robbery, aggravated battery, and criminal damage to property for the Schreiber carjacking, and one count of first-degree felony murder for the Walenta shooting. Jonathan was acquitted of all counts related to the Schreiber carjacking but convicted of first-degree felony murder for the Walenta shooting.  For the Birchwood murders, the jury convicted each brother of 4 counts of capital murder, 1 count of attempted first-degree murder, 5 counts of aggravated kidnaping, 9 counts of aggravated robbery, 20 counts of rape or attempted rape, 3 counts of aggravated criminal sodomy, 1 count each of aggravated burglary and burglary, 1 count of theft, and 1 count of cruelty to animals. The jury also convicted Reginald of three counts of unlawful possession of a firearm. 300 Kan. 1, 15–16, 331 P. 3d 544, 573–574 (2014).

 The State sought the death penalty for each of the four Birchwood murders, and the brothers were sentenced together. The State relied on the guilt-phase evidence, including Holly’s two days of testimony, as evidence of four aggravating circumstances: that the defendants knowingly or purposely killed or created a great risk of death to more than one person; that they committed the crimes for the purpose of receiving money or items of monetary value; that they committed the crimes to prevent arrest or pro- secution; and that they committed the crimes in an especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel manner.  Id., at 258–259, 331 P. 3d, at 708.  After hearing each brother’s case for mitigation, the jury issued separate verdicts of death for Reginald and Jonathan. It found unanimously that the State proved the existence of the four aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt and that those aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances, justifying four separate verdicts of death for each brother for the murders of Jason, Brad, Aaron, and Heather. App. in No. 14–449 etc., pp. 461–492.

C

 The Kansas Supreme Court vacated the death penalties in both cases. It held that the instructions used in both Gleason’s and the Carrs’ sentencing violated the Eighth Amendment because they “failed to affirmatively inform the jury that mitigating circumstances need only be proved to the satisfaction of the individual juror in that juror’s sentencing decision and not beyond a reasonable doubt.” 299 Kan., at 1196, 329 P. 3d, at 1147 (Gleason); 300 Kan., at 303, 331 P. 3d, at 733 (Reginald Carr); 300 Kan. 340, 369–370, 329 P. 3d 1195, 1213 (2014) (Jonathan Carr).  Without that instruction, according to the court, the jury “was left to speculate as to the correct burden of proof for mitigating circumstances, and reasonable jurors might have believed they could not consider mitigating circumstances not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.”  299 Kan., at 1197, 329 P. 3d, at 1148.  This, the court concluded, might have caused jurors to exclude relevant mitigating evidence from their consideration.  Ibid.

 The Kansas Supreme Court also held that the Carrs’ death sentences had to be vacated because of the trial court’s failure to sever their sentencing proceedings, thereby violating the brothers’ Eighth Amendment right “to an individualized capital sentencing determination.” 

300 Kan., at 275, 331 P. 3d, at 717; 300 Kan., at 368, 329 P. 3d, at 1212.  According to the court, the joint trial “inhibited the jury’s individualized consideration of [Jonathan] because of family characteristics tending to demonstrate future dangerousness that he shared with his brother”; and his brother’s visible handcuffs prejudiced the jury’s consideration of his sentence.  300 Kan., at 275, 331 P. 3d, at 717.  As for Reginald, he was prejudiced, according to the Kansas Supreme Court, by Jonathan’s portrayal of him as the corrupting older brother.  Id., at 276, 331 P. 3d, at 717. Moreover, Reginald was prejudiced by his brother’s cross-examination of their sister, who testified that she thought Reginald had admitted to her that he was the shooter. Id., at 279, 331 P. 3d, at 719.  (She later backtracked and testified, “‘I don’t remember who was,  you know, shot by who[m].’”   Ibid.) The Kansas Supreme Court opined that the presumption that the jury followed its instructions to consider each defendant separately was “defeated by logic.” Id., at 280, 331 P. 3d, at 719. “[T]he defendants’ joint upbringing in the maelstrom that was their family and their influence on and interactions with one another . . . simply was not amenable to orderly separation and analysis.” Ibid., 331 P. 3d, at 719–720.  The Kansas Supreme Court found itself unable to “say that the death verdict was unattributable, at least in part, to this error.” Id., at 282, 331 P. 3d, at 720.  We granted certiorari. 575 U. S. ___ (2015).

II

 We first turn to the Kansas Supreme Court’s contention that the Eighth Amendment required these capitalsentencing courts to instruct the jury that mitigating circumstances need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

A

 Before considering the merits of that contention, we consider Gleason’s challenge to our jurisdiction.  According to Gleason, the Kansas Supreme Court’s decision rests on adequate and independent state-law grounds. This argument is a familiar one. We rejected it in Kansas v. Marsh, 548 U. S. 163, 169 (2006).  Like the defendant in that case, Gleason urges that the decision below rests only on a rule of Kansas law announced in State v. Kleypas, 272 Kan. 894, 40 P. 3d 139 (2001) (per curiam)—a rule later reiterated in State v. Scott, 286 Kan. 54, 183 P. 3d 801 (2008) (  per curiam).  As we stated in   Marsh, “Kleypas, itself, rested on federal law.” 548 U. S., at 169.  So too does the relevant passage of Scott, which rested on Kleypas’s discussion of the constitutional rule that jurors need not agree on mitigating circumstances.  See Scott, supra, at 106–107, 183 P. 3d, at 837–838.  The Kansas Supreme Court’s opinion in this case acknowledged as much, saying that “statements from Kleypas implicate the broader Eighth Amendment principle prohibiting barriers that preclude a sentencer’s consideration of all relevant mitigating evidence.” 299 Kan., at 1195, 329 P. 3d, at 1147.  

 The Kansas Supreme Court’s opinion leaves no room for doubt that it was relying on the Federal Constitution.  It stated that the instruction it required “protects a capital defendant’s Eighth Amendment right to individualized sentencing,” that the absence of the instruction “implicat[ed] Gleason’s right to individualized sentencing under the Eighth Amendment,” and that vacatur of Gleason’s death sentence was the “[c]onsequen[ce]” of Eighth Amendment error. Id., at 1196–1197, 329 P. 3d, at 1147–1148 (emphasis added).

 For this reason, the criticism leveled by the dissent is misdirected. It generally would have been “none of our business” had the Kansas Supreme Court vacated Gleason’s and the Carrs’ death sentences on state-law grounds. Marsh, 548 U. S., at 184 (SCALIA, J., concurring).  But it decidedly did not. And when the Kansas Supreme Court time and again invalidates death sentences because it says the Federal Constitution requires it, “review by this Court, far from undermining state autonomy, is the only possible way to vindicate it.” Ibid. “When we correct a state court’s federal errors, we return power to the State, and to its people.Ibid.  The state courts may experiment all they want with their own constitutions, and often do in the wake of this Court’s decisions. See Sutton, San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez And Its Aftermath, 94 Va. L. Rev. 1963, 1971–1977 (2008).  But what a state court cannot do is experiment with our Federal Constitution and expect to elude this Court’s review so long as victory goes to the criminal defendant.  “Turning a blind eye” in such cases “would change the uniform ‘law of the land’ into a crazy quilt.”  Marsh, supra, at 185.  And it would enable state courts to blame the unpopular death-sentence reprieve of the most horrible criminals upon the Federal Constitution when it is in fact their own doing.

B

 We turn, then, to the merits of the Kansas Supreme Court’s conclusion that the Eighth Amendment requires capital-sentencing courts in Kansas “to affirmatively inform the jury that mitigating circumstances need not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.”  299 Kan., at 1197, 329 P. 3d, at 1148.

 Approaching the question in the abstract, and without reference to our capital-sentencing case law, we doubt whether it is even possible to apply a standard of proof to the mitigating-factor determination (the so-called “selection phase” of a capital-sentencing proceeding).  It is possible to do so for the aggravating-factor determination (the so-called “eligibility phase”), because that is a purely factual determination. The facts justifying death set forth in the Kansas statute either did or did not exist—and one can require the finding that they did exist to be made beyond a reasonable doubt.  Whether mitigation exists, however, is largely a judgment call (or perhaps a value call); what one juror might consider mitigating another might not. And of course the ultimate question whether mitigating circumstances outweigh aggravating circumstances is mostly a question of mercy—the quality of which, as we know, is not strained.  It would mean nothing, we think, to tell the jury that the defendants must deserve mercy beyond a reasonable doubt; or must morelikely-than-not deserve it. It would be possible, of course, to instruct the jury that the facts establishing mitigating circumstances need only be proved by a preponderance, leaving the judgment whether those facts are indeed mitigating, and whether they outweigh the aggravators, to the jury’s discretion without a standard of proof.  If we were to hold that the Constitution requires the mitigatingfactor determination to be divided into its factual component and its judgmental component, and the former to be accorded a burden-of-proof instruction, we doubt whether that would produce anything but jury confusion.  In the last analysis, jurors will accord mercy if they deem it appropriate, and withhold mercy if they do not, which is what our case law is designed to achieve.

 In any event, our case law does not require capital sentencing courts “to affirmatively inform the jury that mitigating circumstances need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”  Ibid. In Buchanan v. Angelone, 522 U. S. 269 (1998), we upheld a death sentence even though the trial court “failed to provide the jury with express guidance on the concept of mitigation.” Id., at 275.  Likewise in Weeks v. Angelone, 528 U. S. 225 (2000), we reaffirmed that the Court has “never held that the State must structure in a particular way the manner in which juries consider mitigating evidence” and rejected the contention that it was constitutionally deficient to instruct jurors to “‘consider a mitigating circumstance if you find there is        evidence to support it,’” without additional guidance.    Id., at 232–233.

 Equally unavailing is the contention that even if an instruction that mitigating evidence need not be “proven beyond a reasonable doubt” is not always required, it was constitutionally necessary in these cases to avoid confusion. Ambiguity in capital-sentencing instructions gives rise to constitutional error only if “there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way that prevents the consideration of constitutionally relevant evidence.” Boyde v. California, 494 U. S. 370, 380 (1990) (emphasis added). The alleged confusion stemming from the jury instructions used at the defendants’ sentencings does not clear that bar.  A meager “possibility” of confusion is not enough. Ibid.  As an initial matter, the defendants’ argument rests on the assumption that it would be unconstitutional to require the defense to prove mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt.  Assuming without deciding that that is the case, the record belies the defendants’ contention that the instructions caused jurors to apply that standard of proof. The defendants focus upon the following instruction: “The State has the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there are one or more aggravating circumstances and that they are not outweighed by any mitigating circumstances found to exist.”  App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 14–452, p. 133 (Instr. 8).[3]  The juxtaposition of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, so goes the argument, caused the jury to speculate that mitigating circumstances must also be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. 299 Kan., at 1197, 329 P. 3d, at 1148.  It seems to us quite the opposite. The instruction makes clear that both the existence of aggravating circumstances and the conclusion that they outweigh mitigating circumstances must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt; mitigating circumstances themselves, on the other hand, must merely be “found to exist.” That same description, mitigating circumstances “found to exist,” is contained in three other instructions, App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 14–452, at 133 (Instrs. 7, 9, and 10) (emphasis added)—unsurprisingly, since it recites the Kansas statute, see Kan. Stat. Ann. §21–4624(e) (1995).  “Found to exist” certainly does not suggest proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  The instructions as a whole distinguish clearly between aggravating and mitigating circumstances: “The State has the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there are one or more aggravating circumstances . . . ,” and the jury must decide unanimously that the State met that burden.  App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 14–452, at 133 (Instrs. 8 and 10) (emphasis added).  “Mitigating circumstances,” on the other hand, “do not need to be found by all members of the jury” to “be considered by an individual juror in arriving at his or her sentencing decision.”  Id., at 131 (Instr. 7).  Not once do the instructions say that defense counsel bears the

——————

burden of proving the facts constituting a mitigating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt—nor would that make much sense, since one of the mitigating circumstances is (curiously) “mercy,” which simply is not a fac- tual determination.

 We reject the Kansas Supreme Court’s decision that jurors were “left to speculate as to the correct burden of proof for mitigating circumstances.”  299 Kan., at 1197, 329 P. 3d, at 1148.  For the reasons we have described, no juror would reasonably have speculated that mitigating circumstances must be proved by any particular standard, let alone beyond a reasonable doubt.  The reality is that jurors do not “pars[e] instructions for subtle shades of meaning in the same way that lawyers might.”  Boyde, supra, at 381.  The instructions repeatedly told the jurors to consider any mitigating factor, meaning any aspect of the defendants’ background or the circumstances of their offense.  Jurors would not have misunderstood these instructions to prevent their consideration of constitutionally relevant evidence.

III

 We turn next to the contention that a joint capitalsentencing proceeding in the Carrs’ cases violated the defendants’ Eighth Amendment right to an “individualized sentencing determination.” 300 Kan., at 276, 331 P. 3d, at 717.

 The Kansas Supreme Court agreed with the defendants that, because of the joint sentencing proceeding, one defendant’s mitigating evidence put a thumb on death’s scale for the other, in violation of the other’s Eighth Amendment rights. Ibid.  It accepted Reginald’s contention that he was prejudiced by his brother’s portrayal of him as the corrupting older brother.  And it agreed that Reginald was prejudiced by his brother’s cross-examination of their sister, who equivocated about whether Reginald admitted to her that he was the shooter.  (Reginald has all but abandoned that implausible theory of prejudice before this Court and contends only that the State “likely would not have introduced any such testimony” had he been sentenced alone.  Brief for Respondent in No. 14–450, p. 34, n. 3.) Jonathan asserted that he was prejudiced by evidence associating him with his dangerous older brother, which caused the jury to perceive him as an incurable sociopath.[4]  Both speculate that the evidence assertedly prejudicial to them would have been inadmissible in severed proceedings under Kansas law.  The Kansas Supreme Court also launched a broader attack on the joint proceedings, contending that the joinder rendered it impossible for the jury to consider the Carrs’ relative moral culpability and to determine individually whether they were entitled to “mercy.” 300 Kan., at 278, 331 P. 3d, at 718–719.  Whatever the merits of defendants’ procedural objections, we will not shoehorn them into the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishments.”  As the United States as amicus curiae intimates, the Eighth Amendment is inapposite when each defendant’s claim is, at bottom, that the jury considered evidence that would not have been admitted in a severed proceeding, and that the joint trial clouded the jury’s consideration of mitigating evidence like “mercy.”  Brief for United States 24, n. 8.  As we held in Romano v. Oklahoma, 512 U. S. 1 (1994), it is not the role of the Eighth Amendment to establish a special “federal code of evidence” governing “the admissibility of evidence at capital sentencing proceedings.” Id., at 11–12. Rather, it is the Due Process

——————

Clause that wards off the introduction of “unduly prejudicial” evidence that would “rende[r] the trial fundamentally unfair.” Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U. S. 808, 825 (1991); see also Brown v. Sanders, 546 U. S. 212, 220–221 (2006).  The test prescribed by Romano for a constitutional violation attributable to evidence improperly admitted at a capital-sentencing proceeding is whether the evidence “so infected the sentencing proceeding with unfairness as to render the jury’s imposition of the death penalty a denial of due process.” 512 U. S., at 12.  The mere admission of evidence that might not otherwise have been admitted in a severed proceeding does not demand the automatic vacatur of a death sentence.

 In light of all the evidence presented at the guilt and penalty phases relevant to the jury’s sentencing determination, the contention that the admission of mitigating evidence by one brother could have “so infected” the jury’s consideration of the other’s sentence as to amount to a

denial of due process is beyond the pale.  To begin with, the court instructed the jury that it “must give separate consideration to each defendant,” that each was “entitled to have his sentence decided on the evidence and law which is applicable to him,” and that any evidence in the penalty phase “limited to only one defendant should not be considered by you as to the other defendant.”  App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 14–450, at 501 (Instr. 3).  The court gave defendant-specific instructions for aggravating and mitigating circumstances.  Id., at 502–508 (Instrs. 5, 6, 7, and 8). And the court instructed the jury to consider the “individual” or “particular defendant” by using four separate verdict forms for each defendant, one for each murdered occupant of the Birchwood house. Id., at 509 (Instr. 10); App. in No. 14–449 etc., at 461–492.  We presume the jury followed these instructions and considered each defendant separately when deciding to impose a sentence of death for each of the brutal murders.  Romano, supra, at 13.

 The contrary conclusion of the Kansas Supreme Court— that the presumption that jurors followed these instructions was “defeated by logic,” 300 Kan., at 280, 331 P. 3d, at 719—is untenable. The Carrs implausibly liken the prejudice resulting from the joint sentencing proceeding to the prejudice infecting the joint trial in Bruton v. United States, 391 U. S. 123 (1968), where the prosecution admitted hearsay evidence of a codefendant’s confession implicating the defendant.  That particular violation of the defendant’s confrontation rights, incriminating evidence of the most persuasive sort, ineradicable, as a practical matter, from the jury’s mind, justified what we have described as a narrow departure from the presumption that jurors follow their instructions, Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U. S. 200, 207 (1987).  We have declined to extend that exception, id., at 211, and have continued to apply the presumption to instructions regarding mitigating evidence in capital-sentencing proceedings, see, e.g., Weeks, 528 U. S., at 234.  There is no reason to think the jury could not follow its instruction to consider the defendants separately in this case.

 Joint proceedings are not only permissible but are often preferable when the joined defendants’ criminal conduct arises out of a single chain of events. Joint trial may enable a jury “to arrive more reliably at its conclusions regarding the guilt or innocence of a particular defendant and to assign fairly the respective responsibilities of each defendant in the sentencing.” Buchanan v. Kentucky, 483 U. S. 402, 418 (1987).  That the codefendants might have “antagonistic” theories of mitigation, Zafiro v. United States, 506 U. S. 534, 538 (1993), does not suffice to overcome Kansas’s “interest in promoting the reliability and consistency of its judicial process,” Buchanan, supra, at 418. Limiting instructions, like those used in the Carrs’ sentencing proceeding, “often will suffice to cure any risk of prejudice.” Zafiro, supra, at 539 (citing Richardson, supra, at 211). To forbid joinder in capital-sentencing proceedings would, perversely, increase the odds of “wanto[n] and freakis[h]” imposition of death sentences. Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 206–207 (1976) (joint opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.).  Better that two defendants who have together committed the same crimes be placed side-by-side to have their fates determined by a single jury.

 It is improper to vacate a death sentence based on pure “speculation” of fundamental unfairness, “rather than reasoned judgment,” Romano, supra, at 13–14.  Only the most extravagant speculation would lead to the conclusion that the supposedly prejudicial evidence rendered the Carr brothers’ joint sentencing proceeding fundamentally unfair. It is beyond reason to think that the jury’s death verdicts were caused by the identification of Reginald as the “corrupter” or of Jonathan as the “corrupted,” the jury’s viewing of Reginald’s handcuffs, or the sister’s retracted statement that Reginald fired the final shots.  None of that mattered.  What these defendants did—acts of almost inconceivable cruelty and depravity—was described in excruciating detail by Holly, who relived with the jury, for two days, the Wichita Massacre.  The joint sentencing proceedings did not render the sentencing proceedings fundamentally unfair.

IV

 When we granted the State’s petition for a writ of certiorari for the Carrs’ cases, we declined to review whether the Confrontation Clause, U. S. Const., Amdt. 6, requires that defendants be allowed to cross-examine witnesses whose statements are recorded in police reports referred to by the State in penalty-phase proceedings.  The Kansas Supreme Court did not make the admission of those statements a basis for its vacating of the death sentences, but merely “caution[ed]” that in the resentencing proceedings these out-of-court testimonial statements should be omitted, 300 Kan., at 288, 331 P. 3d, at 724. We are confi- dent that cross-examination regarding these police reports would not have had the slightest effect upon the sen- tences. See Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U. S. 673, 684 (1986).

*  *  *

 The judgments of the Supreme Court of Kansas are reversed, and these cases are remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

 

It is so ordered.


NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

_________________

Nos. 14–449, 14-450, and 14–452

_________________

14–449

 

14–450

 

KANSAS, PETITIONER

v.

JONATHAN D. CARR

KANSAS, PETITIONER

v.

REGINALD DEXTER CARR, JR.

KANSAS, PETITIONER

14–452

v.

SIDNEY J. GLEASON

 

ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF  KANSAS   

[January 20, 2016]

 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, dissenting.

 I respectfully dissent because I do not believe these cases should ever have been reviewed by the Supreme Court. I see no reason to intervene in cases like these— and plenty of reasons not to.  Kansas has not violated any federal constitutional right. If anything, the State has overprotected its citizens based on its interpretation of state and federal law. For reasons ably articulated by my predecessors and colleagues and because I worry that cases like these prevent States from serving as necessary laboratories for experimenting with how best to guarantee defendants a fair trial, I would dismiss the writs as improvidently granted.

I

 In 2014, the Kansas Supreme Court vacated three death sentences—the sentences of Sidney Gleason and the Carr brothers, Reginald and Jonathan—because of constitutional errors in the penalty phases of their trials.  All three men were tried under jury instructions that did not include language previously mandated by the Kansas Supreme Court.  The instructions did not state that, under Kansas’ statutory scheme, mitigating circumstances need only be proven to an individual juror’s satisfaction and not beyond a reasonable doubt. 299 Kan. 1127, 1192–1197, 329 P. 3d 1102, 1145–1148 (2014) (Sidney Gleason); 300 Kan. 1, 302–303, 331 P. 3d 544, 732– 733 (2014) (Reginald Carr); 300 Kan. 340, 368–369, 329 P. 3d 1195, 1213 (2014) (Jonathan Carr).  The court found that the instructions therefore both undermined Kansas’ state law and created a “reasonable likelihood that the jury . . . applied the challenged instruction in a way that prevents consideration” of mitigating evidence as required by the Federal Constitution.  299 Kan., at 1191–1197, 329 P. 3d, at 1144–1148 (quoting Boyde v. California, 494

U. S. 370, 380 (1990)).

 The Kansas Supreme Court also vacated the Carr brothers’ death sentences because they were jointly tried at the penalty phase. The court concluded that each brother’s particular case for mitigation compromised the other brother’s case and therefore that trying them jointly violated the Eighth Amendment right to individualized sentencing. The error was not harmless, the Kansas Supreme Court found, because an “especially damning subset” of the evidence presented might not have been admitted in separate penalty proceedings.  300 Kan., at 275–282, 331 P. 3d, at 717–720; 300 Kan., at 369–370, 329

P. 3d, at 1212.

 The Kansas attorney general requested certiorari, alleging that it would best serve the State’s interest for a federal court to intervene and correct the Kansas Supreme Court. This Court complied, even though there was no suggestion that the Kansas Supreme Court had violated any federal constitutional right.  The majority now reverses the Kansas Supreme Court on both points.

II   

A  

 Even where a state court has wrongly decided an “important question of federal law,” Sup. Ct. Rule 10, we often decline to grant certiorari, instead reserving such grants for instances where the benefits of hearing a case outweigh the costs of so doing.  My colleagues and predecessors have effectively set forth many of the costs of granting certiorari in cases where state courts grant relief to criminal defendants: We risk issuing opinions that, while not strictly advisory, may have little effect if a lower court is able to reinstate its holding as a matter of state law.  Florida v. Powell, 559 U. S. 50, 66 (2010) (Stevens, J.,  dissenting). We expend resources on cases where the only concern is that a State has “‘overprotected’” its citizens.    Michigan v. Long, 463 U. S. 1032, 1068 (1983) (Stevens, J., dissenting). We intervene in an intrastate dispute between the State’s executive and its judiciary rather than entrusting the State’s structure of government to sort it out. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U. S. 722, 766–767 (1991) (Blackmun, J., dissenting).  And we lose valuable data about the best methods of protecting constitutional rights—a particular concern in cases like these, where the federal constitutional question turns on the “reasonable likelihood” of jury confusion, an empirical question best answered with evidence from many state courts.  Cf. Arizona v. Evans, 514 U. S. 1, 30–31 (1995) (GINSBURG, J.,  dissenting).

B

 The cases here demonstrate yet another cost of granting certiorari to correct a state court’s overprotection of federal rights: In explaining that the Federal Constitution does not protect some particular right, it is natural to buttress the conclusion by explaining why that right is not very important.  In so doing, the Court risks discouraging States from adopting valuable procedural protections even as a matter of their own state law.

 State experimentation with how best to guarantee a fair trial to criminal defendants is an essential aspect of our federalism scheme. See, e.g., Linde, First Things First: Rediscovering the States’ Bill of Rights, 9 U. Balt. L. Rev. 379, 393 (1980). The Federal Constitution guarantees only a minimum slate of protections; States can and do provide individual rights above that constitutional floor.  See, e.g., Brennan, The Bill of Rights and the States: the Revival of State Constitutions as Guardians of Constitutional Rights, 61 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 535, 548–550 (1986).  That role is particularly important in the criminal arena because state courts preside over many millions more criminal cases than their federal counterparts and so are more likely to identify protections important to a fair trial.  Compare Court Statistics Project, Examining the Work of State Courts: An Analysis of 2010 State Court Caseloads 19–21 (2012), with Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Federal Justice Statistics 2011–2012, pp. 19–20 (Jan. 2015) (Tables 11 and 12).

 The majority’s opinion in these cases illustrates how an unnecessary grant of certiorari can lead to unexpected costs by disrupting this sort of state experimentation.  Take the first question presented in these cases. The majority’s actual holding is that the Eighth Amendment does not require an instruction specifying that mitigating factors need not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  Ante, at 11–12.  The Eighth Amendment has nothing to say about whether such an instruction is wise as a question of state law or policy.  But the majority nonetheless uses this Court’s considerable influence to call into question the logic of specifying any burden of proof as to mitigating circumstances.  The majority claims that while assessing an aggravating factor is “a purely factual determination,” assessing mitigation involves “a judgment call (or perhaps a value call)” and is thus not amenable to burdens of proof.  Ante, at 10. Short of dividing the mitigating factor “into its factual component and its judgmental component,” and issuing burden-of-proof instructions only as to the former, the majority wonders “whether it is even possible to apply a standard of proof to the mitigatingfactor determination.”  Ibid.

 By this observation, and with no experience with the needs of juries, the majority denigrates the many States that do specify a burden of proof for the existence of mitigating factors as a matter of state law, presumably under the belief that it is, in fact, “possible” to do so.*  Brief for Respondent in No. 14–452, pp. 28–29, and n. 6.  Some States even recommend an instruction specifying that mitigating factors need not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. See, e.g., Idaho Jury Instr., Crim., ICJI 1718, Jury Deliberations (2010); Okla. Jury Instr., Crim, OUJI–CR 4– 78 (2015).

 The majority’s discussion of severance likewise short circuits state experimentation.  The majority is not con-

——————

*I leave aside the merits of the majority’s questionable distinction,        though I cannot see how the jury’s conclusion that the Carr brothers committed their crime “in an especially heinous, atrocious or cruel manner”—one of the aggravating circumstances found by the Carr brothers’ jury—involved any less of a judgment or value call than the mitigating circumstances alleged.  See 300 Kan. 1, 282–283, 331 P. 3d 544, 721 (2014).

tent to hold that the Eighth Amendment does not, strictly speaking, require severance of capital penalty proceedings.  Instead, it goes on to explain why joint capital sentencing proceedings are not only permissible under the Federal Constitution but are, in fact, preferable as a policy matter: “Better that two defendants who have together committed the same crimes be placed side-by-side to have their  fates determined by a single jury.”  Ante, at 17.  The majority even intimates that severed proceedings may be worse for defendants: “To forbid joinder in capitalsentencing proceedings would, perversely, increase the odds of ‘wanto[n] and freakis[h]’ imposition of death sentences.” Ibid. (quoting Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153,  206–207 (1976) (joint opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.).

 So much for Ohio’s, Georgia’s, and Mississippi’s sentencing regimes, all of which routinely allow severance at both phases of capital proceedings.  See Ga. Code Ann. §17–8–4 (2013) (upon request, defendants must be tried separately in capital cases); Miss. Code Ann. §99–15–47 (2015) (same); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §2945.20 (Lexis 2014) (capital defendants shall be tried separately unless good cause is shown for a joint trial).  There is no evidence that any of those three States adopted a severance regime based on a misunderstanding of the Eighth Amendment. But without any empirical foundation or any basis in experience, the majority asserts that such regimes may increase the odds of arbitrariness.

 The majority claims that we “‘return power to the State,  and to its people,’” when we explain that the Federal           Constitution does not require a particular result.  Ante, at 9 (emphasis deleted). But that is only so when the Court is able to pass solely on the federal constitutional ground and not the wisdom of a state holding on an equivalent question. Though the Court pretends that it sends back cases like this one with a clean slate, it rarely fully erases its thoughts on the virtues of the procedural protection at issue. By placing a thumb on the scale against a State adopting—even as a matter of state law—proce- dural protections the Constitution does not require, the Court risks turning the Federal Constitution into a

ceiling, rather than a floor, for the protection of individual liberties.  

III

 I see no reason why these three cases out of the Kansas Supreme Court warranted our intervention given the costs that I have just described and those described by my predecessors and colleagues, see supra, at 3.  No federal  right has been compromised. And nobody disputes that the State of Kansas could, as a matter of state law, reach the same outcome.

 Perhaps most importantly, both of the questions on which the Court granted certiorari turn on specific features of Kansas’ sentencing scheme. As a result, the Kansas Supreme Court’s opinion is unlikely to have much salience for other States.  If the Kansas Supreme Court was wrong, its wrong opinion will not subvert federal law on a broader scale.

 First, the Kansas court’s decision on the jury instruction question aimed to “both preserv[e] the [state] statute’s favorable distinction and protec[t] a capital defendant’s Eighth Amendment right to individualized sentencing by ensuring jurors are not precluded from considering all relevant mitigating evidence.” 299 Kan., at 1196, 329 P. 3d, at 1147 (emphasis added).  The Kansas Supreme Court’s decision was thus informed by a combination of federal and state considerations.  A decision that expressly relies on a State’s unique statutory scheme—as did the Kansas Supreme Court’s here—has limited potential for influencing other States.

 It is not absurd to conclude that a juror unfamiliar with the mechanics of the law might be confused by Kansas’ jury instructions, which almost always mention aggravating and mitigating instructions in the same breath.  Id., at 1196–1197, 329 P. 3d, at 1147–1148.  The Kansas Supreme Court’s opinion rested largely on the specific language and ordering of that State’s instructions.  Other States’ jury instructions may be less likely to have the same effect.

 Moreover, the decision below was made against the unique backdrop of trial courts’ failure to implement the Kansas Supreme Court’s earlier demands for a change to jury instructions in capital cases.  In a 2001 case, the Kansas Supreme Court considered the jury instructions insufficiently confusing to reverse the judgment, but sufficiently confusing to demand higher clarity going forward: “[A]ny instruction dealing with the consideration of mitigating circumstances should state (1) they need to be proved only to the satisfaction of the individual juror in the juror’s sentencing decision and not beyond a reason- able doubt and (2) mitigating circumstances do not need to be found by all members of the jury in order to be considered in an individual juror’s sentencing decision.” State v. Kleypas, 272 Kan. 894, 1078, 40 P. 3d 139, 268.  The Kansas pattern instructions were then revised to include consideration (2), but—“inexplicably,” as the court noted in Gleason—not consideration (1).  299 Kan., at 1193, 329 P. 3d, at 1145.  The Kansas Supreme Court reiterated the two requirements for any jury instruction in 2008, see State v. Scott, 286 Kan. 54, 106–108, 183 P. 3d 801, 837, and the pattern instructions were finally changed in 2011, see 299 Kan., at 1193, 329 P. 3d, at 1145. But Gleason  and the Carr brothers were tried in the 10-year delay between the Kansas Supreme Court’s initial admonition and when the jury instructions were finally edited. The Kansas Supreme Court’s opinion in Gleason may have rested in part on a “broader Eighth Amendment principle,” but it also rested on some lower courts’ failure to give instructions reflecting the Kansas Supreme Court’s “repeated recognition of the required content.”  299 Kan., at 1195, 329 P. 3d, 1146, 1147.  Given this context, the Kansas Supreme Court’s decision is particularly unlikely to undermine other States or the Federal Constitution.  The same goes for the severance question.  The Kansas Supreme Court’s decision depended on the “especially damning subset” of the aggravating evidence presented that may not have been admitted in a severed proceeding under Kansas’ capital punishment scheme and evidentiary rules, such as evidence that one brother was a bad influence on the other.  Ibid.  But the difference between a joint penalty phase and a severed penalty phase may be of limited significance in States where the same evidence may be admitted in joint and severed proceedings.  Cf. Brown v. Sanders, 546 U. S. 212, 217 (2006); L. Palmer,

The Death Penalty in the United States: A Complete Guide to Federal and State Laws 137 (2d ed. 2014).  It thus seems to me unlikely that the Kansas Supreme Court’s opinion would have proven instructive in other States, even though it was couched in the language of the Federal Constitution.

IV

 There may, of course, be rare cases where certiorari is warranted in which a state prosecutor alleges that a State’s highest court has overprotected a criminal defendant. These circumstances may include: Where a state court’s decision in favor of a criminal defendant implicates another constitutional right, see, e.g., Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart, 427 U. S. 539, 547 (1976); where a state court indicates a hostility to applying federal precedents, Florida v. Meyers, 466 U. S. 380, 383 (1984) ( per curiam) (Stevens, J., dissenting); or where a state court’s grant of       relief is particularly likely to destabilize or significantly interfere with federal policy. None of those circumstances, and no comparable interest, is present in these cases.

 The Carr brothers committed acts of “almost inconceivable cruelty and depravity,” and the majority is understandably anxious to ensure they receive their just deserts. (So anxious, in fact, that it reaches out to address a question on which we did not grant certiorari at all.  Ante, at 17). But I do not believe that interest justifies not only “correcting” the Kansas Supreme Court’s error but also calling into question the procedures of other States.

 The standard adage teaches that hard cases make bad law. See Northern Securities Co. v. United States, 193 U. S. 197, 364 (1904) (Holmes, J., dissenting).  I fear that these cases suggest a corollary: Shocking cases make too much law.  Because I believe the Court should not have granted certiorari here, I respectfully dissent.

 


[1] The facts for this portion of the opinion come from the Kansas Supreme Court, 299 Kan. 1127, 1134–1147, 329 P. 3d 1102, 1113–1121 (2014), and the parties’ briefs.

[2] The facts for this portion of the opinion come from the Kansas Supreme Court, 300 Kan. 1, 18–38, 331 P. 3d 544, 575–586 (2014), and witness testimony.  See 21–A Tr. 59–75 (Oct. 7, 2002), 22–B Tr. 39–124 (Oct. 8, 2002), 23–A Tr. 4–118 (Oct. 9, 2002), 23–B Tr. 5–133 (Oct. 9, 2002), and 24–A Tr. 4–93 (Oct. 10, 2002).

[3] The relevant penalty-phase instructions from the Carrs’ sentencing proceedings are materially indistinguishable.  See App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 14–450, pp. 501–510.

[4] Jonathan also alleges that he was prejudiced by the jury’s witnessing his brother’s handcuffs, which his brother requested remain visible before the penalty phase commenced.  That allegation is mystifying.  That his brother’s handcuffs were visible (while his own restraints were not) more likely caused the jury to see Jonathan as the less dangerous of the two.

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized