McCain fraternising with terrorists again

McCain hails head of anti-Iran terrorist group, MKO

Press TV – April 15, 2017
US Senator John McCain met the head of the terrorist Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO), Maryam Rajavi, in the Albanian capital of Tirana on April 14, 2017.
US Senator John McCain met the head of the terrorist Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO), Maryam Rajavi, in the Albanian capital of Tirana on April 14, 2017.

Republican US Senator John McCain has praised the head of the terrorist Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO), Maryam Rajavi, in a meeting in the Albanian capital, Tirana.

McCain, who is on an official visit to Balkan states, met Rajavi and some other members of the notorious MKO group in Tirana on Friday.

He congratulated the terrorist group’s “successful transfer” from Iraq and praised its members for what he described as “sacrifice.”

“There is no doubt that people in this room have suffered not only themselves, but in the loss of their loved ones,” he said.

“You have stood up, fought, and sacrificed for freedom, for the right to live free, for the right to determine your future,” he added.

The MKO has carried out numerous terrorist attacks against Iranian civilians and government officials over the past three decades.

Out of the nearly 17,000 Iranians killed in terrorist assaults since the victory of Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, about 12,000 have fallen victim to MKO’s acts of terror.

Massoud Rajavi (L), Maryam Rajavi’s husband and the former ringleader of the anti-Iran terrorist group, Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO), meeting with the executed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. (File photo)

In 1986, the terrorist group’s members fled Iran for Iraq, where they received support from the then Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, and set up Camp Ashraf, now known as Camp New Iraq, in Diyala Province near the Iranian border.

The terrorist group also sided with the former Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, during Iraq’s eight-year imposed war against Iran in the 1980s. The terrorist group also helped Saddam in his brutal crackdown on his opponents.

A file photo of, Massoud Rajavi (L), Maryam Rajavi’s husband and the former ringleader of the anti-Iran terrorist group, Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO), shaking hands with the executed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. (File photo)

In December 2011, the UN and Baghdad agreed to relocate some 3,000 MKO members from Camp Ashraf to Camp Hurriyet. The last group of the MKO terrorists was evicted in September 2013 and relocated to Camp Hurriyet to await transfer to third countries.

Did Trump Shoot Himself in the Foot?

The sound of Tomahawk missiles slamming into a Syrian airbase shattered whatever optimism there was over the possibility of a rapprochement between Moscow and Washington, while causing a widespread spike in tensions on the global stage.

Caricature: Trump shooting himself in the foot

Just a few days earlier, the blast of another bombshell echoed through international newsrooms; the White House chief strategist Steve Bannon was removed from the US National Security Council [NSC].

Bannon’s removal was hardly surprising. As a matter of fact, it was inevitable in the context of the ongoing struggle between the Trump administration and the American political establishment.

It was equally predictable that Bannon’s departure would coincide with other dramatic events. But few could have forecast that it would be followed by a massive missile strike on Syria, in what marks the most heated episode of the new Cold War.

Meanwhile, Trump was eager to tell the world that last week’s strike was the product of his own decision-making process, which led him to ‘change his mind on Syria’ in 48 hours.

The US president’s change of heart during those 48 hours ran parallel with Bannon’s removal from the NSC.

Trump Betrays His Base

The depth of the Washington D.C. “swamp” that Trump promised to drain was on full display following an assault on a sovereign country and a blatant violation of international law.

The corporate media and western politicians, regardless of their party affiliations, were falling all over themselves to shower praise on Trump for his unilateral attack on Syria.

One of the more poetic examples was NBC’s Brian Williams, who called the launch of 59 Tomahawk missiles, which killed a number of Syrian children, “beautiful”.

“We see these beautiful pictures at night from the decks of these two US Navy vessels in the eastern Mediterranean,” Williams said. “I am tempted to quote the great Leonard Cohen: ‘I am guided by the beauty of our weapons.'”

“They are beautiful pictures of fearsome armaments making what is for them a brief flight over to this airfield,” he added. Then he asked his guest, “What did they hit?”

Hillary Clinton, who told New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, just hours before the attack that the US “should take out [Assad’s] airfields”, was not the only Trump critic to change her tune.

The former frontrunner in the race for the White House declared that the strike was an appropriate response to a purported chemical weapons attack in Idlib.

Republican Senator John McCain, who doesn’t make much of an effort to hide his relationship with terrorist groups in Syria, applauded Trump, saying he deserved the support of the American people.

He then used the opportunity to accuse Russia of war crimes.

“The United States should first tell Russia that this kind of a war crime is unacceptable in the world today,” McCain told a press conference in Belgrade on April 10.

But the argument that this rhetoric somehow translates into Trump becoming more appealing to the public, the media and his political rivals in the long run is inaccurate.

Instead, Trump’s decision to sign off on the strikes can best be described as a pyrrhic victory.

Praise from the global neoliberal and neoconservative establishment will be short-lived. These circles of power will hate Trump for the entirety of his presidential tenure. However, his U-turn on Syria has cost him the backing of his diehard supporters, including those sympathetic to Steve Bannon.

According to Russian geopolitical expert Alexander Dugin, Trump has managed to betray those who elected him by capitulating to neoconservative foreign policy interests.

Muscle Flexing

From a military standpoint, the strikes on the Shayrat air base were almost completely pointless. Only six out-of-service aircraft were reportedly destroyed, and the base was operational again within 24 hours.

A Russian defense ministry statement, read on state television shortly after the strikes, said the US attack had been “ineffective”.

On the diplomatic front, a renewed effort to push the Kremlin into a corner was equally impotent.

A G7 meeting in the Italian city of Lucca, which was preceded by a flurry of anti-Russian and anti-Syrian propaganda, failed to reach an agreement on a proposal by Britain for additional sanctions against Moscow.

Staying true to traditional values and honoring one’s host, Beijing waited for the Chinese President Xi Jinping to leave the US and return home, before offering their explanation of the strike on Syria.

China’s state-run news agency Xinhua called it an act of a weakened politician, who needed to flex his muscles and overcome accusations that he was “pro-Russia”.

The PR nature of the attack is further highlighted by the fact that the Russians were notified about the strike in advance, giving them and the Syrians ample time to evacuate the base.

Russia’s Response

Those who detest American imperialism and support the emerging bloc of countries led by Vladimir Putin immediately asked why Moscow didn’t do more to prevent this attack, and why advanced Russian missile-defense systems in Syria remained unused.

Aside from condemnations and warnings that such provocations must not be repeated, little else came out of the Kremlin. This has been interpreted by many in the west as a sign of weakness. The thinking is that the Americans are once again marching to their own tune and Moscow does not know how to respond.

Here, it is important to point out that out of the 59 missiles fired only 23 ended up reaching their target.

Unless the American military industrial complex has truly hit rock bottom, it is unlikely that more than 30 Tomahawks simply malfunctioned.

The more believable explanation involves Russia’s Krasuha-4 mobile electronic warfare system, which was first cited as being in use in Syria in late 2015.

The Krasuha-4 can affect the function of spy satellites, ground-based radars and airborne systems.

But its main function is to jam radar frequencies and other radio-emitting sources – vital for Tomahawk missile launches.

It is also important to note that the Russians had an agreement with the Americans over operations in Syria, which Moscow decided to honor. The agreement as well as the prior warning of the attack could explain Russia’s relatively low-key response.

Theories suggesting that the Kremlin does not know how to react also run counter to Putin’s recent maneuvers on the international stage, including his response to the shooting down of a Russian jet by Turkey.

Managing to avoid a direct military confrontation, which would have played into the hands of the ‘globalists’, Putin successfully broke through NATO’s southern rim, as the anti-Kremlin agenda in Ankara collapsed.

Over the last couple of years, Putin’s actions have been highly unpredictable. From Moscow’s response to the crisis in Ukraine and the seizure of Crimea, to Russia’s intervention in Syria, Putin has managed to leave the top echelons of western intelligence agencies lost for words.

Trump’s future actions are equally unpredictable, but for different reasons.

Reason and pragmatism have abandoned Washington’s halls of power many years ago, requiring a psychiatric evaluation of the policy-making process rather than a political one.

One conclusion that can be drawn from the recent escalation is that Trump, much like Erdogan over a year ago, is shooting himself in the foot. Those who hated Trump since the beginning will continue to hate him and those who supported him will begin to abandon him.

Source: Al-Ahed News

15-04-2017 | 09:31

America Plagued with Fake News and Fake TV Experts

America Plagued with Fake News and Fake TV Experts

America Plagued with Fake News and Fake TV Experts

The U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee recently held a hearing devoted, in part, to accusations that Russia initiated a massive «fake news» campaign against the United States during the 2016 election. It must be pointed out that the popularity of alternative foreign news sources for the American public came after the «dumbing down» of U.S. news consumers by a «infotainment» industry, headquartered in Los Angeles and New York, that dished massive amounts of «phony news» to America on a 24 by 7 basis.When Russia Today (RT), China’s CCTV, Al Jazeera, Latin America’s Telesur, and Iran’s Press TV happened upon the scene in the United States, they became instantly popular for providing actual news instead of incessant pabulum about maladjusted Hollywood celebrities. After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, many Americans were tired of their foreign news being filtered through the lenses of the Pentagon, Central Intelligence Agency, and Council on Foreign Relations.

No sooner had many Americans started switching their televisions to RT, Al Jazeera, and other international satellite news networks, American politicians like then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, herself no stranger to issuing forth propaganda masked as news, and their puppets in the media, began complaining about «foreign propaganda» aimed at Americans. The term «foreign propaganda» has now been changed to «fake news» because the Latin word «propaganda» was seen by the U.S. intelligence news manipulators as too hard for dumbed-down Americans in the hinterlands of the nation to understand.

To demonize Russia and the Trump administration in a single fell swoop, the CIA and National Security Agency permitted several former employees to take to the airwaves on television, radio, and Twitter to lambaste Trump for alleged connections to the Russian government and relying on Russian-directed «fake news» trolls and bots during the 2016 campaign. When the CIA, NSA, National Security Council, and other U.S. intelligence agencies encourage their former employees and retirees to take to public media, it is to advance a U.S. intelligence agenda. CIA field operatives are trained to lie. However, that fact is lost on U.S. media networks that are happy to have such purveyors of false propaganda to rant and rave about Russia, Trump, foreign lobbyists, and other self-invoked «demons».

The biggest fraud is MS-NBC’s featuring a «U.S. intelligence expert» whose highest rank in the U.S. Navy was Senior Chief Petty Officer. This individual acts as though he enjoys access to all-source intelligence, something he would not have been authorized to view even on active military duty as an Arabic linguist for NSA. Chief Petty Officers, who are enlisted personnel and not officers, seem to have, at least for MS-NBC producers, been placed on par with two- or three-star admirals. This is but one example of the scarcity of individuals in the corporate media who have even a small degree of experience in the military or the intelligence community.

Another intelligence «expert» hired by CNN was transferred from the CIA’s Office of Gulf Affairs in early 2001 to the George W. Bush National Security Council. Yet, this chest-beating «expert», who rails against «Russian influence» over the Trump White House, was unable to ascertain that Saudi and Gulf money was being used in early- and mid-2001 to finance a group of Al Qaeda terrorists who would later take credit for the 9/11 attack.

Fox News uses the «expertise» of a former CIA operations officer whose post-CIA claim to fame has been to appear on «shock jock» radio programs of such New York-based hosts as Don Imus and Gregg «Opie» Hughes and Anthony Cumia («Opie & Anthony»). This particular former CIA officer has been a cheerleader for assigning all blame for Trump’s «Russia problems» on former national security adviser Michael Flynn, claiming that Flynn’s greatest «crime» was not being truthful with Vice President Mike Pence about previous lobbyist connections. Only in the minds of these professional purveyors of disinformation could lying to a creepy former Indiana talk radio host like Pence be akin to a «crime».

Former high-level U.S. intelligence officials, including acting CIA directors Michael Morell and John McLaughlin, CIA and NSA director Michael Hayden, and CIA general counsel John Rizzo, have not been shy about appearing on television deriding Trump and his officials for Russia contacts. This points to a new politicization of the U.S. intelligence hierarchy unseen in the past. By beating the path to every television studio willing to have them on the air calling for severe retributions for the Trump White House, these members of the intelligence shadow hierarchy give rise to allegations of a «deep state» conspiracy against the U.S. administration.

The bloviating hyperventilation about threats from «Russia», «China», «Russian banks», and the Trump White House coming from the lips of these hyped intelligence experts is nothing more than propaganda dictated by the information operations branches within the CIA, NSA, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the U.S. Cyber Command. These experts have been joined by members of Congress who are «bought-and-paid-for» by the CIA, NSA, and other agencies. These include House Intelligence Committee ranking member Representative Adam Schiff, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Senator Richard Burr, Senate Intelligence Committee ranking member Senator Mark Warner, Arizona Senator John McCain, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, California Senator Dianne Feinstein, and Oregon Senator Ron Wyden.

The CIA’s sudden conversion to an agency concerned about «fake news» is laughable since its over six decades-long history is replete with examples of news manipulation designed to advance CIA disinformation and propaganda operations. The CIA’s OPERATION MOCKINGBIRD was premised on creating CIA intelligence carve-outs within major American newspapers, broadcasters, and magazine publishers to promulgate false information. In so doing, the CIA created fake news stories to cover up the agency’s overthrowing of governments in Iran, Guatemala, Syria, British Guiana, Iraq, Laos, Togo, South Vietnam, Brazil, Bolivia, Indonesia, Dominican Republic, Ghana, Cambodia, Chile, Australia, Chad, Suriname, Grenada, Fiji, Burkina Faso, Panama, Gambia, Rwanda, Haiti, Nepal, Thailand, Honduras, Paraguay, Libya, and Ukraine. The 1963 coup against President John F. Kennedy can easily be added to this list, as well as the 1972 Watergate operation involving some of the same Kennedy assassination conspirators that was designed to eventually depose President Richard Nixon.

The U.S. intelligence community is also orchestrating another McCarthy era in the United States. Former FBI agent Clint Watts, a newly-minted «cyber-security expert» who now works for the CIA-linked Foreign Policy Research Institute, founded in 1955 by anti-Communism crusader Robert Strausz-Hupé, was the star witness of a recent Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on Russian «interference» in the 2016 election. Parroting the 1950s-era anti-Russian propaganda of Senator Joseph McCarthy and Strausz-Hupé, Watts proclaimed, «Through the end of 2015 and the start of 2016, the Russian-influenced system began to push themes and messages seeking to influence the result of the presidential election . . . Russian overt media outlets and covert trolls sought to sideline opponents on both sides of the political spectrum with adverse views towards the Kremlin».

Watts told intelligence committee member Senator Marco Rubio that he was one such target. Watts would have the nation believe that Rubio’s questionable past as a Miami call boy male prostitute and his links to a Miami on-line gay pornography businessman were all the products of Russian «trolls». However, the political dirt on Rubio was of the senator’s own making and non-attributable to «Russian» or any other foreign sources. The same goes for Texas Senator Ted Cruz, who was less-than-forthcoming about his Cuban father’s activities in New Orleans in the summer of 1963 alongside one Lee Harvey Oswald.

In a word, the congressional investigation of Trump and Russia, «fake news», and the hyping of the coverage by the corporate media is all nonsense. If one wants a lesson in fake news, just read any legitimate history of the CIA, Operation MOCKINGBIRD, and the agency’s «Mighty Wurlitzer» of propaganda fed to a tongue-drooling and tail-wagging media

Does the Washington Establishment Seek War with Russia?

Global Research, April 02, 2017

Which does the Washington’s Establishment prefer: a U.S. President who wants to reach new agreements with Russia, or a U.S. President who wants to replace all of Russia’s allies?

What we’ve been having recently is solely Presidents who want to replace all of Russia’s allies — and they’ve been succeeding at that, so far:

They replaced Saddam Hussein.

They replaced Muammar Gaddafi.

They replaced Viktor Yanukovych.

They’re still trying to replace Bashar al-Assad, and also Iran’s leadership.

There still is question, however, as to whether U.S. President Donald Trump will continue this string; and many in America’s ‘news’media consider him to be too favorable toward Russia. The aristocracy own the few ‘news’media that have substantial audiences in the U.S., and their advertisers are also overwhelmingly owned by them; and the politicians’ campaigns tend also to be receiving most of their money from them; so, generally, it’s considered political suicide to buck what the few billionaires are rather united on in America, and what they seem quite united on right now is that Mr. Trump isn’t sufficiently anti-Russian.

For a government official in this country to view Russia as even potentially an ally instead of an enemy, is increasingly viewed as treasonous in America, and any contacts that Mr. Trump might have been trying to nurture so as to establish an alliance with Russia on anything — even merely an alliance against international jihadists — is being treated in America’s press as treasonous — as if Russia were still the entire U.S.S.R.; and communism were still a threat, and there still existed the Soviet Union’s military alliance, the Warsaw Pact, as being a counter-weight to America’s NATO alliance. But those assumptions about Russia are obviously false. So: do America’s billionaires still simply want to conquer Russia, instead of to be allied with it, even in that limited way, as a global alliance to crush jihadists? 

Does the Washington Establishment Seek War with Russia?

The newsmedia pick up from the Democrats and the other neoconservatives, and therefore Trump is being pressed hard on his being ‘Putin’s stooge’ or even ‘Putin’s Manchurian candidate,’ though the presumption in those statements is that Russia is doomed to be America’s enemy unless America outright conquers it — and this is a war-mongering and arrogant presumption for the U.S. government to be making about Russia, and it’s also very far from being a realistic assumption about Russia.

Will Russia tolerate having all of its allies overthrown by the U.S. (a project that the U.S. has already come close to completing)? How many more U.S. nuclear missiles will Russia accept being placed near and on its borders in formerly allied countries that now are in NATO — that are in the anti-Russia military club, but were formerly in the U.S.S.R., or else in its Warsaw Pact? If you were a Russian, would you now be scared?

Trump made clear during his campaign, that he wants to be allied with Putin’s consistent war against “radical Islamic terrorism” — no one can challenge that Putin has always, and consistently, been uncompromisingly determined to oppose that — never to arm nor train jihadists like the U.S. and its Saudi ‘ally’ the Saud family, do (in order to overthrow Russia’s allies).

So: which of the two is scary — the Hillary Clinton and John McCain crowd, the neocons, who dominate both Parties and want to crush Russia; or the few people in Washington who (at least until Trump became elected) were that crowd’s enemies? It’s looking like Trump has joined the neocons, after an election in which he was opposed by them.

As soon as Trump became elected, his fear of being dubbed ‘Putin’s stooge’ or ‘Putin’s Manchurian candidate’ caused him to appoint a national-security team who were hell-bent on replacing Russia’s remaining allies, Iran and Syria. But even this hasn’t been enough to satisfy the neocons who run both Parties, and the newsmedia. Trump has been trying to accommodate the people who are doing all they can to bring him down, but it doesn’t seem to be appeasing them. The Washington Establishment has terrified him away from his campaign promise of creating an alliance with Russia to cooperate together in wiping out jihadism — and jihadism is something that didn’t even exist in modern times until the U.S. and its Saud allies introduced it into Afghanistan in 1979 to overthrow the secular, Soviet-allied leader of that country, Nur Muhammed Taraki.

This joint effort with the Sauds created jihadism in the modern age. Zbigniew Brzezinski said of his and the CIA’s and the Sauds’ achievement, in a 1998 interview, “Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it?” It became the model for what they’re now doing to Syria (which is causing all those refugees into Europe). 

Trump had said that his top national-security priority would be against jihadism, not against Russia and its allies. But, so far, his foreign policy in this regard seems more like what had been widely anticipated in the event of a Hillary Clinton win. (Even Trump’s focus against “radical Islamic terrorism” is directed now almost exclusively against seven mainly Shiite nations that America’s Saudi allies — who are fundamentalist Sunnis and hate Shia muslims — despise. So: it’s no different from Hillary Clinton’s.

And two of those Shiite-run nations, Iran and Syria, are backed by Russia; so, Trump might just be continuing his predecessor’s pro-Saud policy there.) Yet nonetheless, the neoconservatives press on with investigations of whether Trump is a secret Russian agent. The leading headline in the Wall Street Journal on March 30th was “Trump’s Rapid Rapprochement Plans With Russia Fade” and the report noted that Trump’s appointees are advising him against any relaxation of the previous President’s anti-Russia policies, but failed to indicate that (with the exception of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson), all of them are long-committed neoconservatives and NATO enthusiasts. Either candidate Trump’s ameliorative statements regarding Russia were intended merely in order to win votes, away from the super-hawk Hillary Clinton, from some independents and Bernie Sanders supporters, or else Trump is very easy for the Cold War Establishment (the “neoconservatives,” today’s Washington Establishment in both Parties) to manipulate.

What does the Washington Establishment really want? What is their real demand? Putin’s head on a stake? Or. do they really want Trump’s head on a stake, for some entirely different reason? The motivations that they are stating for wanting to replace Trump by his Vice President, Mike Pence — a rabid neoconservative — don’t make sense; and, the ‘evidence’ they’re basing this campaign on, is, as of yet, after months of trying, still more smears than authentic evidence. And it’s based on false allegations regarding America’s and Russia’s respective involvements in Ukraine and in Syria. Clearly, there are ulterior motives behind this coordinated bipartisan lying campaign. And they seem to be winning — whatever their real motivations are.

Is this a palace coup? And, if so, what’s the real motivation for it? Why do they want Mike Pence to be the U.S. President? What’s their real goal in this bipartisan campaign to replace Trump with Pence?

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Trump = Obama = Bush = Clinton On 4 Core Issues

Trump = Obama = Bush = Clinton On 4 Core Issues

Source: Washington’s Blog

On a superficial level, Trump and Bush couldn’t be more different from Clinton and Obama.  Indeed, pollsters say that many people voted for Trump because they wanted change … Just like they voted for Obama because he promised “hope and change” from Bush-era policies.

But beneath the surface, Trump, Obama, Bush and Clinton are all very similar on 4 core issues.

More War

Bush intentionally lied us into the Iraq war … a war which had no relation with U.S. security or defense.

Clinton and Obama intentionally lied us into various “humanitarian wars” … which had nothing to do with our security or defense.

And the same idiots who lied us into the Iraq war are now trying to lie us into a cold (or maybe even hot) war with Russia.

And what about Trump?

He campaigned on peace and non-interventionism …

But he’s already ramped up the war in Syria.

And the war in Yemen. … where the U.S. and Saudi Arabia are committing war crimes.

And he’s already increased drone strikes by 432%.

And Trump’s top advisor is predicting war with China and Russia. He said:

We’re going to war in the South China Sea … no doubt

So it doesn’t look like peace is going to break out any time soon.

And sadly, top experts say the geopolitical policies pursued by Trump – which are very similar to those pursued by Obama, Bush and Clinton – will lead to more terrorism.

Lap Dogs for Wall Street … Making the Rich Richer

Obama, Bush and Clinton all pushed economic policies which made the rich richer, and the poor poorer.

Bush and Obama bailed out the big banks, threw fistfuls of money at the banksters, and otherwise rewarded Wall Street and penalized Main Street.

Clinton repealed the Depression-era law which separated regular deposit banking and speculation (Glass-Steagall), allowed the giant banks to grow into mega-banks, and acted as a cheerleader for unregulated derivatives. And Clinton – like Bush and Obama – decided that white collar financial fraud didn’t exist, or at least shouldn’t be prosecuted.

What’s the effect of these policies?

Rick Baum notes, using official U.S. governments statistics, that inequality steadily increased under all 3 presidents:

 

Inequality Clinton Bush Obama

 

Real wages plummeted through the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations.

What about Trump?

He’s appointed the same old bankster cronies.  Nothing will change. (And unfortunately, it’s not too early to criticize a new president.)

Spying On Americans

The NSA’s mass surveillance on Americans started by 1999 or earlier … under the Clinton administration.

3 months before 9/11, the head of the NSA admitted that the NSA was collecting so much information from spying that it was drowning in too much data.

Mass surveillance expanded under Bush … and then even more under Obama.

It’s gotten to the point that the government is spying on virtually all of our electronic communications and transactions.

And Trump?

Given that he’s called for whistleblowers like Snowden and Assange to be executed for treason, and quickly implemented gag orders as soon as he took office, he is almost certain to continue the expansion of mass surveillance on the American people.

In other words, a president who severely punishes anyone trying to reveal the extent of spying on Americans probably has no intention of reigning it in.

Supporting Dictators Who Support Terrorism

Saudi Arabia is the world’s largest sponsor of radical Islamic terrorists. The Saudis have backed ISIS and many other brutal terrorist groups. And the most pro-ISIS tweets allegedly come from Saudi Arabia.

According to sworn declarations from a 9/11 Commissioner and the Co-Chair of the Congressional Inquiry Into 9/11, the Saudi government backed the 9/11 hijackers (see section VII for details). And declassified documents only amplify those connections. And the new Saudi king has ties to Al Qaeda, Bin Laden and Islamic terrorism.

Saudi Arabia is the hotbed of the most radical Muslim terrorists in the world: the Salafis (both ISIS and Al Qaeda are Salafis).

And the Saudis – with U.S. support – back the radical “madrassas” in which Islamic radicalism was spread.

And yet the U.S. has been supporting the Saudis militarily, with NSA intelligence and in every other way possible through the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations.

Trump?

He’s selling them massive amounts of arms, keeping them off of the list of restricted countries for immigration, and supporting Saudi war crimes in Yemen.

It appears that the voters have been played … again.

Postscript:  If you think that the presidents are more different than we’re giving them credit for, then you must conclude that they have been overridden by other forces. In that case, you may wish to consider consider whether the Deep State and big banks have more power than democratically-elected officials

What America’s Coup in Ukraine Did

What America’s Coup in Ukraine Did

By Eric Zuesse,

Armée Ukraine USA

On March 23rd, Gallup headlined “South Sudan, Haiti and Ukraine Lead World in Suffering”, and the Ukrainian part of that can unquestionably be laid at the feet of U.S. President Barack Obama, who in February 2014 imposed upon Ukraine a very bloody coup (see it here), which he and his press misrepresented (and still misrepresent) as being (and still represent as having been) a ‘democratic revolution’, but was nothing of the sort, and actually was instead the start of the Ukrainian dictatorship and the hell that has since destroyed that country, and brought the people there into such misery, it’s now by far the worst in Europe, and nearly tied with the worst in the entire world.

America’s criminal ‘news’ media never even reported the coup, nor that in 2011 the Obama regime began planning for a coup in Ukraine, and that by 1 March 2013 they started organizing it inside the U.S. Embassy there, and that they hired members of Ukraine’s two racist-fascist, or nazi, political parties, Right Sector and Svoboda (which latter had been called the Social Nationalist Party of Ukraine until the CIA advised them to change it to Freedom Party, or “Svoboda” instead), and that in February 2014 they did it (and here’s the 4 February 2014 phone call instructing the U.S. Ambassador whom to place in charge of the new regime when the coup will be completed), under the cover of authentic anti-corruption demonstrations that the Embassy organized on the Maidan Square in Kiev, demonstrations that the criminal U.S. ‘news’ media misrepresented as ‘democracy demonstrations,’ though Ukraine already had democracy (but still lots of corruption, even more than today’s U.S. does, and the pontificating Obama said he was trying to end Ukraine’s corruption — which instead actually soared after his coup there).

The head of the ‘private CIA’ firm Stratfor said it was “the most blatant coup in history” but he couldn’t say that to Americans, because he knows that our press is just a mouthpiece for the regime (just like it was during the lead-up to George W. Bush’s equally unprovoked invasion of Iraq — for which America’s ‘news’ media suffered likewise no penalties).

When subsequently accused by neocons for his having said this, his response was “I told the business journal Kommersant that if the US were behind a coup in Kiev, it would have been the most blatant coup in history,” As I pointed out when writing about that rejoinder of his, he had, in fact, made quite clear in his Kommersant interview, that it was, in his view “the most blatant coup in history,” no conditionals on that.

Everybody knows what Obama, and Clinton, and Sarkozy, did to Libya — in their zeal to eliminate yet another nation’s leader who was friendly toward Russia (Muammar Gaddafi), they turned one of the highest-living-standard nations in Africa into a failed state and huge source of refugees (as well as of weapons that the Clinton State Department transferred to the jihadists in Syria to bring down Bashar al-Assad, another ally of Russia) — but the ‘news’ media have continued to hide what Obama (assisted by America’s European allies, especially Poland and Netherlands, and also by America’s apartheid Middle Eastern ally, Israel) did to Ukraine.

I voted for Obama, partly because the insane McCain (“bomb, bomb, bomb Iran”) and the creepy Romney (“Russia, this is, without question, our number one geopolitical foe”) were denounced by the (duplicitous) Obama for saying such evil things, their aggressive international positions, which continued old Cold-War-era hostilities into the present, even after the Cold War had ended long ago (in 1991) (but only on the Russian side). I since have learned that in today’s American political system, the same aristocracy controls both of our rotten political Parties, and American democracy no longer exists. (And the only scientific study of whether America between the years 1981 and 2002 was democratic found that it was not, and it already confirmed what Jimmy Carter later said on 28 July 2015: “Now it’s just an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or being elected president. And the same thing applies to governors, and U.S. Senators and congress members.” But yet our Presidents continue the line, now demonstrably become a myth, of ‘American democracy’, and use it as a sledgehammer against other governments, to ‘justify’ invading (or, in Ukraine’s case, overthrowing via a ‘democratic revolution’) their lands (allies of Russia) such as in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and maybe even soon, Iran.

Here are some of the events and important historical details along the way to Ukraine’s plunge into a worse condition than most African nations:

“Yanukovych’s Removal Was Unconstitutional”

“Obama Definitely Caused The Malaysian Airliner To Be Downed”

“War on Donbass was planned to ignite a major war in Europe.”

“Our ‘Enemies’ In Ukraine Speak”

“Meet Ukraine’s Master Mass-Murderer: Dmitriy Yarosh”

“Ukrainian Soldier Explains Why He Enjoys Killing Russians”

“Russia’s Leader Putin Rejects Ukrainian Separatists’ Aim To Become Part Of Russia”

“Gallup: Ukrainians Loathe the Kiev Government Imposed by Obama”

Please send this article to every friend who is part of the majority that, as a Quinnipiac University poll published on March 22nd reported, “A total of 51 percent of voters say they can trust U.S. intelligence agencies to do what is right ‘almost all of the time’ or ‘most of the time’” (and that level of trust was far higher than for the rotten press and for the rotten politicians), even after the CIA’s rubber-stamping Bush’s lies to invade Iraq, and after the FBI’s shameless performance on Hillary Clinton’s privatized State Department emails even after her smashing their cell-phones with hammers, etc., and all the other official cover-ups, with no American officials even so much as being charged for their rampant crimes against the American public.

Besides: ever since the CIA’s founding, it has had an “Operation Gladio” that specializes in organizing terrorist acts so as for them to be blamed on, first, communist countries when they existed; and, then, after the end of communism, on allies of Russia. Did the American dictatorship begin right after FDR died in 1945? How much longer will these lies succeed?

For the people of Iraq, and of Syria, and of Ukraine, and many such countries, this dictatorship has destroyed their lives. Trusting the ‘intelligence’ services of a dictatorship doesn’t make any sense at all. They’re all working for the aristocracy, the billionaires — not for any public, anywhere; not here, not there, just nowhere. Should the cattle trust the feedlot-operator? Only ignorance can produce trust, under the conditions that actually exist.

So, unless the idea is that ignorance is bliss, pass along the truth, when you find it, because it is very rare — and the system operates to keep it that way.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

The Rothschild and Saudi Families Fund Both John McCain and Hillary Clinton

The Rothschild and Saud Families Fund Both John McCain and Hillary Clinton

Eric Zuesse

On 21 October 2016, I headlined “An Email From Lynn Forester de Rothschild to Hillary Clinton, Against Elizabeth Warren” and reported extensive back-door funding of Hillary Clinton by the Rothschild family. 

On 15 December 2016, I headlined “U.S. Gov’t. Is Secretly Allied with America’s Enemies“ and noted that:

Prior to Hillary’s becoming the U.S. Secretary of State, the Clinton Foundation had collected a total of $10 million to $25 million from the Saud family and their vassals (the Sauds’ subordinate aristocrats, such as the bin Ladens — but all from official government accounts). As the U.S. Secretary of State, she and her State Department celebrated in 2011 the Saud family’s purchase of $29.4 billion worth of U.S. Boeing F15-SA bombers (which now were destroying Saudi Arabia’s neighboring country of Yemen, with American bombs); and, as Lee Fang of The Intercept noted about that, “As weapons transfers were being approved, both the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Boeing made donations to the Clinton Foundation. The Washington Post revealed that a Boeing lobbyist helped with fundraising in the early stages of Hillary Clinton’s current presidential campaign.”

Then, on March 10th, Jack Burns of The Free Thought Project (a left-libertarian organization, which receives no funding from the Kochs or other billionaires) bannered “EXPOSED: Senator John McCain And His Ties To Saudis, Rothschilds” and he documented similar backdoor funding of John McCain.

John McCain’s father, Admiral John McCain II, headed the official “court of inquiry” into Israel’s 8 June 1967 military assault against the U.S.S. Liberty and he ruled that Israel had merely erred in having slaughtered its 34 U.S. sailors. (It was an entirely unprovoked attack.) However, that ‘finding’ was a cover-up. Ample evidence (such as presented here and here and here) proves that it was intentional and authorized at the top of Israel’s government and why they did it. So, after reviewing that and other evidence, I headlined on 30 September 2016, “Why Does U.S. Gov’t. Donate $38B to an Enemy Nation?” (referring to Obama’s commitment for U.S. taxpayers to donate $38 billion to Israel over the next ten years).

As I explained on 25 December 2015, under the headline “The Saudi Wahhabi Origins of Jihadism”, the Sauds are allied not only with the other fundamentalist-Sunni royal Arab families who own respectively Qatar (Thani), Kuwait (Sabah), and UAE (six royal families in that country), but also with Jewish billionaires, many of whom are American and are major funders of both political parties, just as Christian billionaires are. Israeli politics is largely dominated by Jewish American billionaires, and so the Western Alliance is an alliance of billionaires, who are Roman Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and Sunnis, but they are all united together in supporting neoconservatism — the ultimate goal of conquering Russia — and this means wars to overthrow Russia-friendly leaders, such as Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Viktor Yanukovych, and Bashar al-Assad. But the billionaires also control the armaments-firms, which need lots of wars — it’s just good business for them to invade and otherwise (such as in coups) overthrow governments that refuse to particpate.

This also is the reason why, as I headlined on 28 January 2017, “Al Qaeda Funded by Royal Sauds, U.S. Gov’t. Documents”, and explained why the U.S. government often protects and even arms Al Qaeda, such as in Syria.

Geostrategy is an international game that is played by billionaires who collectively join together to conquer whatever territory they’ve not yet conquered. The non-billionaire publics are merely the customers and agents for those aristocratic families, or else their cannon-fodder — their taxpayer-funded gangsters hired to kill or else be killed. And, of course, the armaments-firms are controlled by the billionaires, and the profits of those firms also are being paid by the nation’s taxpayers; so, the aristocracies extract from the publics everywhere. There is nothing personal in this: it’s just a bloody game.

And that’s also why, as I headlined on 27 March 2017, “Trump Boosts Most Wasteful Department, Reduces All Others”, and reported that the only U.S. Cabinet Department that’s so corrupt it’s unauditable, the ‘Defense’ Department, is boosted an additional 9% in the new President’s budget, and all of the auditable Departments get their budgets cut. Siphoning from the public can be very profitable business. Unfortunately, it has lots of “collateral damages” (such as bloody corpses, and failed states). But, that’s just business, and even hauling off such wastes can be profitable.

%d bloggers like this: