Monday, January 23, 2017

The Lost Hegemon reviewed by David Ray Griffin

The Lost Hegemon reviewed by David Ray Griffin
The Lost Hegemon:

Whom the Gods Would Destroy
Book Review by David Ray Griffin
F. William Engdahl, who is well known for books and articles in geopolitics, has recently published a book entitled The Lost Hegemon: Whom the Gods Would Destroy. The subtitle refers to a dictum by Euripides, “Those whom the Gods wish to destroy they first make mad.”
This book describes how the U.S. has been going mad since the fall of the Soviet Union, thereby destroying itself. The madness involves the method through which the United States tried to prevent the loss of its global hegemony. Engdahl writes that the method was based on a scheme devised by Zbigniew Brzezinski, while he was serving as President Jimmy Carter’s national security advisor. 
The scheme was to destroy the Soviet Union’s economy by luring it into an unwinnable war in Afghanistan. The method for doing this was for Osama bin Laden, working for the CIA, to invite fundamentalist Muslims in Saudi Arabia and other countries to Afghanistan, where the U.S. military would arm and train them (Operation Cyclone). Engdahl believes that the weakening of its economy led to the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The Cold War was over. How would the United States respond? 
Its policy, said Engdahl, “might have encouraged real, peaceful development of nations in a climate of peace and cooperation. . . . That cooperation could have included China and Russia instead of encirclement, confrontation, chaos, and war.” However, the U.S. chose to use its position as the sole remaining superpower to try to become the first global empire in history. 
Seeing that Operation Cyclone had worked so well, Washington decided to redeploy the CIA’s Arab Afghans, or Mujahideen, “to further destabilize Russian influence over the post-Soviet European space.” The first major battles were in Chechnya, where they were to sabotage Russian oil pipeline routes, and Yugoslavia, where they were used to start the Bosnian war in order to break up the country. 

The central focus was on Russia, because U.S. strategists, obsessed with maintaining “American primacy,”
saw Russia as the country most likely to be able to challenge that primacy – as argued in Brzezinski’s The Grand Chessboard.
In any case, thanks to the success of its terrorist projects, leaders in Washington became “convinced that they had discovered the ideal instrument for making terror anywhere in the world to advance their agenda of global hegemony.”
The next major chapter in this story was 9/11. Engdahl does not accept any of the major theories: the official account, which “became less and less credible the more that serious people investigate; the view that Cheney and his neocon war hawks masterminded the event to create a “new Pearl Harbor”; and the idea that 9/11 was orchestrated by Israel. But Engdahl does not suggest an alternative hypothesis. He does hold, however, that the U.S., Israeli, and Saudi governments were “clearly prepared to use the deed to advance [their] own ends.”  
Engdahl is also clear that 9/11 has been immensely important, for at least two reasons. First, by virtue of blaming 9/11 on bin Laden and his al-Qaeda network, America had a “new ‘enemy image’ to replace the old Soviet communism.” Second, the announced “War on Terror” was really, as General Wesley Clark said, “a War on Islam.” 
That this was the nature of the War on Terror from the start is supported by something else Clark said – that a memo from Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld indicated that the Pentagon was planning to “destroy the governments in seven [Muslim] countries in five years,” starting with Iraq. Obviously the timeline did not work out. But the U.S. government did not reject the list. Indeed, under the Obama administration, it targeted two other countries on the list, Libya and Syria – with neocons fervently trying to find an excuse to attack a third, Iran.  
Engdahl’s book discusses an enormous number of facts and ideas that I have not treated. Rather than trying, I will instead summarize some of his main conclusions:
 
“The Washington tactic of using political fundamentalist Islam to secure a revitalized American global hegemony,” said Engdahl, “was failing everywhere.” 
The reason for the failures, he said, was the lack of intelligent leaders in Washington. Real intelligence in politics is the ability to see connections that are not necessarily obvious, such as the ability to see “the interconnectedness of all life, all peoples, and all wars.” It is the recognition that “when you unleash a destructive force in one place, it affects all mankind destructively, including those who unleash it.” 
The CIA and the military industrial and political complex falsely “believed they could weaponize violent Jihadist Islam . . . as their killing machine without any unintended consequence.”
Because of the repeated failures of this approach, American Oligarchs “were becoming desperate. In their growing desperation, they threatened a new world war” in the thermo-nuclear era. Literally, as Euripides said, “Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad.”  

David Ray Griffin is professor emeritus, Claremont Graduate University. His forthcoming book is Bush and Cheney: How They Ruined America and the World .

Are Americans Racists? Paul Craig Roberts

https://ssl.gstatic.com/ui/v1/icons/mail/images/cleardot.gif Are Americans Racists?


Are Americans Racists?
Paul Craig Roberts
“Racist” is the favorite epithet of the left. Every white person (except leftists) is a racist by definition. As we are defined as racists based on our skin color, I am puzzled why we are called racists a second, third, and fourth time due to specific acts, such as favoring the enforcement of immigration laws. For example, President Donald Trump says he is going to enforce the immigration laws. For the left this is proof that Trump has put on the White Sheet and joined the KKK.
The left doesn’t say what a president is who does not enforce the laws on the books. But let’s look at this from the standpoint of the immigration laws themselves. In 1965 a bill passed by the “racist” Congress and signed by the “racist” President Lyndon Johnson completely changed the racial composition of US legal immigration.
In 1960 75% of US legal immigration was European, 5% was Asian, and 19% was from Americas (Mexico, Central and South America and Caribbean Islands).
In 2013 10% of legal immigrants were European, 30% were Asian, 55% were from Americas, and 5% from Africa. http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/fifty-years-1965-immigration-and-nationality-act-continues-reshape-united-states
The 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act is a very strange law for racists to have enacted. Would racists pass a law, which has been on the books for 52 years, that fundamentally transformed the racial profile of the US by limiting white immigration, thereby ultimately consigning whites to minority status?
We could say the racists did not know what they were doing, or thought they were doing something else. However, the results have been obvious at least since 1980, and the law is still on the books.
We live during a time when there is an abundance of information, but facts seldom seem to inform opinions. The left delights in branding the Founding Fathers racists. The left was ecstatic when a 1998 DNA study concluded that Thomas Jefferson was one of eight possible ancestors of Eston Hemings, a descent of Jefferson’s slave Sally Hemings. The left seized on the implied sexual relationship as proof of Thomas Jefferson’s racism.
Let’s assume Jefferson had a sexual relationship with Sally Hemings. Does this prove he was a racist, or does it prove the opposite? Why is it a sign of racism for a white to have sex with a black? Does this prove that James Bond was a racist in the film “Die Another Day”? Do we really want to define racially mixed marriages as racist, as a white conquest over a black, Asian, or Hispanic?
The left has declared the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution to be racist documents and, therefore, proof that the US was founded on racism. The left is particularly incensed that the Constitution counts enslaved blacks as three-fifths of a white person. Is the three-fifths clause a sign or racism, or was it a compromise to get an agreement on representation in the House of Representatives?
It was the latter. Indeed southerners, such as James Madison and Edmund Randolph, wanted blacks to be counted one to one with whites. It was northerners, such as Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania, who wanted blacks to count as fractions of a person. Why was this?
The issue was whether the North or the South would have majority representation in the House. The country already had different economic interests which came to conflict in the War of Southern Secession, which is mischaracterized as a civil war. (A civil war is when two sides fight for control of the government. The Confederacy was not fighting for control of the government in Washington. The South was fighting to secede from the union in order to avoid economic exploitation.)
The southern states were agricultural, and from early colonial times long before there was a United States or a Confederate States of America the absence of a work force meant that the agricultural labor force was imported as slaves. For the South slavery was an inherited institution, and from the South’s standpoint, if blacks were not included in the population on which US representation in Congress would be based, the South would have a minority voice in Congress and would not agree to the Constitution. The three-fifths clause was a compromise in order to move the Constitution toward agreement. It had nothing to do with racism. It was about achieving balance in regional representation in Congress. http://www.blackpast.org/aah/three-fifths-clause-united-states-constitution-1787
The Southern Secession resulted from divergent economic interests and was not fought over slavery. In former times when the left had real intellects, such as Charles A. Beard, a historian who stressed class conflict and a founder of the New School for Social Research and president of both the American Political Science Association and the American Historical Association, the left understood the divergence of interests between northern industry and southern agriculture. Those who think Lincoln invaded the South in order to free slaves need to read Thomas DiLorenzo’s books on Lincoln. DiLorenzo establishes beyond all doubt that Lincoln invaded the Confederacy in order to preserve the Union, that is, the American Empire, which has continued its growth into the 21st century.
The preponderance of war correspondence on both sides shows that no one was fighting for or against slavery. According to the 1860 US census, slave owners were a small fraction of the Southern population. http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html The Confederate Army consisted almost entirely of non-slave owners who fought because they were invaded by Union armies.
As for Thomas Jefferson, he was opposed to slavery, but he understood that the agricultural South was trapped in slavery. The “discovery” of the New World provided lands for exploitation but no labor force. The first slaves were white prisoners, but whites could not survive the malaria. Native Indians were tried, but they were not only as susceptible to malaria as whites but also used their native knowledge of the terrain to resist those who would enslave them. Blacks became the work force of choice because of genetic superiority in resistance to malaria. As Charles C. Mann reports in his book, 1493, “About 97 percent of the people in West and Central Africa are Duffy negative, and hence immune to vivax malaria.”
Thus, the real “racist” reason that blacks became the labor force was their survivability rate due to genetic superiority from their immunity to malaria, not white racists determined to oppress blacks for racial reasons.
The myth has taken hold that black slavery originated in white attitudes of racial superiority. In fact, as a large numbers of historians have documented, including Charles C. Mann and the socialist economic historian Karl Polanyi, brother of my Oxford University professor, the physical chemist and philosopher Michael Polanyi, black slavery originated and flourished in Africa where tribes fought one another for slaves. The victorious would market their captives to Arabs and eventually as time passed to Europeans for transport to the new world to fill the vacuum of a missing labor force. (See for example, Karl Polanyi, Dahomey and the Slave Trade.)
It is a mystery how the myth of Thomas Jefferson’s alleged racism and love for slavery survives his drafts of the Declaration of Independence. One of Jefferson’s drafts that was abandoned in compromise over the document includes this in Jefferson’s list of King George’s offenses:
“he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.”http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/declara/ruffdrft.html
Jefferson’s attack on King George sounds like the left’s racist attack on Jefferson.
It is amazing how proud some Americans are of their ignorance and how quick they are to hate based on their ignorance. In America the level of public discourse is so far below the gutter level that a person who ventures forth to tell the truth can expect to be met with violent hatred and every epithet in the book. Criticize ever so slightly the Israeli government’s theft of Palestine, and the Israel Lobby will immediately brand you an “anti-semite,” that is, a hater of Jews who wants to send them to the gas chamber. If you don’t denounce whites, especially Southern whites, as racists, you are not only a racist but also a member of the KKK who wants to lynch blacks.
Yes, I know. It works also in the other direction. If you don’t hate the left, you are one of them. Because I criticized the George W. Bush regime for its war crimes, conservatives branded me a “pinko-liberal-commie” and ceased to publish my columns.
Hardly anyone, even southerners, understands that racism in the South originated in the horrors that were inflicted on the South during the Reconstruction era that followed the military defeat of the Confederacy. The North inflicted blacks on southerners in ways that harmed prospects for relations between the races and gave rise to the KKK as a resistance movement. As Reconstruction faded, so did the KKK. It was later revived as a shadow of its former self by poor whites who were ambitious for personal power.
The question remains: How can President Trump or anyone unite a country in which historical understanding is buried in myths, lies, and the teaching of hate?
Try to imagine the expressions of hatred and the denunciations that this factual article will bring to me.
If we care about humanity and the creatures on Earth, our task is to find and to speak the truth. That is what I endeavor to do.
When the left abandoned Marxism and the working class, the left died. It has no doctrine to sustain itself, just hatreds based on historical ignorance and misunderstanding of the limits within which life is lived. Humans are not superheros or magicians who can reconstruct humanity by waving a wand or smashing evil. Everyone lives within limitations, and the many submit more than do the few.
It is the few who fight against the limits to whom we owe the defense of our humanity.

It is the haters who are the barriers to moral and social progress.

Sunday, January 22, 2017

How Hillary Stole the Nomination from Bernie

How Hillary Stole the Nomination from Bernie
 Resultado de imagem para pictures of Clinton versus sanders
How Hillary Stole the Nomination from Bernie
Clinton Election Fraud Saga Continues: DOJ Sues NYC Election Board for Pre-Primary Mass Voter Purge
More than 100,000 voters in Brooklyn were wrongly purged from the rolls ahead of the Democratic primary, handing Clinton a much-needed win in New York. Now the Justice Department is suing.
Sat, Jan 21, 2017 | 2,692 Comments
It was the Russians.
It's difficult to keep track of all the "shenanigans" which took place across the country over the course of last year's Democratic primaries: Tallies vanishing in Iowa, blatant electioneering in Massachusetts, buses full of unregistered voters caucusing in Nevada, whatever the hell happened in Arizona — we still don't know — we could drone on and on...
Then there's the New York primary, which was a must-win for Clinton, and, as expected, was also rife with foul play.
Some quick background, via Mother Jones, circa April 2016:
The first head has rolled after more than 100,000 voters were mistakenly purged from the Brooklyn voter rolls ahead of this week's New York primary, which handed Hillary Clinton a much-needed win over Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. Diane Haslett-Rudiano, the chief clerk of the New York Board of Elections, was suspended "without pay, effective immediately, pending an internal investigation into the administration of the voter rolls in the Borough of Brooklyn," the agency said in a statement, according to the New York Daily News.
Anonymous city elections officials said Haslett-Rudiano, who was in charge of the city's Republican voter rolls, had been "scapegoated," according to the New York Post. "It sounds like they cut a deal to make the Republican the scapegoat and protect Betty Ann," an anonymous Democratic elected official from Brooklyn told the Post, referring to Betty Ann Canizio, who was in charge of the Democratic voter rolls.
On the day of the primary, New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio, a Clinton supporter, said he'd heard reports of the "purging of entire buildings and blocks of voters from the voting lists." He said, "The perception that numerous voters may have been disenfranchised undermines the integrity of the entire electoral process."
...
New York State Board of Elections spokesman Thomas Connolly told Think Progress that each complaint he'd followed up on had been due to a mistake on the voter's part. "I've yet to come across [a voter registration] that's been maliciously changed," he said. "There's always been a legitimate reason."
A few important things to remember from this excerpt, which we'll return to shortly: 1. A Republican not in charge of the Democratic voter rolles was scapegoated for purges done by an Democratic Party official. 2. The NYC Board of Elections say they purged "inactive" voters, but even DeBlasio confirms that entire buildings and blocks were purged. Are we to believe that inactive voters congregate and live together in the same buildings/neighborhoods? 3. Thomas Connolly is about to eat his own words, because last week it was announced that:
The U.S. Justice Department is joining in on a lawsuit accusing the city Board of Elections of breaking the law when it purged almost 120,000 voters in Brooklyn from the rolls ahead of the April 2016 presidential primaryThe DOJ filed a motion to intervene yesterday in a federal lawsuit brought last year by the good-government group Common Cause.
In their filing, the feds accuse the BOE of repeated violations of portions of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 governing voter list maintenance.
...
New York law requires county voter registration systems to sync with the state Board of Elections' database at least every 24 hours, but the New York City Elections Board failed to notify the state of its mass purge for at least six months, according to the DOJ. As a result, throughout 2015 and into early 2016, as the primaries took shape and became so contentious that New York's mattered to the outcome of the presidential nominations, purged voters who checked their registration status through the state's online database would have found themselves listed as active.
In other words, more than 120,000 voters in perhaps the most left-wing (see: pro-Bernie) part of the state were purged and there was no way for them to know until it was too late.
Clinton won the state by well over 120,000 votes, but the voter purge in Brooklyn was just one of many examples of election day shenanigans which took place during the New York Primary. 
Ultimately, the question is whether the Democrats were capable of recognizing that Clinton would have issues in her adopted "home state", and able to take corrective measures ahead of the primary.
On the one hand, the DNC is basically a criminal enterprise. On the other hand, they're totally incompetent.

So, flip a coin.

Lest We Forget — The USS Liberty


Lest We Forget — The USS Liberty



 Lest We Forget — The USS Liberty




USS Liberty - Government Betrayal and Cover-up



June 8, 1967 — the fourth day of the Six Day War between Israel and EgyptSyria and Jordan — was a beautiful day in the Mediterranean. The USS Liberty was in international waters off the coast of Egypt. Israeli aircraft had flown over the USS Liberty in the morning and had reported that the ship was American. The crew, in close proximity to the war zone, was reassured by the presence of Israeli aircraft. But at 2:00 p.m. sailors sunbathing on the deck saw fighter jets coming at them in attack formation. Red flashes from the wings of the fighters were followed by explosions, blood and death. A beautiful afternoon suddenly became a nightmare. Who was attacking the USS Liberty and why? The attack on the Liberty was an attack on America.
The Liberty was an intelligence ship. Its purpose was to monitor Soviet and Arab communications in order to warn both Israel and Washington should the Soviets enter the war on behalf of its Arab allies. The Liberty was armed only with four machine guns to repel boarders. Its request for a destroyer escort had been denied.
The assault on the Liberty is well documented. With no warning, the Liberty was attacked by successive waves of unmarked jets using cannon, rockets and napalm. The attacking jets jammed all of the US communications frequencies, an indication they knew the Liberty was an American ship.
The air attack failed to sink the Liberty. About 30 minutes into the attack three torpedo boats appeared flying the Star of David. The Israeli boats were not on a rescue mission. They attacked the Liberty with cannon, machine guns and torpedoes. One torpedo struck the Liberty mid-ship, instantly killing 25 Americans while flooding the lower decks. The Israeli torpedo boats destroyed the life rafts the Liberty launched when the crew prepared to abandon ship, sending the message there'd be no survivors.
At approximately 3:15 two French-built Israeli helicopters carrying armed Israeli troops appeared over the Liberty. Phil Tourney could see their faces only 50/60 feet away. He gave them the finger. Surviving crew members are convinced the Israelis were sent to board and kill all survivors.
The Israeli jets destroyed the Liberty's communication antennas. While under attack from the jets, crew members strung lines that permitted the ship to send a call for help. The USS Saratoga and the USS America launched fighters to drive off the attacking aircraft, but the rescue mission was aborted by direct orders from Washington.
When the Liberty notified the Sixth Fleet it was again under attack, this time from surface ships, the Fleet commander ordered the carriers America and Saratoga to launch fighters to destroy or drive off the attackers. The order was unencrypted and picked up by Israel, which immediately called off its attack. The torpedo boats and the hovering helicopters sped away. Israel quickly notified Washington that it had mistakenly attacked an American ship, and the US fighters were recalled a second time.
The USS Liberty suffered 70% casualties, with 34 killed and 174 wounded. Although the expensive state of the art ship was kept afloat by the heroic crew, it later proved unsalvageable and was sold as scrap.
Why didn't help come?
No explanation has ever been given by the US government for Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and President Lyndon B. Johnson's orders for the Sixth Fleet to abort the rescue mission. Lt. Commander David Lewis of the Liberty told colleagues that Admiral L. R. Geis, commander of the Sixth Fleet carrier force, told him that when he challenged McNamara's order to recall the rescue mission, LBJ came on the line and said he didn't care if the ship sank, he wasn't going to embarrass an ally. The communications officer handling the transmission has given the same account.
BBC documentary on the Israeli raid reports confusion about the attacker's identity almost resulted in a US assault on Egypt. Richard Parker, US political counsel in Cairo, confirms in the BBC documentary he received official communication an American retaliatory attack on Egypt was on its way.
The US government's official position on the USS Liberty corresponds with Israel's: The attack was unintentional and a result of Israeli blunders. This is the official position despite the fact that CIA Director Richard Helms, Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Assistant Secretary of State Lucius Battle, and a long list of US Navy officers, government officials and Liberty survivors are on record saying the Israeli attack was intentional.
According to Helms, Battle and the minutes of a White House meeting, President Johnson believed the attack was intentional. Helms says LBJ was furious and complained when The New York Times buried the story on page 29, but that Johnson decided he had to publicly accept Israel's explanation. "The political pressure was too much," Helms said.
US communications personnel, intelligence analysts and ambassadors report having read US intercepts of Israeli orders to attack the Liberty. In one intercept an Israeli pilot reports that the Liberty is an American ship and asks for a repeat and clarification of his orders to attack an American ship. One Israeli who identified himself as one of the pilots later came to America and met with US Representative Pete McCloskey and Liberty survivors. The pilot said he had refused to participate in the attack when he saw it was an American ship. He was arrested upon returning to base.
The Liberty flew the US flag. The ship's markings, GTR-5, measured several feet in height on both sides of the bow. On the stern the ship was clearly marked USS LIBERTY. Mistaking the Liberty for an Egyptian ship, as Israel claims to have done, was impossible.
Tattered flags show ferocity of the attacks
The Israelis claim the Liberty flew no flag, but two US flags full of holes from the attack exist. When the first flag was shot down, crewmen replaced it with a flag 7-feet by 13-feet. This flag, with its battle scars, is on display at NSA headquarters at Ft. Mead, Maryland.
Admiral John S. McCain Jr., the father of the current US senator, ordered Admiral Isaac C. Kidd and Captain Ward Boston to hold a court of inquiry and to complete the investigation in only one week. In a signed affidavit Captain Boston said President Johnson ordered a cover-up and that he and Admiral Kidd were prevented from doing a real investigation. Liberty survivors were ordered never to speak to anyone about the event. Their silence was finally broken when Lt. Commander Jim Ennes published his book, Assault on the Liberty .
It is now established fact that the attack on the Liberty was intentional and was covered up by President Johnson and every administration since. There has never been a congressional investigation, nor has the testimony of the majority of survivors ever been officially taken. Moreover, testimony that conflicted with the cover-up was deleted from the official record.
Disgusted by the US government's official stance discounting the survivors' reports, Admiral Tom Moorer, retired Chief of Naval Operations and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, organized the Moorer Commission to make public the known facts about the attack and cover-up. The Commission consisted of Admiral Moorer, former Judge Advocate General of the US Navy Admiral Merlin Staring, Marine Corps General Raymond G. Davis and former US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia James Akins.
The Commission's Report concluded:
  • "That there is compelling evidence that Israel's attack was a deliberate attempt to destroy an American ship and kill her entire crew.
  • "That fearing conflict with Israel, the White House deliberately prevented the US Navy from coming to the defense of USS Liberty by recalling Sixth Fleet military rescue support while the ship was under attack.
  • "That surviving crew members were threatened with "court-martial, imprisonment or worse' if they exposed the truth; and [the survivors] were abandoned by their own government.
  • "That there has been an official cover-up without precedent in American naval history.
  • "That a danger to our national security exists whenever our elected officials are willing to subordinate American interests to those of any foreign nation."
Why did Israel attack the Liberty? Was something super secret going on that is so damaging it must be protected at all cost?
Some experts believe Tel Aviv decided to sink the Liberty because the ship's surveillance capability would discover Israel's impending invasion and capture of Syria's Golan Heights, an action opposed by Washington. Others believe Israel was concerned the Liberty would discover Israel's massacre of hundreds of Egyptian POWs, a war crime contemporaneous with the attack on the US ship. Still others believe that Israel intended to blame the attack on Egypt in order to bring America into the war. It is known the US was providing Israel with reconnaissance and that there were joint US-Israeli covert operations against the Arabs that Washington was desperate to keep secret.
Survivors with whom I spoke said the attack was the easy part of the experience. The hard part has been living with 40 years of official cover-up and betrayal by the US government. One survivor said that he was asked to leave his Baptist church when he spoke about the Liberty, because the minister and fellow church-goers felt more loyalty to Israel than to a member of the congregation who had served his country. His church's position was that if our government believed Israel, the survivors should also.
Survivor Phil Tourney said that "being forced to live with a cover-up is like being raped and no one will believe you."
Survivor Gary Brummett said he "feels like someone who has been locked up for 40 years on a wrongful conviction." Until the US government acknowledges the truth of the attack, Brummett says the survivors are forced to live with the anger and dismay of being betrayed by the country they served.
Survivor Bryce Lockwood has been angry for 40 years. The torpedo that killed his shipmates, wrecked his ship and damaged his health was made in the USA.
Survivor Ernie Gallo told me he "has been haunted for four decades" by the knowledge that his commander-in-chief recalled the US fighters that could have prevented most of the Liberty's casualties.
Every American should be troubled by the fact that the President of the United States and the Secretary of Defense prevented the US Sixth Fleet from protecting a US Navy ship and its 294-man crew from foreign attack. They should also be troubled that the President ordered the Navy to determine the attack was unintentional.
For more information, visit the USS Liberty site.


Trump to CIA: Media made it sound like I had a feud with intelligence community

Trump and the CIA

Trump and the CIA
So how come Trump is playing goody-goody with the CIA, some readers ask?https://www.rt.com/usa/374643-trump-intelligence-media-cia/

Come on, guys and gals. You can figure this out for yourself. There are two obvious reasons. One is that Trump thinks the attacks on him were political from the top and did not involve the rank and file. The other is that time and energy are limited, and he doesn’t want to be deterred from his agenda by fights with the CIA.

Let’s hope Trump is correct.

If he is another fake like Obama, we will know soon enough.


Trump to CIA: Media made it sound like I had a feud with intelligence community

Trump to CIA: Media made it sound like I had a feud with intelligence community
The reason you’re my first stop is as you know I have a running war with the media- they are among the most dishonest beings on earth, they say I have a feud with the intelligence community. The reason you’re my first stop is exactly the opposite,” Trump said.
"I am so behind you," he told CIA officials at Langley, Virginia.
Trump continued with examples of the “dishonest media” claiming they skewed attendance figures for his inauguration citing lower numbers and showing images of an empty field.
He also called out Time magazine for running a false story stating that he had removed Martin Luther King’s bust from the Oval Office when it was in fact just blocked from view by a cameraman.

Saturday, January 21, 2017

The Washington Post & New York Times Are “Disappointed” in Trump’s Inaugural Address

The Washington Post & New York Times Are “Disappointed” in Trump’s Inaugural Address




The Washington Post & New York Times Are “Disappointed” in Trump’s Inaugural Address

The Post and Times are beside themselves over President Trump’s forceful attack on the rapacious and immoral American Ruling Establishment for whom the two pretend newspapers are such faithful servants.


Investors Business Daily Reports Clinton Foundation Is Shutting Down

Investors Business Daily Reports Clinton Foundation Is Shutting Down

Investors Business Daily Reports Clinton Foundation Is Shutting Down

The Clinton Foundation Is Dead — But The Case Against Hillary Isn't


  • 1/19/2017
While everyone's been gearing up for President Trump's inauguration, the Clinton Foundation made a major announcement this week that went by with almost no notice: For all intents and purposes, it's closing its doors.
In a tax filing, the Clinton Global Initiative said it's firing 22 staffers and closing its offices, a result of the gusher of foreign money that kept the foundation afloat suddenly drying up after Hillary Clinton failed to win the presidency.
It proves what we've said all along: The Clinton Foundation was little more than an influence-peddling scheme to enrich the Clintons, and had little if anything to do with "charity," either overseas or in the U.S. That sound you heard starting in November was checkbooks being snapped shut in offices around the world by people who had hoped their donations would buy access to the next president of the United States.
And why not? There was a strong precedent for it in Hillary Clinton's tenure as secretary of state. While serving as the nation's top diplomat, the Clinton Foundation took money from at least seven foreign governments — a clear breach of Clinton's pledge on taking office that there would be total separation between her duties and the foundation.
Is there a smoking gun? Well, of the 154 private interests who either officially met or had scheduled phone talks with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state, at least 85 were donors to the Clinton Foundation or one of its programs.
In November, we asked the question: "Is The Clinton Foundation Doomed?" The answer is yes.
All the way back in May, we outlined how the Clinton Foundation had taken in $100 million from a collection of Gulf sheikhs and billionaires, along with millions from private businesses, who expected — and received — special access to the State Department's top official, Hillary.
In his 2015 book "Clinton Cash," author Peter Schweizer showed how during Hillary's years in government "the Clintons have conducted or facilitated hundreds of large transactions (either as private citizens or government officials) with foreign governments, corporations and private financiers." He called the sums going to the Clintons "staggering."
Using the Freedom of Information Act, Judicial Watch in August obtained emails (that had been hidden from investigators) showing that Clinton's top State Department aide, Huma Abedin, had given "special expedited access to the secretary of state" for those who gave $25,000 to $10 million to the Clinton Foundation. Many of those were facilitated by a former executive of the foundation, Doug Band, who headed Teneo, a shell company that managed the Clintons' affairs.
As part of this elaborate arrangement, Abedin was given special permission to work for the State Department, the Clinton Foundation and Teneo — another very clear conflict of interest.
As Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said at the time, "These new emails confirm that Hillary Clinton abused her office by selling favors to Clinton Foundation donors."
The seedy saga doesn't end there. Indeed, there are so many facets to it, some may never be known. But there is still at least one and possibly four active federal investigations into the Clintons' supposed charity.
Americans aren't willing to forgive and forget. Earlier this month, the IBD/TIPP Poll asked Americans whether they would like President Obama to pardon Hillary for any crimes she may have committed as secretary of state, including the illegal use of an unsecured homebrew email server. Of those queried, 57% said no. So if public sentiment is any guide, the Clintons' problems may just be beginning.
Writing in the Washington Post in August of 2016, Charles Krauthammer pretty much summed up the whole tawdry tale: "The foundation is a massive family enterprise disguised as a charity, an opaque and elaborate mechanism for sucking money from the rich and the tyrannous to be channeled to Clinton Inc.," he wrote. "Its purpose is to maintain the Clintons' lifestyle (offices, travel accommodations, etc.), secure profitable connections, produce favorable publicity and reliably employ a vast entourage of retainers, ready to serve today and at the coming Clinton Restoration."
Except, now there is no Clinton Restoration. So there's no reason for any donors to give money to the foundation. It lays bare the fiction of a massive "charitable organization," and shows it for what it was: a scam to sell for cash the waning influence of the Democrats' pre-eminent power couple. As far as the charity landscape goes, the Clinton Global Initiative won't be missed.

RELATED:


PUTIN FRENCH

putin

VLADIMIR SOLOVYOV WORLD ORDER

PRESIDENT

lie we live

pt

xmas





“Glory to God in the highest,

and on Earth

Peace, Good Will toward men.”

This Christmas, Give Peace