Transition into Trump

[Chester]

for some of the zip codes that start with a 1 or a 9...

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ckmb27KouBs

[turiya]

"HELP! I’VE FALLEN AND CAN’T GET UP!"


















HELP! I've Fallen and I Can't Get Up!







HELP! I'VE FALLEN & I CAN'T GET UP!

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Sam Hunter (here)
for some of the zip codes that start with a 1 or a 9...

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ckmb27KouBs

Here's the text:

• http://theamericanconservative.com/d...s-tired-of-you

I’m a secular/agnostic Californian and longtime reader of your blog. I’ve enjoyed your books beginning with Crunchy Cons, and have valued your insights over the years.

Though you don’t know me, I feel like I know you and your family. And I want to share with you, from the liberal bastion of Northern California, that I am officially tired of the type of people who have surrounded me my entire life. In the wake of Trump’s election, I am experiencing “tribe fatigue.” I’m not tired of The Other, Detestable Tribe. I’m tired of my own.

A bit about me: I am a [deleted] with two young children. My parents were non-religious Democrats, and my ex-Catholic mom loathes organized religion to this day.

So I was raised a secular liberal. My college professors were secular liberals. During my journalism phase, my newspaper colleagues were secular liberals. My law school professors and peers were – in the vast majority – secular liberals. Almost everyone at my corporate law firm was a secular liberal. My California neighbors and friends are secular liberals, as are my colleagues. My mother, siblings, and their spouses are all secular liberals.

By all rights, I should be a member in good standing of their tribe, “liking” their Facebook posts and joining their candlelight vigils against the evil Trump Administration. But November 8 and its aftermath revealed to me that I am just so tired of these people. I can’t be like them, and I don’t want my kids turning into them.

I am tired of their undisguised contempt for tens of millions of Americans, with no effort to temper their response to the election with humility or empathy.

I am tired of their unexamined snobbery and condescension.

I am tired of their name-calling and virtue-signaling as signs of supposedly high intelligence.

I am tired of their trendiness, jumping on every left-liberal bandwagon that comes along (transgender activism, anyone?) and then acting like anyone not on board is an idiot/hater.

I am tired of their shallowness. It’s hard to have a deep conversation with people who are obsessed with moving their kids’ pawns across the board (grades, sports, college, grad school, career) and, in their spare time, entertaining themselves and taking great vacations.

I am tired of their acceptance of vulgarity and sarcastic irreverence as the cultural ocean in which their kids swim. I like pop culture as much as the next person, but people who would never raise their kids on junk food seem to think nothing of letting then wallow in cultural junk, exposed to nothing ennobling, aspirational, or even earnest.

I am tired of watching them raise clueless kids (see above) who go off to college and within months are convinced they live in a rapey, racist patriarchy; “Make America Great Again” is hate speech; and Black Lives Matter agitators are their brothers-in-arms against White Privilege. If my kids are like that at nineteen, I’ll feel I’ve seriously failed them as a parent.

Yet the general sentiment seems to be these are good, liberal kids who may have gotten a bit carried away.

I am tired of their lack of interest in any form of serious morality or self-betterment. These are decent, responsible people, many compassionate by temperament. Yet they seem two-dimensional, as if they believe that being a nice, well-socialized person who holds the correct political views is all there is, and there is nothing else to talk about. Isn’t there, though?

I am tired of being bored and exasperated by everybody. I feel like I have read this book a thousand times, and there are no surprises in it. Down with Trump! Trans Lives Matter! Climate deniers are destroying the planet! No cake, we’re gluten-free!

These are good people in a lot of ways. But there has got to be a better tribe.

That leads me to . . . drum roll . . . the Christian Right. It is no small feat, switching tribes. It feels stressful and weird to abandon your tribe for the Detested Other Side.

Since November 8, my husband and I have been taking the kids to church. (He is politically conservative with a religious bent, so no argument there.) I have come this close to buying a giant poster of the American flag for the living room. I may do it still.

Right now, I am struggling to accept the basic Christian doctrines (virgin birth, resurrection, second coming) because I feel the Christian tribe may be the right tribe for my family. We just finished watching a BBC miniseries about the birth of Jesus, which was so beautiful and moving compared to secular TV. My nine-year-old really enjoyed it. I want to prepare my kids to live according to some unchanging truth, not subject to every passing trend, and this felt like a start. But I worry that an inability to believe in the supernatural aspects of the faith will limit my ability to be a “real” Christian.

Last Sunday’s sermon mentioned 1 Peter:18-19, “For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors.” This may be obvious to you, but secular liberalism does seem empty in some way, despite all the things my educated, middle-class tribe has to be grateful for. If that’s what’s been handed down to me, I want more, especially for my precious kids. I’m trying.

[turiya]

Trump vs Media
(Published on Dec 24, 2016)

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=KXnsnajCRD8

[Antagenet]

Merry Christmas!!!!

[turiya]

A Loser's Malice: What's Behind
Obama's Attacks On Putin

By Michael Jabara CARLEY via Strategic-Culture.org, | WORLD
Dec 23, 2016

Relations between Russian president Vladimir Putin and US president Barack Obama are poisoned and irretrievably damaged. It’s therefore a good thing that Obama is leaving office on 20 January. Bad US-Russian relations are of course nothing new. Since the Anglo-American war against Iraq in 2003, the US-Russian relationship has been headed downhill. For Obama, it appears that everything has gotten personal. The US president often acts like a petulant adolescent, jealous of a high school rival. You know, the kid who does everything better than he does. The lad takes it badly and won’t let it go. He challenges his nemesis to some new contest at every opportunity only to lose again and again. That’s got to be hard on the ego. Between Obama and Putin there have been many such encounters. Nor can it help that western cartoonists so often ridicule Obama as out of his depth in comparison to Putin.

Let’s consider Obama’s remarks at his last press conference on Friday, 16 December.

«The Russians can’t change us or significantly weaken us», said Obama: «They are a smaller country. They are a weaker country. Their economy doesn’t produce anything that anybody wants to buy, except oil and gas and arms. They don’t innovate».

This was insulting both Putin and his country, but not enough apparently for Obama.

«They [the Russians] can impact us if we lose track of who we are. They can impact us if we abandon our values. Mr. Putin can weaken us, just like he’s trying to weaken Europe, if we start buying into notions that it’s okay to intimidate the press, or lock up dissidents, or discriminate against people because of their faith or what they look like».

Western cartoonists so often ridicule Obama as out of his depth in comparison to Putin

What on earth is Mr. Obama talking about? Intimidate the press? The Moscow newspapers and television media are loaded with «liberals». Many Russians call them «fifth columnists». They are «people with ‘more advanced’ worldview[s] who do not tolerate ‘Russian propaganda’ themselves», according to one colleague in Moscow. But Mr. Putin tolerates them and pays them no mind.

«Lock up dissidents… discriminate against people»? What alternate reality does Mr. Obama live in? Doesn’t produce anything people want to buy? The United States buys rocket engines that it does not now produce at home. Maybe the Americans, a Russian commentator joked, can use high tech trampolines to get into space and do without Russian technology.

In an interview the previous day with the American National Public Radio Obama ranted about Putin. It must have been a rehearsal for his press conference. «This is somebody, the former head of the KGB», said Obama, «who is responsible for crushing democracy in Russia… countering American efforts to expand freedom at every turn; is currently making decisions that's leading to a slaughter in Syria». What stupefying hypocrisy; what utter nonsense. Putin was a lieutenant colonel in the KGB, but never its head, and he certainly has not «crushed democracy in Russia». He even treats his political opposition with respect compared to Obama who dismisses president-elect Donald Trump as some kind of Russian Manchurian candidate. The Russians, according to Obama, interfered in the US presidential elections, and helped defeat fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton. They hacked the Democratic National Committee’s hard drive and passed thousands of emails to WikiLeaks, although, according to others, an outraged Clinton insider leaked the cache of embarrassing emails. Obama has dismissed that possibility. The Russians did the hack, he insists , and Putin must be held personally responsible.

In Syria, the United States and its NATO and regional vassals are waging a war of aggression against the legitimate government in Damascus, backing jihadist terrorists

Where’s the evidence? In Moscow, an angry Putin challenged Obama to put up or shut up. This is a hard thing for Obama to do. The Russians, he says, «counter American efforts to expand freedom at every turn». One wonders where that would be. In the Ukraine where the United States and European Union backed and guided the coup d’état against the democratically elected Ukrainian government? Or in Syria where the United States and its NATO and regional vassals are waging a war of aggression against the legitimate government in Damascus, backing jihadist terrorists? How many democratic governments or popularly supported political movements has the United States plotted against or destroyed since 1945? The list is long, including the 1996 Russian presidential election.

Remember 2013, when the US government started a propaganda campaign about Syrian chemical weapons and warned of «red lines» that could not be crossed?

Obama directly raised the issue of Syria during his NPR interview. The liberation of E. Aleppo from Al-Qaeda and other jihadists has infuriated the west. To the everlasting shame of France, the Eiffel Tower was darkened to mourn the defeat of Al-Qaeda. The Mainstream Media (MSM) is up in arms. Russia, Iran, Hezbollah, Palestinian and Iraqi militias have helped the Syrian Arab Army to cleanse Aleppo of jihadist terrorists, and thwart the United States and its vassals. This is what galls Obama, being outmanoeuvred by a lesser man than he and a lesser country than the United States. How deplorable to speak of the liberation of E. Aleppo as «a slaughter in Syria».

Obama’s frustrations began several years ago. Remember back in 2013, when the US government started a propaganda campaign about Syrian chemical weapons and warned of «red lines» that could not be crossed? Apparently, the US government came within an ace or two of launching massive air attacks on Syria. Putin intervened and the Syrian government gave up its chemical weapons, removing the US pretext for intervention. The print media had a field day showing Putin helping Obama out of a corner of his own making. All the while, Putin kept urging Russian-US cooperation against the jihadists in Syria, trying to draw the United States away from its ruinous policies. To no avail. Who then acted with greater statesmanship, Putin or Obama?

In 2013, when the US government started a propaganda campaign about Syrian chemical weapons, Putin intervened and the Syrian government gave up its chemical weapons, removing the US pretext for intervention. The print media had a field day showing Putin helping Obama out of a corner of his own making.

Temporarily thwarted in Syria, the United States opened up a new front on Russia’s southern frontier in the Ukraine. It backed the coup d’état in Kiev and turned a blind eye to the fascist vanguard, which kept the new Ukrainian junta in power. «The fascists are just ‘a few bad apples’», officials said in Washington, thinking that NATO had scored a great victory in getting its hands on Sevastopol so it could kick the Russian Black Sea fleet out of its traditional home base.

You have to give credit to Obama; he was ambitious, aiming for a big prize and the humiliation of Russia and its president. Again, he was thwarted not so much by President Putin but by the Russian people of the Crimea who immediately mobilised their local self-defence units backed by «polite people», Russian marines stationed in Sevastopol, to kick out the Ukrainians with scarcely a shot fired. They organised a referendum to approve entry into the Russian Federation. Reunification was quickly approved by a huge majority and celebrated in Moscow. Putin gave a remarkably candid speech, explaining the Russian position. «NATO remains a military alliance,’ he said, «and we are against having a military alliance making itself at home right in our backyard or in our historic territory. I simply cannot imagine that we would travel to Sevastopol to visit NATO sailors. Of course, most of them are wonderful guys, but it would be better to have them come and visit us, be our guests, rather than the other way round».

«NATO remains a military alliance,’ he said, «and we are against having a military alliance making itself at home right in our backyard or in our historic territory», Putin said

It all happened so quickly, Obama must have looked on, dumbfounded, sputtering with angry frustration at having been outmanoeuvred by Crimean Russians who knew a thing or two after all about «innovating» and defending their land. Russians in the eastern Ukraine also resisted, taking up arms to defend themselves against Kiev’s fascist battalions.

That was too much. Putin became Obama’s nemesis. The US president struck back with economic sanctions, which his European vassals quickly endorsed. When Malaysian Airlines, MH17, was shot down over the eastern Ukraine, Obama and the EU at once accused Putin of being responsible without a shred of evidence. In fact, the available evidence points to the Kiev junta as the guilty party, but the MSM paid no attention. It ran an orchestrated propaganda campaign leading to harder sanctions against Russia intended to sabotage the Russian economy and break the Russian government.

Obama and his advisors again miscalculated. The Russian government instituted its own sanctions against the EU, and looked for other sources of supply or replaced foreign imports with Russian products. «We can do without Polish apples and French cheese», most Russians thought. «Liberals» sulked over the loss of their camembert, but that’s a small price to pay for Russian independence. Obama was outsmarted again by Russians who, he insists, can’t innovate. As for the EU, it suffered huge economic losses because of sanctions at American behest in a classic case of shooting oneself in the foot. It’s getting to be a habit; the EU has again renewed its sanctions against Russia.

The EU has suffered huge economic losses because of its anti-Russia sanctions at American behest in a classic case of shooting oneself in the foot.

Whilst the Ukrainian crisis dragged on, Obama had to turn his attention back to Syria. In the autumn of 2015, Putin ordered Russian aerospace and naval forces to intervene on behalf of the hard-pressed Syrian government which asked for assistance against the western-backed jihadist invasion. The tide of battle slowly turned. Again, Obama was caught off guard; again, the US plan to overthrow the Syrian government was thwarted by Obama’s nemesis. The United States tried bogus truces to allow its jihadist mercenaries to refit and resupply. At first, the Russians did not seem to catch on, accepting American proposals as genuine. They had to learn the hard way, but they did eventually. The liberation of E. Aleppo, although overshadowed by the simultaneous loss of Palmyra, is another blow to Obama’s policies and to his fragile ego.

How could this «weaker… smaller country» outsmart the all-powerful Mr. Obama and the great US Hegemon?

No wonder the US president is lashing out at Putin, publically insulting him and his country. No wonder the MSM is up in arms. How could this «weaker… smaller country» outsmart the all-powerful Mr. Obama and the great US Hegemon?

Like the USSR before it, Russia has always had to pursue a politique du faible, a poor man’s policies, never having the abundant resources of it western adversaries. Russians learned early on to innovate. The fox has to make its way in a world full of dangerous wolves.

What Obama must hate most of all is Putin’s exposure of US support for Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. Who indeed is responsible for the «slaughter» in Syria? Obama calls it fighting for democracy. «Airstrike democracy», Putin once derisively replied. «Do you realise what you have done?» Putin asked at the UN in 2015, shocking the MSM. Obviously not, if one is to judge by Obama’s remarks of the last few days. He’s still the obsessive adolescent with doubts about himself and in over his head against a real statesman. Thank heavens Obama is on his way out the door of the White House. It’s not a minute too soon. Olliver Cromwell’s famous remark in 1653 to the Rump Parliament seems apposite. «You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!»

SOURCE

[turiya]

OBAMA AFTER JANUARY 20TH...

OBAMA AFTER JANUARY 20TH...
(Published December 26, 2016)

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=daGQa9vsqq8

[turiya]

To Left-Wing Millennials...

DUMBEST MOST RACIST VIDEO EVER
(Published on Dec 21, 2016)

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=GIaWTSaoZ0M

[turiya]

Russia Warns Any Attempt By Obama
To Arm Syrian Rebels Will Be Seen
As A "Hostile Act"
by Tyler Durden
Dec 27, 2016 8:02 AM

First, it was China which lodged a protest against the US defense bill, which was signed by Barack Obama late on Friday and which, among other things, contained a provision to establish as US "ministry of truth" and media propaganda. On Sunday, China lodged "stern representations" with the United States after Obama signed the NDAA into law which suggests a plan to conduct high-level military exchanges with self-ruled Taiwan. Part of the $618.7 billion National Defense Authorization Act "expresses the sense of Congress that (the U.S. Department of Defense) should conduct a program of senior military exchanges between the United States and Taiwan".

In other words, it appears the Trump team is not the only one jeopardising the "One China" policy: as Reuters adds, in a statement late Sunday, China's Foreign Ministry said it had lodged a protest with the United States over the Taiwan content of the act and expressed its strong opposition. Taiwan is Chinese territory and purely an internal matter, the ministry said.

It noted that the part of the defense policy bill referring to Taiwan was not legally binding, but said it was an interference with China's internal affairs that China could not accept.

"We urge the U.S. side to abide by its promises made to China on the Taiwan issue, stop U.S.-Taiwan military contacts and arms sales to Taiwan, to avoid damaging Sino-U.S. ties and peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait."

Then, overnight, Russia also joined the global opposition to the US defense policy bill when it said on Tuesday that a U.S. decision to ease some restrictions on arming Syrian rebels had opened the way for deliveries of shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles, a move it said would directly threaten Russian forces in Syria.

According to Reuters, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said the policy change easing some restrictions on weapons supplies to rebels was set out in a new U.S. defense spending bill signed by Obama while on his last vacation as US president in Hawaii, and that Moscow regarded the step as a hostile act.

Rebel fighter clean a weapon in al-Rai town, northern Aleppo countryside,
Syria December 25, 2016, Reuters photo

"In the administration of B. Obama they must understand that any weapons handed over will quickly end up in the hands of jihadists with whom the sham 'moderate' opposition have long acted jointly," Zakharova said in a statement. "Such a decision is a direct threat to the Russian air force, to other Russian military personnel, and to our embassy in Syria, which has come under fire more than once. We therefore view the step as a hostile one."

Cited by Reuters, Zakharova accused the Obama administration of trying to "put a mine" under the incoming administration of President-elect Donald Trump by attempting to get it to continue what she called Washington's "anti-Russian line."

To be sure, any sabotage attempts by Obama be faced with an uphill climb: a back-and-forth exchange between Trump and Putin over nuclear weapons last week tested the Republican's promises to improve relations with Russia.

The Obama administration and U.S. intelligence officials have accused Russia of trying to interfere with the U.S. election by hacking Democratic Party accounts. Russia, meanwhile, has laughed at these accusations, and last week Putin slammed the Democrats as "shameless losers" in his annual year-end press conference, saying "the party that is called the Democrats has clearly forgotten the original meaning of that name" and added that "the use of administrative resources (by the Democrats) is absolutely shameless."

SOURCE

_______________________________________________

George Webb Related Video regarding the above mentioned "shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles" in Syria [Stingers in the first minute(s)]....

George Webb also suggests that this type of weapon would be used to take down U.S. jets, and it could be also used to take Trump's plane down [@ 1:35]... my sense suggests that this notion is in the plans of those that are opposed to Trump moving forward, hower a successful attempt is not in the cards... something to take note of & watch for in future...

Day 63 - Where is Eric Braverman? Part 2
(Published on Dec 25, 2016)

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=6bV_vAn9hys

Again, George Webb mentions Stingers & Trump's Plane at 3:19 with regard to the upcoming Davos meeting which happens just prior to Trump's January 20th inauguration...

Day 65 - Where is Eric Braverman? Part 3,
Researcher Version
(Published on Dec 27, 2016)

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=JvW4k3hDfLQ

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Posted by turiya (here)

Day 65 - Where is Eric Braverman? Part 3,
Researcher Version
(Published on Dec 27, 2016)

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=JvW4k3hDfLQ

When he starts dropping hints about his investigations into child trafficking in the 1980s, it almost sounds to me like he's hinting at the idea that the compound in Waco was being used to hold children who were being trafficked, and that's why they were also stocked up on so many firearms. If that's the case then it sounds like he's suggesting that Waco was taken out because of what he's referring to as "beta males" who aren't in on the whole operation but work around these people nonetheless, and I suppose become liabilities in a certain way.

[onawah]

Trump and the Jesuits; these views from Prof. Veith of Trump are very necessary to get a clearer and broader picture of how he really figures in, imho.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=W5fr0BwpO3A

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=YtRBexcpFTA

(Also posted here:
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...=1#post1123278 )

[turiya]

Posted by bsbray (here)

Posted by turiya (here)

Day 65 - Where is Eric Braverman? Part 3,
Researcher Version
(Published on Dec 27, 2016)
[video=youtube;JvW4k3hDfLQ]https://youtube.com/watch?v=JvW4k3hDfLQ?t=3m19s

When he starts dropping hints about his investigations into child trafficking in the 1980s, it almost sounds to me like he's hinting at the idea that the compound in Waco was being used to hold children who were being trafficked, and that's why they were also stocked up on so many firearms. If that's the case then it sounds like he's suggesting that Waco was taken out because of what he's referring to as "beta males" who aren't in on the whole operation but work around these people nonetheless, and I suppose become liabilities in a certain way.

Yes, Waco passed by my window... its hard to say...
One thing, though... Hillary was awfully keen on having Reno burn the place leaving nothing but ashes...


Trump - The Shark vs The Piranhas - Politicians on both the Left & the Right.

Warren Pollock: Clinton & Trump
Will Fight to the Death
(Published on Dec 27, 2016)

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Zq3lS0oo9YM

[turiya]

What is Henry Kissinger Up To?
— Paul Craig Roberts
December 28, 2016

The English language Russian news agency, Sputnik reports that former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger is advising US president-elect Donald Trump how to “bring the United States and Russia closer together to offset China’s military buildup.”

If we take this report at face value, it tells us that Kissinger, an old cold warrior, is working to use Trump’s commitment to better relations with Russia in order to separate Russia from its strategic alliance with China.

China’s military buildup is a response to US provocations against China and US claims to the South China Sea as an area of US national interests. China does not intend to attack the US and certainly not Russia.

Kissinger, who was my colleague at the Center for Strategic and International studies for a dozen years, is aware of the pro-American elites inside Russia, and he is at work creating for them a “China threat” that they can use in their effort to lead Russia into the arms of the West. If this effort is successful, Russia’s sovereignty will be eroded exactly as has the sovereignty of every other country allied with the US.

At President Putin’s last press conference, journalist Marat Sagadatov asked if Russia wasn’t already subject to forms of foreign semi-domination: “Our economy, industry, ministries and agencies often follow the rules laid down by international organizations and are managed by consulting companies. Even our defense enterprises have foreign consulting firms auditing them.” The journalist asked, “if it is not time to do some import substitution in this area too?”

Every Russian needs to understand that being part of the West means living by Washington’s rules. The only country in the Western Alliance that has an independent foreign and economic policy is the US.

All of us need to understand that although Trump has been elected president, the neoconservatives remain dominant in US foreign policy, and their commitment to the hegemony of the US as the uni-power remains as strong as ever. The neoconservative ideology has been institutionalized in parts of the CIA, State Department and Pentagon. The neoconservatives retain their influence in media, think tanks, university faculties, foundations, and in the Council on Foreign Relations.

We also need to understand that Trump revels in the role of tough guy and will say things that can be misinterpreted as my friend, Finian Cunningham, whose columns I read, usually with appreciation, might have done.

I do not know that Trump will prevail over the vast neoconservative conspiracy. However, it seems clear enough that he is serious about reducing the tensions with Russia that have been building since President Clinton violated the George H. W. Bush administration’s promise that NATO would not expand one inch to the East. Unless Trump were serious, there is no reason for him to announce Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson as his choice for Secretary of State. In 2013 Mr. Tillerson was awarded Russia’s Order of Friendship.

As Professor Michel Chossudovsky has pointed out, a global corporation such as Exxon has interests different from those of the US military/security complex. The military/security complex needs a powerful threat, such as the former “Soviet threat” which has been transformed into the “Russian threat,” in order to justify its hold on an annual budget of approximately one trillion dollars. In contrast, Exxon wants to be part of the Russian energy business. Therefore, as Secretary of State, Tillerson is motivated to achieve good relations between the US and Russia, whereas for the military/security complex good relations undermine the orchestrated fear on which the military/security budget rests.

Clearly, the military/security complex and the neoconservatives see Trump and Tillerson as threats, which is why the neoconservatives and the armaments tycoons so strongly opposed Trump and why CIA Director John Brennan made wild and unsupported accusations of Russian interference in the US presidential election.

The lines are drawn. The next test will be whether Trump can obtain Senate confirmation of his choice of Tillerson as Secretary of State.

The myth is widespread that President Reagan won the cold war by breaking the Soviet Union financially with an arms race. As one who was involved in Reagan’s effort to end the cold war, I find myself yet again correcting the record.

Reagan never spoke of winning the cold war. He spoke of ending it. Other officials in his government have said the same thing, and Pat Buchanan can verify it.

Reagan wanted to end the Cold War, not win it. He spoke of those “godawful” nuclear weapons. He thought the Soviet economy was in too much difficulty to compete in an arms race. He thought that if he could first cure the stagflation that afflicted the US economy, he could force the Soviets to the negotiating table by going through the motion of launching an arms race. “Star wars” was mainly hype. (Whether or nor the Soviets believed the arms race threat, the American leftwing clearly did and has never got over it.)

Reagan had no intention of dominating the Soviet Union or collapsing it. Unlike Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama, he was not controlled by neoconservatives. Reagan fired and prosecuted the neoconservatives in his administration when they operated behind his back and broke the law.

The Soviet Union did not collapse because of Reagan’s determination to end the Cold War. The Soviet collapse was the work of hardline communists, who believed that Gorbachev was loosening the Communist Party’s hold so quickly that Gorbachev was a threat to the existence of the Soviet Union and placed him under house arrest. It was the hardline communist coup against Gorbachev that led to the rise of Yeltsin. No one expected the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The US military/security complex did not want Reagan to end the Cold War, as the Cold War was the foundation of profit and power for the complex. The CIA told Reagan that if he renewed the arms race, the Soviets would win, because the Soviets controlled investment and could allocate a larger share of the economy to the military than Reagan could.

Reagan did not believe the CIA’s claim that the Soviet Union could prevail in an arms race. He formed a secret committee and gave the committee the power to investigate the CIA’s claim that the US would lose an arms race with the Soviet Union. The committee concluded that the CIA was protecting its prerogatives. I know this because I was a member of the committee.

American capitalism and the social safety net would function much better without the drain on the budget of the military/security complex. It is more correct to say that the military/security complex wants a major threat, not an actual arms race. Stateless Muslim terrorists are not a sufficient threat for such a massive US military, and the trouble with an actual arms race as opposed to a threat is that the US armaments corporations would have to produce weapons that work instead of cost overruns that boost profits.

The latest US missile ship has twice broken down and had to be towed into port. The F-35 has cost endless money, has a variety of problems - It won't stand a chance in real combat, and is already outclassed. The Russian missiles are hypersonic. The Russian tanks are superior. The explosive power of the Russian Satan II ICBM is terrifying. The morale of the Russian forces is high. They have not been exhausted from 15 years of fighting without much success pointless wars against women and children.

Washington, given the corrupt nature of the US military/security complex, can arms race all it wants without being a danger to Russia or China, much less to the strategic alliance between the two powers.

The neoconservatives are discredited, but they are still a powerful influence on US foreign policy. Until Trump relegates them to the ideological backwaters, Russia and China had best hold on to their strategic alliance. Anyone attempting to break this alliance is a threat to both Russia and China, and to America and to life on earth.

SOURCE

[A Voice from the Mountains]

I don't trust Kissinger either but I'm 100% for more military build-up under a Trump administration because I think he's serious when he says he doesn't want to use it. It's the old "talk softly but carry a big stick" philosophy that Teddy Roosevelt advocated. Teddy Roosevelt loved war to a somewhat sickening degree but he did manage to keep the US out of it as president.

[turiya]

Posted by bsbray (here)
I don't trust Kissinger either but I'm 100% for more military build-up under a Trump administration because I think he's serious when he says he doesn't want to use it. It's the old "talk softly but carry a big stick" philosophy that Teddy Roosevelt advocated. Teddy Roosevelt loved war to a somewhat sickening degree but he did manage to keep the US out of it as president.

Well said... And, agree with your thoughts on Kissinger...
Putin's response to the nuclear build-up question @ 9:51. Also his comment on the Obama claim regarding Russia hacking into DNC / election process: https://youtu.be/dqIPHhQCcH8?t=9m51s

[turiya]

Federal Appeals Court Revives Hillary Email Case
Leaving Key Decision To Trump's Attorney General
by Tyler Durden
Dec 28, 2016 6:34 PM

A federal appeals court for the District of Columbia has breathed new life into the Hillary email-gate scandal which will be music to the ears of Trump's "lock her up" supporters. The case was filed by watchdog groups Judicial Watch and Cause of Action seeking to force the State Department to instruct the Department of Justice to file a federal records suit to recover Hillary's missing emails. A lower court had previously ruled that the State Department's efforts to recover Hillary's emails were sufficient and threw the cases out. But D.C. Circuit Judge Stephen Williams, a Ronald Reagan appointee, had a different view. Per The Hill:

U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg had previously ruled that state’s efforts to recover the documents — tens of thousands of which Clinton turned over voluntarily in 2014 — were sufficient and threw out the cases.

But the three-judge appeals court panel on Tuesday said that State had not done enough.

"Even though those efforts bore some fruit, the Department has not explained why shaking the tree harder — e.g., by following the statutory mandate to seek action by the Attorney General — might not bear more still,” D.C. Circuit Judge Stephen Williams, a Ronald Reagan appointee, wrote in the court’s opinion. “It is therefore abundantly clear that, in terms of assuring government recovery of emails, appellants have not 'been given everything [they] asked for.”

“Absent a showing that the requested enforcement action could not shake loose a few more emails, the case is not moot.”

While the new opinion acknowledges that DOJ involvement would be rendered moot if the defendants could provide definitive proof that additional efforts wouldn't result in the recovery of additional emails, it also highlights that no such "factual support" has been presented to date.

Tuesday’s ruling does not order the State Department to make the referral to the DOJ — nor does it obligate DOJ to sue Clinton if presented with a referral.

But the language of the ruling does appear to suggest that the court considers the possibility that the DOJ’s involvement could uncover more emails.

“While the case might well also be moot if a referral were pointless (e.g., because no imaginable enforcement action by the Attorney General could lead to recovery of the missing emails), the record here provides no factual support for finding mootness on that basis,” Williams wrote.

Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton praised the ruling saying that it is now up to the Trump administration to determine whether they would like to "finally enforce the rule of law and try to retrieve all the emails Clinton and her aides unlawfully took with them when they left the State Department."

“The courts seem to be fed up with the Obama administration’s refusal to enforce the rule of law on the Clinton emails,” Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said in a statement.

“This ruling means that the Trump Justice Department will have to decide if it wants to finally enforce the rule of law and try to retrieve all the emails Clinton and her aides unlawfully took with them when they left the State Department.”

Of course, Trump has waffled on the issue of pursuing Hillary's latest scandal any further. After once telling her during a debate that she'd "be in jail" if he were President, Trump has since said that he has no interest in hurting the Clintons...a stance that we suspect may anger some of his supporters.

ZEROHEDGE

___________________________________

Related George Webb Sweigert Video regarding the above ruling 'Real Justice' taking place.... at 3:16

Day 67 (Pt 1): Where is Eric Braverman? Neil Brown?
(Published on Dec 29, 2016)

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=x3mwF1W_jnI

Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch

Published on Dec 29, 2016

Real Justice vs. Social Justice, Eric Braverman or Neil Brown in CF's New Shadow White House?

FB Group #HRCRatLine

Due to the very large number of citations and sources, I now publish them with each slide. I try to order New York Times Pulitzers first, then former NYT Pulitzer winners, then New York Times writers. Any other reputable source like WaPo, WaTimes, Tribune, LA Times, Seattle P-I, etc are then list. Then second tier media followed by alternative media.

Murdered journalist and investigators get a higher ranking than remotely sourced stories through offshore news funnels like SOHR.

https://docs.google.com/presentation/...

P.S. The following message was posted one week ago by George Webb on his youtube channel:

"I am going to throw some dead man switch info out there just in case. I'm George Webb Sweigert from Portland, Oregon. If the videos stop, check the news and carry on the torch."

[TargeT]

I don't like the sound of this... what evidence was this based on???

Obama orders Russia expulsions, sanctions for interference in 2016 election
President Barack Obama on Thursday ordered the expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats and sanctioned Russian intelligence officials who Washington believes were involved in hacking U.S. political groups in the 2016 presidential election.

The measures, taken during the last days of Obama's presidency, mark a new low in U.S.-Russian relations which have deteriorated over serious differences on Ukraine and Syria.

"These actions follow repeated private and public warnings that we have issued to the Russian government, and are a necessary and appropriate response to efforts to harm U.S. interests in violation of established international norms of behavior," Obama said in a statement from vacation in Hawaii.

It was not immediately clear whether President-elect Donald Trump, who has repeatedly praised Russian President Vladimir Putin and nominated people seen as friendly toward Moscow to senior administration posts, would seek to roll back the measures once he takes office on Jan. 20.

Obama is seeking to deter Russia and other foreign governments from leveraging cyber attacks in the future to meddle in U.S. politics, former officials and cyber security experts said.

Obama has been under growing pressure from within his own administration and lawmakers of both political parties to respond more forcefully to the cyber attacks, which included leaked emails of Democratic Party operatives that became part of the media coverage in the campaign for the Nov. 8 presidential election.

The Russian foreign ministry said on Thursday the sanctions were counter-productive and would harm the restoration of bilateral ties. Moscow denies the hacking allegation.

Obama sanctioned two Russian intelligence agencies, the GRU and the FSB, four GRU officers and three companies "that provided material support to the GRU’s cyber operations.

PERSONA NON GRATA

Obama said the State Department declared as "persona non grata" 35 Russian intelligence operatives and is closing two Russian compounds in New York and Maryland that were used by Russian personnel for "intelligence-related purposes". The State Department originally said the 35 were diplomats.

A senior U.S. official told Reuters the move would affect the Russian embassy in Washington and consulate in San Francisco.

The Russians have 72 hours to leave the United States, the official said. Access to the two compounds, which are used by Russian officials for intelligence gathering, will be denied to all Russian officials as of noon on Friday, the senior U.S. official added.
"These actions were taken to respond to Russian harassment of American diplomats and actions by the diplomats that we have assessed to be not consistent with diplomatic practice," the official said.

The State Department has long complained that Russian security agents and traffic police have harassed U.S. diplomats in Moscow, and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has raised the issue with Putin and his foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov.

"By imposing costs on the Russian diplomats in the United States, by denying them access to the two facilities, we hope the Russian government reevaluates its own actions, which have impeded the ability and safety of our own embassy personnel in Russia," the official said.

The U.S. official declined to name the Russian diplomats who would be affected, although it is understood that Russia's ambassador to the United States, Sergei Kislyak, will not be one of those expelled.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...-idUSKBN14I1TY

[turiya]

Posted by TargeT (here)
I don't like the sound of this... what evidence was this based on???
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...-idUSKBN14I1TY

All this is dependent on is the 'Top Secret - Highly Classified - National Security purposes.... that is all that the Deep State has to keep running its shadow government. We are just at the beginnings of the seemingly 'new' war that will be ongoing for the next 4-8 years. Obama is to be kept around Washington D.C., as the 'front man' to run this shadow government while physically occupying its "Shadow White House"...

Ed Klein: It seems Obama is having a tough time letting go
(Published on Dec 28, 2016)

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=r21OKnhL58s

__________________________________

And, no doubt, it will be George Soros footing the bill on this 'shadow White House'...

George Soros Conjures Hitler
In Attack On 'Ascendant Populists',
Warns "Democracy Is Now In Crisis"



by Tyler Durden
Dec 29, 2016 6:42 AM

Authored by George Soros,
originally posted at Project Syndicate,

Well before Donald Trump was elected President of the United States, I sent a holiday greeting to my friends that read: “These times are not business as usual. Wishing you the best in a troubled world.” Now I feel the need to share this message with the rest of the world. But before I do, I must tell you who I am and what I stand for.

I am an 86-year-old Hungarian Jew who became a US citizen after the end of World War II. I learned at an early age how important it is what kind of political regime prevails. The formative experience of my life was the occupation of Hungary by Hitler’s Germany in 1944. I probably would have perished had my father not understood the gravity of the situation. He arranged false identities for his family and for many other Jews; with his help, most survived.

In 1947, I escaped from Hungary, by then under Communist rule, to England. As a student at the London School of Economics, I came under the influence of the philosopher Karl Popper, and I developed my own philosophy, built on the twin pillars of fallibility and reflexivity. I distinguished between two kinds of political regimes: those in which people elected their leaders, who were then supposed to look after the interests of the electorate, and others where the rulers sought to manipulate their subjects to serve the rulers’ interests. Under Popper’s influence, I called the first kind of society open, the second, closed.

The classification is too simplistic. There are many degrees and variations throughout history, from well-functioning models to failed states, and many different levels of government in any particular situation. Even so, I find the distinction between the two regime types useful. I became an active promoter of the former and opponent of the latter.

I find the current moment in history very painful. Open societies are in crisis, and various forms of closed societies – from fascist dictatorships to mafia states – are on the rise. How could this happen? The only explanation I can find is that elected leaders failed to meet voters’ legitimate expectations and aspirations and that this failure led electorates to become disenchanted with the prevailing versions of democracy and capitalism. Quite simply, many people felt that the elites had stolen their democracy.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US emerged as the sole remaining superpower, equally committed to the principles of democracy and free markets. The major development since then has been the globalization of financial markets, spearheaded by advocates who argued that globalization increases total wealth. After all, if the winners compensated the losers, they would still have something left over.

The argument was misleading, because it ignored the fact that the winners seldom, if ever, compensate the losers. But the potential winners spent enough money promoting the argument that it prevailed. It was a victory for believers in untrammeled free enterprise, or “market fundamentalists,” as I call them. Because financial capital is an indispensable ingredient of economic development, and few countries in the developing world could generate enough capital on their own, globalization spread like wildfire. Financial capital could move around freely and avoid taxation and regulation.

Globalization has had far-reaching economic and political consequences. It has brought about some economic convergence between poor and rich countries; but it increased inequality within both poor and rich countries. In the developed world, the benefits accrued mainly to large owners of financial capital, who constitute less than 1% of the population. The lack of redistributive policies is the main source of the dissatisfaction that democracy’s opponents have exploited. But there were other contributing factors as well, particularly in Europe.

I was an avid supporter of the European Union from its inception. I regarded it as the embodiment of the idea of an open society: an association of democratic states willing to sacrifice part of their sovereignty for the common good. It started out at as a bold experiment in what Popper called “piecemeal social engineering.” The leaders set an attainable objective and a fixed timeline and mobilized the political will needed to meet it, knowing full well that each step would necessitate a further step forward. That is how the European Coal and Steel Community developed into the EU.

But then something went woefully wrong. After the Crash of 2008, a voluntary association of equals was transformed into a relationship between creditors and debtors, where the debtors had difficulties in meeting their obligations and the creditors set the conditions the debtors had to obey. That relationship has been neither voluntary nor equal.

Germany emerged as the hegemonic power in Europe, but it failed to live up to the obligations that successful hegemons must fulfill, namely looking beyond their narrow self-interest to the interests of the people who depend on them. Compare the behavior of the US after WWII with Germany’s behavior after the Crash of 2008: the US launched the Marshall Plan, which led to the development of the EU; Germany imposed an austerity program that served its narrow self-interest.

Before its reunification, Germany was the main force driving European integration: it was always willing to contribute a little bit extra to accommodate those putting up resistance. Remember Germany’s contribution to meeting Margaret Thatcher’s demands regarding the EU budget?

But reuniting Germany on a 1:1 basis turned out to be very expensive. When Lehman Brothers collapsed, Germany did not feel rich enough to take on any additional obligations. When European finance ministers declared that no other systemically important financial institution would be allowed to fail, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, correctly reading the wishes of her electorate, declared that each member state should look after its own institutions. That was the start of a process of disintegration.

After the Crash of 2008, the EU and the eurozone became increasingly dysfunctional. Prevailing conditions became far removed from those prescribed by the Maastricht Treaty, but treaty change became progressively more difficult, and eventually impossible, because it couldn’t be ratified. The eurozone became the victim of antiquated laws; much-needed reforms could be enacted only by finding loopholes in them. That is how institutions became increasingly complicated, and electorates became alienated.

The rise of anti-EU movements further impeded the functioning of institutions. And these forces of disintegration received a powerful boost in 2016, first from Brexit, then from the election of Trump in the US, and on December 4 from Italian voters’ rejection, by a wide margin, of constitutional reforms.

Democracy is now in crisis. Even the US, the world’s leading democracy, elected a con artist and would-be dictator as its president. Although Trump has toned down his rhetoric since he was elected, he has changed neither his behavior nor his advisers. His cabinet comprises incompetent extremists and retired generals.

What lies ahead?

I am confident that democracy will prove resilient in the US. Its Constitution and institutions, including the fourth estate, are strong enough to resist the excesses of the executive branch, thus preventing a would-be dictator from becoming an actual one.

But the US will be preoccupied with internal struggles in the near future, and targeted minorities will suffer. The US will be unable to protect and promote democracy in the rest of the world. On the contrary, Trump will have greater affinity with dictators. That will allow some of them to reach an accommodation with the US, and others to carry on without interference. Trump will prefer making deals to defending principles. Unfortunately, that will be popular with his core constituency.

I am particularly worried about the fate of the EU, which is in danger of coming under the influence of Russian President Vladimir Putin, whose concept of government is irreconcilable with that of open society. Putin is not a passive beneficiary of recent developments; he worked hard to bring them about. He recognized his regime’s weakness: it can exploit natural resources but cannot generate economic growth. He felt threatened by “color revolutions” in Georgia, Ukraine, and elsewhere. At first, he tried to control social media. Then, in a brilliant move, he exploited social media companies’ business model to spread misinformation and fake news, disorienting electorates and destabilizing democracies. That is how he helped Trump get elected.

The same is likely to happen in the European election season in 2017 in the Netherlands, Germany, and Italy. In France, the two leading contenders are close to Putin and eager to appease him. If either wins, Putin’s dominance of Europe will become a fait accompli.

I hope that Europe’s leaders and citizens alike will realize that this endangers their way of life and the values on which the EU was founded. The trouble is that the method Putin has used to destabilize democracy cannot be used to restore respect for facts and a balanced view of reality.

With economic growth lagging and the refugee crisis out of control, the EU is on the verge of breakdown and is set to undergo an experience similar to that of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s. Those who believe that the EU needs to be saved in order to be reinvented must do whatever they can to bring about a better outcome.

Souroce

[turiya]

Putin Stunner: "We Will Not Expel Anyone;
We Refuse To Sink To 'Kitchen' Diplomacy"
by Tyler Durden
Dec 30, 2016 7:40 AM

Vladimir the merciful?

Following this morning's reports that Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov would recommend to Russian President Vladimir Putin a retaliation in kind, and expel 35 American diplomats, saying that “we cannot leave such acts unanswered. Reciprocity is part of diplomatic law" with Putin spokesman Peskov adding that "there is no doubt that Russia's adequate and mirror response will make Washington officials feel very uncomfortable as well", it was ultimately up to Putin to decide how to respond to the US.

Which he did on Friday morning, when in a stunning reversal, the Russian leader took the high road, rejected the Lavrov proposal, and in a statement posted by the Kremlin said that Russia won’t expel any Americans in retaliation to US moves, in a brutal demonstration of just how irrelevant Obama's 11th hour decision is for US-Russian relations.

The reversal comes as Russian officials portrayed U.S. sanctions as a last act of a lame-duck president and suggested that Trump could reverse them when he takes over the White House in January.

Earlier Russian Prime Minster Dmitry Medvedev said the Obama administration was ending its term in "anti-Russia death throes."

"It is regrettable that the Obama administration, which started out by restoring our ties, is ending its term in an anti-Russia death throes. RIP," Medvedev, who served as president in 2009 when Obama tried to improve Russia-U.S. relations, wrote on his official Facebook page.

In the just released statement, Putin laughed off Obama's 11th hour temper tantrum, and said that Russia won’t cause problems to U.S. diplomats or deport anyone, adding that Russia has the right to respond in tit-for-tat manner, but it will not engage in irresponsible diplomacy.

The punchline, however, was saved for what may be Russia's final slam of the debacle that is Obama's administration saying that "It’s a pity that the current U.S. administration is finishing their work in such a manner" saying that Russia refuses "to sink to the level of this irresponsible "kitchen" diplomacy."

Putin ended the statement by congratulating U.S. President-elect Donald Trump, and the American people on the New Year and invited the hildren of US diplomats to a holiday celebration at the Kremlin.

From the full statement posted on the Kremlin website:

Although we have the right to retaliate, we will not resort to irresponsible ‘kitchen’ diplomacy but will plan our further steps to restore Russian-US relations based on the policies of the Trump Administration.

And with that one statement, Obama lost the diplomatic war with Russia.

In other news, the Kremlin said it will send a government plane to the US to evacuate the expelled diplomats and their family members. Earlier, there were reports that the diplomats were having problems buying tickets on such short notice, with airlines already booked by New Year’s travelers.

* * *

Full Putin statement below:

We regard the recent unfriendly steps taken by the outgoing US administration as provocative and aimed at further weakening the Russia-US relationship. This runs contrary to the fundamental interests of both the Russian and American people. Considering the global security responsibilities of Russia and the United States, this is also damaging to international relations as a whole.

As it proceeds from international practice, Russia has reasons to respond in kind. Although we have the right to retaliate, we will not resort to irresponsible ‘kitchen’ diplomacy but will plan our further steps to restore Russian-US relations based on the policies of the Trump Administration.

The diplomats who are returning to Russia will spend the New Year’s holidays with their families and friends. We will not create any problems for US diplomats. We will not expel anyone. We will not prevent their families and children from using their traditional leisure sites during the New Year’s holidays. Moreover, I invite all children of US diplomats accredited in Russia to the New Year and Christmas children’s parties in the Kremlin.

It is regrettable that the Obama Administration is ending its term in this manner. Nevertheless, I offer my New Year greetings to President Obama and his family.

My season’s greetings also to President-elect Donald Trump and the American people.

I wish all of you happiness and prosperity.

SOURCE

________________________________________________________

Follow-up Trump Touché....

Trump Mocks CNN, NBC;
Praises Putin: "Great Move On Delay -
I Always Knew He Was Very Smart"
by Tyler Durden
Dec 30, 2016 5:44 PM

If there was any confusion how president-elect Donald Trump - who for the past few days has been urging Americans to "get on with our lives" beyond the topic of Russian sanctions - felt about Putin unexpectedly taking the "high road" and refusing to retaliate tit-for-tat to Obama's expulsion of Russian diplomats, he cleared it up moments ago when at 2:41pm he tweeted: "Great move on delay (by V. Putin) - I always knew he was very smart!"

Great move on delay (by V. Putin) - I always knew
he was very smart!

11:41 AM - 30 Dec 2016

Titter Link:

________________________________________________________

Or, said otherwise, "Obama is not very smart" something which the Russian embassy in the US found amusing enough to Retweet (in this particular case we are confident Retweeting does mean endorsing).



And then just to totally infuriate the media, Trump followed up his earlier praise of Putin by slamming CNN and NBC:

Russians are playing @CNN and @NBCNews
for such fools - funny to watch, they don't have
a clue! @FoxNews totally gets it!

2:18 PM - 30 Dec 2016

Titter Link:

________________________________________________________

While it remains unclear if Trump will eliminate the anti-Russia sanctions implemented by Obama as soon as he enters office in three weeks, we expect many more op-eds and articles lamenting the bromance between Trump and Putin by Jeff Bezos' blog and other "unfake" media.

Case in point, here is Hillary Clinton sycophant John Harwood, who mysteriously still has a job at CNBC following the reputation crushing Podesta email revelations, slamming Trump's tweet as

"breath-taking: one day after POTUS sanctions Russia for criminal interference in US election, President-elect praises Putin as "very smart""

Source

[turiya]

What Is The Obama Regime Up To?
— Paul Craig Roberts

December 30, 2016

Obama has announced new sanctions on Russia based on unsubstantiated charges by the CIA that the Russian government influenced the outcome of the US presidential election with “malicious cyber-enabled activities.”

The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has issued a report “related to the declaration of 35 Russian officials persona non grata for malicious cyber activity and harassment.”

The report is a description of “tools and infrastructure used by Russian intelligence services to compromise and exploit networks and infrastructure associated with the recent U.S. election, as well as a range of U.S. government, political and private sector entities.”

The report does not provide any evidence that the tools and infrastructure were used to influence the outcome of the US presidential election. The report is simply a description of what is said to be Russian capabilities.

Moreover, the report begins with this disclaimer: “DISCLAIMER: This report is provided ‘as is’ for informational purposes only. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within.”

DISCLAIMER

In other words, the report not only provides no evidence of the use of the Russian tools and infrastructure in order to influence the US presidential election, the report will not even warrant the correctness of its description of Russian capabilities.

Thus the DHS report makes it completely clear that the Obama regime has no evidential basis for its allegations on the basis of which it has imposed more sanctions on Russia.

What is going on here?

First there is the question of the legality of the sanctions even if there were evidence. I am not certain, but I think that sanctions require the action of a body, such as the UN Security Council, and cannot legally be imposed unilaterally by one country. Additionally, it is unclear why Obama is calling the expulsion of Russian diplomats “sanctions.” No other country has to do likewise. During the Cold War when diplomats were expelled for spying, it was not called “sanctions.” Sanctions imply more than unilateral or bilateral expulsions of diplomats.

Second, it is clear that Obama, the CIA, and the New York Times are fully aware that the allegation is false. It is also clear that if the CIA actually believes the allegation, the intelligence agency is totally incompetent and cannot be believed on any subject.

Third, President Trump can rescind the sanctions in 21 days, a third reason that the sanctions are ridiculous.

So why are President Obama, the CIA, and the New York Times making charges that they know are false and for which they have not produced a shred of evidence?

One obvious answer is that the neoconized Obama regime is desperate to ruin US-Russian relations past the point that Trump can repair them. As the New York Times puts it, “Mr. Obama’s actions clearly create a problem for Mr. Trump.” The question the New York Times says, is whether Trump “stands with his democratic allies on Capitol Hill or his authoritarian friend in the Kremlin.”

Can Trump’s foreign policy be controlled by false allegations? According to the New York Times, Trump has relented and agreed to being briefed by the CIA about the Russian hacking now that Republicans such as Paul Ryan, John McCain, and Lindsey Graham have lined up with Obama and the CIA in accepting charges for which no evidence has been presented. However, a briefing without evidence would seem simply to further discredit the CIA in Trump’s eyes.

As I have emphasized in my columns, facts no longer have a role in the United States and its empire. Allegations alone suffice, whether in court cases, interrogation centers, foreign and domestic policies, or classrooms. The US even bases its military invasions on false allegations—“weapons of mass destruction.” Indeed, the entirely of US foreign policy since the Clinton regime has been based on nothing but false allegations.

The Russian government should have learned by now, but perhaps Moscow still thinks that facts matter in Washington’s decisions.

Possibly we should consider that more is going on than meets the eye. Perhaps the propaganda about the Russian cyber threat to democracy is being used to prepare American and/or European populations for an incident. The CIA has morphed into a “deep state” that uses disinformation and propaganda to align decisions of Congress, the executive branch, and foreign governments with secret behind-the-scenes agendas. Many books, such as Stephen Kinzer’s The Brothers and Douglas Valentine’s CIA As Organized Crime have described some of these secret agendas.

In order to deter Trump from restoring normal relations with Russia, an incident would have to be severe and irreversible. Rather than accept defeat for their agenda of US world hegemony, the neoconservatives are prepared to take high risks. The willingness to take risks is demonstrated by the public effort of the CIA Director to discredit the president-elect.

As expected, Putin’s response to the latest provocation is low key as the “sanctions” appear to be meaningless on the surface. However, in the event that something dangerous is below the surface, the Russian government might want to consider putting its military forces on alert.

Paul Craig Roberts