One 77-year-old’s search for the truth: 9/11, election fraud, illegal wars, Wall Street criminality, a stolen nuke, the neocon wars, control of the U.S. government by global corporations, the unjustified assault on Social Security, media complicity, and the "Great Recession" about to become the second Great Depression. "The most important truths are hidden from us by the powerful few who strive to steal the American dream by keeping We the People in the dark."
Wednesday, March 30, 2016
"The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave"? The later is surely true, but nothing is being done to care for our troops when the survivers return physically or mentally damaged. And if you believe the former is true, read below to learn about how our Constitution has now been virtually destroyed.
Does The United States Still Exist? — Paul Craig Roberts
March 26, 2016 | Original Here | Use original if you wish to receive his newsletter via email
Does The United States Still Exist?
An address delivered to the Libertarian Party of Florida on March 23, 2016 in Destin, Florida
Paul Craig Roberts
To answer the question that is the title, we have to know of what the US consists. Is it an ethnic group, a collection of buildings and resources, a land mass with boundaries, or is it the Constitution. Clearly what differentiates the US from other countries is the US Constitution. The Constitution defines us as a people. Without the Constitution we would be a different country. Therefore, to lose the Constitution is to lose the country.
Does the Constitution still exist? Let us examine the document and come to a conclusion.
The Constitution consists of a description of a republic with three independent branches, legislative, executive, and judicial, each with its own powers, and the Bill of Rights incorporated as constitutional amendments. The Bill of Rights describes the civil liberties of citizens that cannot be violated by the government.
Article I of the Constitution describes legislative powers. Article II describes executive powers, and Article III describes the power of the judiciary. For example, Article I, Section 1 gives all legislative powers to Congress. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power to declare war.
The Bill of Rights protects citizens from the government by making law a shield of the people rather than a weapon in the hands of the government.
The First Amendment protects the freedom of speech, the press, and assembly or public protest.
The Second Amendment gives the people the right “to keep and bear arms.”
The Third Amendment has to do with quartering of soldiers on civilians, a large complaint against King George III, but not a practice of present-day armies.
The Fourth Amendment grants “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” and prevents the issue of warrants except “upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” The Fourth Amendment prevents police and prosecutors from going on “fishing expeditions” in an effort to find some offense with which to charge a targeted individual.
The Fifth Amendment prohibits double jeopardy, self-incrimination, the taking of life, liberty, or property without due process and the prohibition of seizing property without just compensation.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees speedy and public trial, requires that a defendent be informed of the charge against him and to be confronted with the witnesses, to present witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of an attorney.
The Seventh Amendment gives the right of trial by jury to civil suits.
The Eighth Amendment prevents excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishments.
The Ninth Amendment says that the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution does not deny or disparage others retained by the people. In other words, people have rights in addition to the those listed in the proscriptions against the government’s use of abusive power.
The Tenth Amendment reserves the rights not delegated to the federal government to the states.
The Tenth Amendment is a dead letter amendment. The Third Amendment protects against an abandoned abusive practice of government. The Seventh Amendment is still relevant as it allows damages in civil suits to be determined by a jury, once a protection against unfairness and today not always the case.
The other seven amendments comprise the major protections of civil liberty. I will examine them in turn, but first let’s look at Section 1 and Section 8 of Article I. These two articles describe the major powers of Congress, and both articles have been breached. The Constitution’s grant of “all legislative powers” to Congress has been overturned by executive orders and signing statements. The president can use executive orders to legislate, and he can use signing statements to render sections of laws passed by Congress and signed by the president into non-enforced status. Legislative authority has also been lost by delegating to executive branch officials the power to write the regulations that implement the laws that are passed. The right that Section 8 gives to Congress to declare war has been usurped by the executive branch. Thus, major powers given to Congress have been lost to the executive branch.
The First Amendment has been compromised by executive branch claims of “national security” and by extensive classification. Whistleblowers are relentlessly prosecuted despite federal laws protecting them. The right of assembly and public protest are overturned by arrests, tear gas, clubs, rubber bullets, water cannons, and jail terms. Free speech is also limited by political correctness and taboo topics. Dissent shows signs of gradually becoming criminalized.
The Fourth Amendment is a dead letter amendment. In its place we have warrantless searches, SWAT team home invasions, strip and cavity searches, warrantless seizures of computers and cell phones, and the loss of all privacy to warrantless universal spying.
The Fifth Amendment is a dead letter amendment. The criminal justice system relies on self-incrimination as plea bargains are self-incrimination produced by psychological torture, and plea bargains are the basis of conviction in 97% of all felony cases. Moreover, physical torture is a feature of the “war on terror” despite its illegality under both US statute and international law and is also experienced by inmates in the US prison system.
The Fifth Amendment’s protection against deprivation of life, liberty, and property without due process of law has been lost to indefinite detention, executive assassination, and property takings without compensation. The Racketer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) passed in 1970. The act permits asset freezes, which are takings. The Comprehensive Forfeiture Act passed in 1984 and permits police to confiscate property on “probable cause,” which often means merely the presence of cash.
The Sixth Amendment is a dead letter amendment. Prosecutors routinely withhold exculpatory evidence, and judges at prosecutors’ requests have limited attorneys’ ability to defend clients.The “war on terror” has introduced secret evidence and secret witnesses, making it impossible for a defendant and his attorney to defend against the evidence.
The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of excessive bail and torture are routinely violated. It is another dead letter amendment.
It is paradoxical that every civil liberty in the Bill of Rights has been lost to a police state except for the Second Amendment, the gun rights of citizens. An armed citizenry is inconsistent with a police state, which the US now is.
Other aspects of our legal protections have been overturned, such as the long standing rule that crime requires intent. William Blackstone wrote: “An unwarrantable act without a vicious will is no crime at all.” But today we have crimes without intent. You can commit a crime and not even know it. See for example, Harvey Silverglate, Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent.
Attorney-client privilege has been lost. The indictment, prosecution, and imprisonment of defense attorney Lynne Stewart is a good example. The DOJ prevailed on her to defend a blind Muslim regarded by the DOJ as a “terrorist.” She was informed that “special administrative measures” had been applied to her client. She received a letter from the federal prosecutor informing her that she and her client would not be permitted attorney-client privilege, and that she was required to permit the government to listen to her conversations with her client. She was told that she could not carry any communications from her client to the outside world. She regarded all this as illegal nonsense and proceeded to defend her client in accordance with attorney-client privilege. Lynne Stewart was convicted of violating a letter written by a prosecutor as if the prosecutor’s letter were a law passed by Congress and present in the US code. Based on a prosecutor’s letter, Lynne Stewart was sentenced to prison. No law exists that upholds her imprisonment.
Our civil liberties are often said to be “natural rights” to which we are entitled. However, in historical fact civil liberty is a human achievement that required centuries of struggle. The long struggle for accountable law that culminated in the Glorious Revolution in England in the late 17th century can be traced back to Alfred the Great’s codification of English common law in the 9th century and to the Magna Carta in the early 13th century. Instead of issuing kingly edicts, Alfred based law on the traditional customs and behavior of the people. The Glorious Revolution established the supremacy of the people over the law and held the king and government accountable to law. The United States and other former British colonies inherited this accomplishment, an accomplishment that makes law a shield of the people and not a weapon in the hands of the state.
Today law as a shield of the people has been lost. The loss was gradual over time and culminated in the George W. Bush and Obama regime assaults on habeas corpus and due process. Lawrence Stratton and I explain how the law was lost in our book, The Tyranny of Good Intentions. Beginning with Jeremy Bentham in the late 18th century, liberals saw the protective shield of law as a constraint on the government’s ability to do good. Bentham redefined liberty as the freedom of government from restraint, not the freedom of people from government. Bentham’s influence grew over time until in our own day, to use the words of Sir Thomas More in A man for All Seasons, the law was cut down so as to better chase after devils.
We cut down the law so that we could better chase after the Mafia.
We cut down the law so that we could better chase after drug users.
We cut down the law so that we could better chase after child abusers.
We cut down the law so that we could better chase after “terrorists.”
We cut down the law so that we could better chase after whistleblowers.
We cut down the law so that we could better cover up the government’s crimes.
Today the law is cut down. Any one of us can be arrested on bogus charges and be helpless to do anything about it.
There is very little concern in legal circles about this. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) does attempt to defend civil liberty. However, just as often the ACLU is not defending the civil liberties in the Bill of Rights that protect us from the abuse of government power, but newly invented “civil rights” that are not in the Constitution, such as “abortion rights,” the right to homosexual marriage, and rights to preferential treatment for preferred minorities.
An attack on abortion rights, for example, produces a far greater outcry and resistance than the successful attack on habeas corpus and due process. President Obama was able to declare his power to execute citizens by executive branch decision alone without due process and conviction in court, and it produced barely audible protest.
Historically, a government that can, without due process, throw a citizen into a dungeon or summarily execute him is considered to be a tyranny, not a democracy. By any historical definition, the United States today is a tyranny.
Sunday, March 20, 2016
Are you left wondering what is now going on in Syria, Turkey, and the rest of the middle east? What Russia is doing now that it has stopped bombing ISIS/ISIL/Daesh jihadis? Well, Russia is now "calling the shots", not with bombs, but with diplomacy. In any event, the intrepid West Asia correspondent Pepe Escobar reports that: "It's spy thriller stuff; no one is talking. But there are indications Russia would not announce a partial withdrawal from Syria right before the Geneva negotiations ramp up unless a grand bargain with Washington had been struck. Some sort of bargain is in play, of which we still don't know the details; that's what the CIA itself is basically saying through their multiple US Think Tankland mouthpieces. And that's the real meaning hidden under a carefully timed Barack Obama interview that, although inviting suspension of disbelief, reads like a major policy change document."
OpEdNews Op Eds
Is There a US-Russia Grand Bargain in Syria?
Related Topic(s): Grand Bargain; Obama; Putin; Syria; Us-russia Relations
opednews.com reprinted from Sputnik Headlined to H3 3/19/16 Original Here
![]() |
| U.S and Russia Ceasefire in Syria (image by WeAreChange, Channel: WeAreChange) |
Some sort of bargain is in play, of which we still don't know the details; that's what the CIA itself is basically saying through their multiple US Think Tankland mouthpieces. And that's the real meaning hidden under a carefully timed Barack Obama interview that, although inviting suspension of disbelief, reads like a major policy change document.
Obama invests in proverbial whitewashing, now admitting US intel did not specifically identify the Bashar al-Assad government as responsible for the Ghouta chemical attack. And then there are nuggets, such as Ukraine seen as not a vital interest of the US -- something that clashes head on with the Brzezinski doctrine. Or Saudi Arabia as freeloaders of US foreign policy -- something that provoked a fierce response from former Osama bin Laden pal and Saudi intel supremo Prince Turki.
Tradeoffs seem to be imminent. And that would imply a power
shift has taken place above Obama -- who is essentially a messenger, a
paperboy. Still that does not mean that the bellicose agendas of both
the Pentagon and the CIA are now contained.
Russian intel cannot possibly trust a US administration infested with warmongering neocon cells. Moreover, the Brzezinski doctrine has failed -- but it's not dead. Part of the Brzezinski plan was to flood oil markets with shut-in capacity in OPEC to destroy Russia.That caused damage, but the second part, which was to lure Russia into an war in Ukraine for which Ukrainians were to be the cannon fodder in the name of "democracy," failed miserably. Then there was the wishful thinking that Syria would suck Russia into a quagmire of Dubya in Iraq proportions -- but that also failed miserably with the current Russian time out.
The Kurdish factor
Convincing explanations for the (partial) Russian withdrawal from Syria are readily available. What matters is that the Khmeimim air base and the naval base in Tartus remain untouched. Key Russian military advisers/trainers remain in place. Air raids, ballistic missile launches from the Caspian or the Mediterranean -- everything remains operational. Russian air power continues to protect the forces deployed by Damascus and Tehran.
As much as Russia may be downsizing, Iran (and Hezbollah) are not. Tehran has trained and weaponized key paramilitary forces -- thousands of soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan fighting side by side with Hezbollah and the Syrian Arab Army (SAA). The SAA will keep advancing and establishing facts on the ground.
As the Geneva negotiations pick up, those facts are now relatively frozen. Which brings us to the key sticking point in Geneva -- which has got to be included in the possible grand bargain.
The grand bargain is based on the current ceasefire (or "cessation of hostilities") holding, which is far from a given. Assuming all these positions hold, a federal Syria could emerge, what could be dubbed Break Up Light.
Essentially, we would have three major provinces: a Sunnistan, a Kurdistan and a Cosmopolistan.
Sunnistan would include Deir ez-Zor and Raqqa, assuming the whole province may be extensively purged of ISIS/ISIL/Daesh.
Kurdistan would be in place all along the Turkish border -- something that would freak out Sultan Erdogan to Kingdom Come.
And Cosmopolistan would unite the Alawi/Christian/Druze/secular Sunni heart of Syria, or the Syria that works, from Damascus up to Latakia and Aleppo.
Syrian Kurds are already busy spinning that a federal Syria would be based on community spirit, not geographical confines.
Ankara's response, predictably, has been harsh; any Kurdish federal system in northern Syria represents not only a red line but an "existential threat" to Turkey. Ankara may be falling under the illusion that Moscow, with its partial demobilizing, would look the other way if Erdogan orders a military invasion of northern Syria, as long as it does not touch Latakia province.
And yet, in the shadows, lurks the possibility that Russian intel may be ready to strike a deal with the Turkish military -- with the corollary that a possible removal of Sultan Erdogan would pave the way for the reestablishment of the Russia-Turkey friendship, essential for Eurasia integration.
What the Syrian Kurds are planning has nothing to do with separatism. Syrian Kurds are 2.2 million out of a remaining Syrian population of roughly 18 million. Their cantons across the Syria-Turkey border -- Jazeera, Kobani and Afrin -- have been established since 2013. The YPG has already linked Jazeera to Kobani, and is on their way to link them to Afrin. This, in a nutshell, is Rojava province.
The Kurds across Rojava -- heavily influenced by concepts developed by imprisoned PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan -- are deep into consultations with Arabs and Christians on how to implement federalism, privileging a horizontal self-ruled model, a sort of anarchist-style confederation. It's a fascinating political vision that would even include the Kurdish communities in Damascus and Aleppo.
Moscow -- and that is absolutely key -- supports the Kurds. So they must be part of the Geneva negotiations. The Russian long game is complex; not be strictly aligned either with Damascus or with the discredited "opposition" supported and weaponized by Turkey and the GCC. Team Obama, as usual, is on the fence. There's the "NATO ally" angle -- but even Washington is losing patience with Erdogan.
The geopolitical winners and losers
Only the proverbially clueless Western corporate media was caught off-guard by Russia's latest diplomatic coup in Syria. Consistency has been the norm.
Russia has been consistently upgrading the Russia-China strategic partnership. This has run in parallel to the hybrid warfare in Ukraine (asymmetric operations mixed with economic, political, military and technological support to the Donetsk and Lugansk republics); even NATO officials with a decent IQ had to admit that without Russian diplomacy there's no solution to the war in Donbass.
In Syria, Moscow accomplished the outstanding feat of making
Team Obama see the light beyond the fog of neo-con-instilled war,
leading to a solution involving Syria's chemical arsenal after Obama
ensnared himself in his own red line. Obama owes it to Putin and Lavrov,
who literally saved him not only from tremendous embarrassment but from
yet another massive Middle East quagmire.
The Russian objectives in Syria already laid out in September 2015 have been fulfilled. Jihadists of all strands are on the run -- including, crucially, the over 2,000 born in southern Caucasus republics. Damascus has been spared from regime change a la Saddam or Gaddafi. Russia's presence in the Mediterranean is secure.
Russia will be closely monitoring the current "cessation of hostilities"; and if the War Party decides to ramp up "support" for ISIS/ISIL/Daesh or the "moderate rebel" front via any shadow war move, Russia will be back in a flash. As for Sultan Erdogan, he can brag what he wants about his "no-fly zone" pipe dream; but the fact is the northwestern Syria-Turkish border is now fully protected by the S-400 air defense system.
Moreover, the close collaboration of the "4+1" coalition -- Russia, Syria, Iran, Iraq, plus Hezbollah -- has broken more ground than a mere Russia-Shi'te alignment. It prefigures a major geopolitical shift, where NATO is not the only game in town anymore, dictating humanitarian imperialism; this "other" coalition could be seen as a prefiguration of a future, key, global role for the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.
As we stand, it may seem futile to talk about winners and losers in the five-year-long Syrian tragedy -- especially with Syria destroyed by a vicious, imposed proxy war. But facts on the ground point, geopolitically, to a major victory for Russia, Iran and Syrian Kurds, and a major loss for Turkey and the GCC petrodollar gang, especially considering the huge geo-energy interests in play.
It's always crucial to stress that Syria is an energy war --
with the "prize" being who will be better positioned to supply Europe
with natural gas; the proposed Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline, or the rival
Qatar pipeline to Turkey that would imply a pliable Damascus.
Other serious geopolitical losers include the self-proclaimed humanitarianism of the UN and the EU. And most of all the Pentagon and the CIA and their gaggle of weaponized "moderate rebels." It ain't over till the last jihadi sings his Paradise song. Meanwhile, "time out" Russia is watching.
Labels:
Barack Obama,
Bashar al-assad,
Geneva,
Iran,
Kurdistan,
Pepe Escobar,
President Vladimir Putin,
Russia,
Syria,
the Brzezinski doctrine,
Turkey,
Ukraine,
warmongering neocon cells
Wednesday, March 16, 2016
This article was called to my attention by a Paul Craig Roberts' post, wherein he provided the following prolog to this article: "TPP Is Not A Trade Agreement. The sole purpose of TTP is to give global corporations immunity to the laws of the countries in which they do business. Indeed, TPP allows a private corporation to repeal soverign laws of sovereign countries, which no longer would be sovereign. All a corporation has to do is to sue the country for 'restraint of trade' if the corporations’ profits are harmed by the country’s laws. For example, Monsanto could sue France and force the French government to repeal its laws against GMOs. As Mike Masnick writes, we were promised a debate about TPP, but did not get one. The corporations have greased all the palms with big bucks. Every government that signs on to TPP flushes its sovereignty down the toilet. Corporations are transformed into Global Emperors against whom mere citizens have no recourse."
PCR's prolog here: http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/03/15/tpp-is-not-a-trade-agreement/
Find original tech dirt article here.
About an hour ago, representatives from 12 different nations officially signed the Trans Pacific Partnership (TTP) agreement in Auckland, New Zealand. The date, February 4th (New Zealand time) is noteworthy, because it's 90 days after the official text was released. There was a 90 day clock that was required between releasing the text and before the US could actually sign onto the agreement. The stated purpose
of this 90 day clock was in order to allow "debate" about the
agreement. Remember, the entire agreement was negotiated in secret, with
US officials treating the text of the document as if it were a national
security secret (unless you were an industry lobbyist, of course). So
as a nod to pretend "transparency" there was a promise that nothing
would be signed for 90 days after the text was actually released.
Find original tech dirt article here.
About an hour ago, representatives from 12 different nations officially signed the Trans Pacific Partnership (TTP) agreement in Auckland, New Zealand. The date, February 4th (New Zealand time) is noteworthy, because it's 90 days after the official text was released. There was a 90 day clock that was required between releasing the text and before the US could actually sign onto the agreement. The stated purpose
of this 90 day clock was in order to allow "debate" about the
agreement. Remember, the entire agreement was negotiated in secret, with
US officials treating the text of the document as if it were a national
security secret (unless you were an industry lobbyist, of course). So
as a nod to pretend "transparency" there was a promise that nothing
would be signed for 90 days after the text was actually released.
Do you know that Janet Yellen has been guiding the Fed based on these faked data? It's like the enginer of a train being told the track ahead is clear when actually another train coming the other way. Moreover, many people who make their money on the stock market believe that the latest drops in the major markets are just minor glichs, whereas in truth the market is doomed to crash for the reasons Paul Craig Roberts explains below. So if you have positions in the stock markets, you should take your money out now and/or buy into quality gold and silver shares.
Another Phony Jobs Report
March 6, 2016 | Original Here | Use original if you wish to receive his newsletter via email
Another Phony Jobs Report
And if true it is damning
The monthly payroll jobs reports have become a bad joke.
No growth in real retail sales, but 55,000 retail trade new jobs in February.
No growth in real consumer income, but 40,000 more waitresses and bartenders.
86,000 new jobs in Education, health services, and social assistance. February is a strange month to be hiring new teachers. If February brought a quarter million new jobs, how come a big hike in social assistance jobs?
Manufacturing lost 16,000 jobs.

Sunday, March 06, 2016
Dear readers: The post of Paul Craig Roberts that I re-post below has caused me to reflect on a man from Serbia who I met in 2001 when we were both Invited Professors of Research at Universités de Paris 6 et 7. And, with probability near zero, we turned out to be doing the vey same type of research and using the very same spectrometer! (See photo below). We had no trouble sharing the spectrometer and became great friends. Pavle told me that back in Serbia he had taken part in, I think, about 50 demonstrations against the dictator Slobodan Milošević, who was charged with war crimes including genocide and crimes against humanity in connection to the wars in Bosnia, Croatia, and Kosovo. At that time Pavle apparently believed that the NATO attack then in progress was to unseat Milošević. So for a while we used to converse by email and sent each other Christmas photos. Then he broke off all communication with me, not answering any of my subsequent emails. The only conclusion I can come to is that Pavle finally came to realize that NATO (run by the US) was far worse than Milošević and, I suppose, decided that no one from the US could be trusted, however friendly. Think about that for a while…
Murder Is Washington’s Foreign Policy — Paul Craig Roberts
March 4, 2016 | Original Here | Use original if you wish to receive his newsletter via email
Murder Is Washington’s Foreign Policy
Paul Craig Roberts
Washington has a long history of massacring people, for example, the destruction of the Plains Indians by the Union war criminals Sherman and Sheridan and the atomic bombs dropped on Japanese civilian populations, but Washington has progressed from periodic massacres to fulltime massacring. From the Clinton regime forward, massacre of civilians has become a defining characteristic of the United States of America.
Washington is responsible for the destruction of Yugoslavia and Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, and part of Syria. Washington has enabled Saudi Arabia’s attack on Yemen, Ukraine’s attack on its former Russian provinces, and Israel’s destruction of Palestine and the Palestinian people.
The American state’s murderous rampage through the Middle East and North Africa was enabled by the Europeans who provided diplomatic and military cover for Washington’s crimes. Today the Europeans are suffering the consequences as they are over-run by millions of refugees from Washington’s wars. The German women who are raped by the refugees can blame their chancellor, a Washington puppet, for enabling the carnage from which refugees flee to Europe.
In the article below Mattea Kramer points out that Washington has added to its crimes the mass murder of civilians with drones and missile strikes on weddings, funerals, children’s soccer games, medical centers and people’s homes. Nothing can better illustrate the absence of moral integrity and moral conscience of the American state and the population that tolerates it than the cavalier disregard of the thousands of murdered innocents as “collateral damage.” http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176110/tomgram:_mattea_kramer,_the_grief_of_others_and_the_boasts_of_candidates/
If there is any outcry from Washington’s European, Canadian, Australian, and Japanese vassals, it is too muted to be heard in the US.
As Kramer points out, American presidential hopefuls are competing on the basis of who will commit the worst war crimes. A leading candidate has endorsed torture, despite its prohibition under US and international law. The candidate proclaims that “torture works” — as if that is a justification — despite the fact that experts know that it does not work. Almost everyone being tortured will say anything in order to stop the torture. Most of those tortured in the “war on terror” have proven to have been innocents. They don’t know the answers to the questions even if they were prepared to give truthful answers. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn relates that Soviet dissidents likely to be picked up and tortured by the Soviet secret police would memorize names on gravestones in order to comply with demands for the names of their accomplices. In this way, torture victims could comply with demands without endangering innocents.
Washington’s use of invasion, bombings, and murder by drone as its principle weapon against terrorists is mindless. It shows a government devoid of all intelligence, focused on killing alone. Even a fool understands that violence creates terrorists. Washington hasn’t even the intelligence of fools.
The American state now subjects US citizens to execution without due process of law despite the strict prohibition by the US Constitution. Washington’s lawlessness toward others now extends to the American people themselves.
The only possible conclusion is that under Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama the US government has become an unaccountable, lawless, criminal organization and is a danger to the entire world and its own citizens.
Wednesday, March 02, 2016
By now the readers of my blog know that Paul Craig Roberts is my main source of materials to repost, and he is my hero. Still, my ability to explain my attachment to him is no match to the kudos that Professor Edward Curtin has writen to honor him in this short essay built around PCR's most recent book.
The Neoconservative Threat To World Order: Washington’s Perilous War For Hegemony
Review of Paul Craig Roberts’ Book
By Prof. Edward Curtin Region: USA
Global Research, February 28, 2016 Theme: Global Economy, US NATO War Agenda
You will rarely read a book written in a more courageous, intelligent, and blunt manner about profoundly pressing world problems than this one. Paul Craig Roberts is a phenomenon; no issue, no matter how controversial, escapes his astute analysis. He writes with a tornadic power and logic that convinces as it challenges. Driven by a passionate concern for the horrible direction of the world – especially the United States government’s responsibility for so much of its wretchedness – he is relentless in roiling the waters of ignorance and complacency in which so many Americans float.
A former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy in the Reagan administration and a columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Paul Craig Roberts (image right) has escaped all easy labels to become a public intellectual of the highest order. He is a prolific critic of U.S. foreign and domestic policies, with a special emphasis on the nefarious influence of the neoconservatives from the Reagan through the Obama administrations. A savage critic of the mainstream corporate media – he calls them “presstitutes” – he dissects their propaganda and disinformation like a truth surgeon and penetrates to the heart of issues in a flash.
To Order Dr. Roberts’ Book from Clarity Press, Click Here
The Neoconservative Threat To World Order is a compendium of his essays written between February 2014 and July 2015. Most of them deal with Washington’s destabilization of Ukraine and its ongoing threats against Russia. Roberts sees this new Cold War as rooted in the neoconservative doctrine of world hegemony. He correctly argues that this is based on the Wolfowitz Doctrine, written in 1992 by neoconservative Undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz (a signatory of the 1997 Project for the New American Century), which became the blueprint for NATO’s expansion to Russia’s borders and the growing threat of nuclear war that we are faced with today. In the preface he writes:
Once in place the Wolfowitz Doctrine resulted in the Clinton regime abandoning the guarantees that the George H. W. Bush administration had given to Gorbachev that NATO would not move one inch to the East. In violation of the U.S. government’s word, former Warsaw Bloc countries were incorporated into NATO. Then NATO was used to attack Yugoslavia and Serbia. Then the George W. Bush regime withdrew the U.S. from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and began locating anti-ballistic missile bases on Russia’s borders. Washington orchestrated “color revolutions” in the former Russian provinces of Georgia and Ukraine. When the Orange Revolution failed to deliver Ukraine into Washington’s hands, Washington spent $5 billion cultivating Ukrainian politicians and creating pro-American Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) that were used in Washington’s 2014 overthrow of the elected government of Ukraine.Read chronologically, these essays reward a careful reader with an understanding of the progressively menacing steps taken by the Obama administration, including the announcement that the United States is sending battle tanks, heavy equipment, and thousands of troops to be permanently stationed in Eastern European countries surrounding Russia. If the shoe were on the other foot and Putin was sending the same to Canada, Cuba, and Mexico, one would hear howls of outrage emanating from the New York Times, CNN, and the Washington Post, etc., media stenographers for Washington.
In essay after essay Roberts’ analyses give the lie to the Western media’s misleading reporting on Ukraine and its demonization of Russia. He sees these developments as leading to war unless the neoconservatives are “removed from foreign policy positions in the government and media …. The warmonger neoconservatives must be removed from Fox ‘News,’ CNN, The New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal, and in their places independent voices must replace propagandists for war. Clearly none of this is going to happen, but it must if we are to escape Armageddon.”
So the reader is enlightened but not encouraged. But this is not Roberts’ fault. He is being truthful. He is a Cassandra warning of future disasters if people don’t awaken from “a false reality created for them by their rulers.” He admits that he struggles with people’s reluctance to seek truth every time he writes a clarifying essay. Yet he is of two minds – hopeless and hopeful. He intimates that even if people awaken, the neoconservatives will maintain their power in government and media. Yet he stalwartly soldiers on, hoping to change minds, which suggests he believes at some level that changing minds has a chance of changing structures of power and ideology. His vacillation in this regard is understandable.
“People ask for solutions,” he writes, “but no solutions are possible in a dis-informed world. Populations almost everywhere are dissatisfied, but few have any comprehension of the real situation. Before there can be solutions, people must know the truth about the problem. For those inclined to be messengers, it is largely a thankless task …. Aspirations and delusions prevail over truth.”
Thankless as the task may be, Roberts elucidates many issues besides Ukraine, so these essays can also be read as self-standing analyses: 9/11 and the anthrax attacks, the case for impeachment of U.S. presidents, war crimes by U.S. officials, American “exceptionalism,” Operation Gladio, “Washington’s Iraq ‘Victory’,” European governments’ collusion with the U.S., the CIA and its media control, the Charlie Hebdo attacks, the war on terror, false flag attacks, etc. His reach is capacious and his analysis penetrating. He questions, probes, presents facts, and admits when facts are not conclusive. Impeccably logical – and straightforward – he forces the reader to reevaluate their understanding of these issues. And he references other fine writers and researchers who support and extend his points.
While correct about the rise in power and evil influence of the neoconservatives over the past thirty years or so, I think Roberts’ understanding of the machinations of secret deep state forces going back to Operation Gladio and the assassinations of JFK, RFK, and MLK, suggests he knows that the neocons are but a recent example of an old problem. The US drive for hegemony has deep roots and a long history. Wall Street, the banks, and the CIA have been entwined for many, many decades. Overthrowing governments, propaganda, assassinations, and instigating wars are their specialty. None of this is the exclusive bailiwick of neoconservatives; they are just a current, execrable example. Behind them, and liberals and conservatives of all stripes, sit powers that transcend nomenclature. I’d like to see him give more emphasis to U.S. strategy as a long-standing continuum, though this does not detract from his astute analysis of the neoconservatives. After all, these essays were written on the fly as the neocons policies were being carried out by the “liberal” Democrat Obama.
Dr. Roberts is a truth teller and a genuine patriot. Truth is his country. In a speech he gave in Mexico while accepting the International Award for Excellence in Journalism, he said, “In the United States journalists receive awards for lying for the government and the corporations…. Once a journalist sacrifices Truth to loyalty to a government, he ceases to be a journalist and becomes a propagandist.”
So if you want truth, read The Neoconservative Threat to World Order. It’s journalism at its best.
The original source of this article is Global Research
Copyright © Prof. Edward Curtin, Global Research, 2016
Sunday, February 21, 2016
Is America the greatest country on earth? Answer, only if you are rich. "Your" Congress has passed laws that allow the big banks and real estate brokers to break any law that they wish, while the people they rip off cannot challenge them (if the even the victims knew what is being done to them). If any of my U.S. readers are victims who have lost their house and job and wonder how they are going to survive on your pension or social security, come down to San Carlos, Mexico, where you can find not only houses you can afford, but also cheap medicine and denistry, beautiful beaches, and a safe environments (cops don't shoot innocent people down here).
Subprime Mortgage Whistleblowers Warn Bigger Crash on Its Way
Whistleblowers Richard Bowen and Michael Winston, along with UMKC's Bill Black, discuss the rampant fraud at Countrywide and Citigroup and how today's high foreclosure rates in states like Nevada could be a sign of what's to come - February 21, 2016 Subprime Mortgage Whistleblowers Warn Bigger Crash on Its Way
Whistleblowers Richard Bowen and Michael Winston, along with UMKC's Bill Black, discuss the rampant fraud at Countrywide and Citigroup and how today's high foreclosure rates in states like Nevada could be a sign of what's to come - February 21, 2016 Subprime Mortgage Whistleblowers Warn Bigger Crash on Its Way
https://youtu.be/OO5DxgEBn8A?list=PLhvPB4lyc4dR3U93_5f1MmPbW74Jt0SX6
Bio .
William K. Black, author of THE BEST WAY TO ROB A BANK IS TO OWN ONE, teaches economics and law at the University of Missouri Kansas City (UMKC). He was the Executive Director of the Institute for Fraud Prevention from 2005-2007. He has taught previously at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin and at Santa Clara University, where he was also the distinguished scholar in residence for insurance law and a visiting scholar at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. Black was litigation director of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, deputy director of the FSLIC, SVP and general counsel of the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco, and senior deputy chief counsel, Office of Thrift Supervision. He was deputy director of the National Commission on Financial Institution Reform, Recovery and Enforcement. Black developed the concept of "control fraud" frauds in which the CEO or head of state uses the entity as a "weapon." Control frauds cause greater financial losses than all other forms of property crime combined. He recently helped the World Bank develop anti-corruption initiatives and served as an expert for OFHEO in its enforcement action against Fannie Mae's former senior management.
Richard Bowen was a former Business Chief Underwriter for Citigroup, where he monitored the credit quality of over $90 billion annually of purchased residential mortgage loans which were put into mortgage backed securities. Beginning in 2006, he repeatedly warned management about the potential losses and ultimately warned Citi's board of directors, requesting an outside investigation. Richard testified before the SEC, with his testimony before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission being nationally televised. He story has been reported by all of the major media, and his 60 Minutes story, "Prosecuting Wall Street" has been re-aired eight times.
Michael Winston had a career of distinction in executive positions for over three decades in five Fortune 100 companies across three industries. He served as global head of leadership and organization strategy at Motorola, Merrill Lynch, McDonnell Douglas, Lockheed and Countrywide, and was hailed eight times by Leadership Excellence Journal as one of the "100 Most Influential Thinkers on Leadership in the World."
Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Gretchen Morgenson of the NY Times profiled Michael Winston's courage and integrity in an article entitled, "How A Whistleblower Conquered Countrywide" and Salon Magazine's David Dayen profiled Winston's story in a piece called "Wall-Street's Greatest Enemy: The Man Who Knows Too Much."
Winston authored the recently published book World-Class Performance, endorsed by key business executives, leading academics and famed Olympians. See http://worldclassperformancebook.com/
P.S. If any of our readers would like to learn more about our life in San Carlos, how to get here, etc., feel free to connect to me at david_griscom@yahoo.com
Wednesday, February 17, 2016
Most Americans don't understand what is going on in Syria, and those who think they know believe its citizens are trying to overthrough the (supposidly) represive government headed by (the democraticlly-elected) Assad ...and that the Russians have been bombing the supposed freedom fighters. All of this is propaganda spread by the crazed Americal neoconsevatives who literally own the U.S. government and plan to dominate the rest of the world ...or die destroying it (together with all the rest of us) in a nuclear holocaust. Below, Paul Craig Roberts explains what is REALLY going on in Syria and who is actually attacking it. Hint: not Russia, who to the contrary is defending it from ISIS/ISIL/Islamist State/ Daesh plus their providers, Washington, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. Read the history below to learn where things are heading now.
The Neoconservatives Are Brewing A Wider War In Syria — Paul Craig Roberts
February 14, 2016 | Original Here Go here to sign up to receive email notice of this news letter
The Neoconservatives Are Brewing A Wider War In Syria
Paul Craig Roberts
While you are enjoying your Sunday, the insane neoconservatives who control Western foreign policy and their Turkish and Saudi Arabian vassals might be preparing the end of the world.
Any person who relies on Western media has no accurate idea of what is happening in Syria.
I will provide a brief summary and then send you to two detailed accounts.
The neoconservative Obama regime set-up the Syrian government headed by Assad for overthrow. A long propaganda campaign conducted in Washington’s behalf by the Western media portrayed the democratically-elected Assad as a “brutal dictator who uses chemical weapons against his own people.” Washington organized and supported a front group posing as democrats and involved them in conflict with the Syrian military.
With conflict underway, Washington began predicting that something had to be done to overthrow Assad before he used “chemical weapons against his own people.” Obama turned these predictions into a “red line.” When Assad used chemical weapons against Washington’s puppets, the US would invade Syria.
With the “red line” drawn, a false flag chemical weapons attack was staged, or an accident occurred, that Washington used to say that Assad, despite the US warning, had crossed the “red line.”
Preparations for an invasion began, but hit two roadblocks. David Cameron, Washington’s puppet prime minister of Great Britain was unable to deliver British support for the invasion as the Parliament voted it down. This left Washington uncovered and vulnerable to the charge of naked aggression, a war crime.
Russian diplomacy threw up the other road block by securing the removal of all chemical weapons from Syria.
Their invasion plan frustrated, the neoconservatives sent the jihadists they had used to overthrow Gaddafi in Libya to overthrow Assad. Initially known as ISIS, then ISIL, then the Islamist State, and now Daesh, a term that can be interpreted as an insult. Perhaps the intention of the name changes is to keep the Western public thoroughly confused about who is who and what is what.
Washington now pretends that it is fighting the Islamist State, but Washington is doing its best to frustrate the success of the Russian/Syrian alliance that is defeating the Islamist State..
Washington’s support of the Islamist State is the cause of the war in Syria. General Michael Flynn, the recently retired head of the US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) has stated publicly that it was a “willful decision” of the Obama regime to support ISIS. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/08/10/former_dia_chief_michael_flynn_says_rise_of_isis_was_willful_decision_of_us_government.html
See also: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/iraq-war-isis-michael-flynn_us_565c83a9e4b079b2818af89c
The neoconservative insistence that “Assad must go” comprises a threat to the security of Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Hezbollah is the Lebanese force that has twice defeated Israel’s attempt to annex southern Lebanon for its water resources. Hezbollah is dependent on Syrian and Iranian support for its arms and financing. Israel wants rid of Hezbollah.
The Islamic State that Washington is trying to create in Syria would provide Washington with a means of destabilizing Iran and Russia by exporting jihadism into those countries. The Russian Federation has Muslim populations as do former provinces of the Soviet Union that now cooperate with Russia. By bogging down Russia in internal conflicts, Washington can move Russia out of the way of Washington’s exercise of hegemony. Similarly, non-Persian populations in Iran could be radicalized by jihadism and used to destabilize Iran.
In order to protect themselves, Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah have come to the support of Syria.
The Russians are there legally at the invitation of the Syrian government. The US is there illegally.
Russian air power in support of the Syrian Army has turned the tide against the Islamist State.
The invaders are being driven out. The neoconservatives cannot accept this defeat.
Washington is preparing a Syrian invasion by Turkey and Saudi Arabia, the purpose of which is to split Syria in half with Washington controlling the eastern part with the oil fields.
Possibly this is a bluff to get Russia to accept a Syrian settlement less favorable to Russian, Iranian, and Syrian interests. However, the Russian government cannot risk that it is only a bluff. If a US/Turkish/Saudi force were to arrive first in Raqqa and Deir Ezzor, Syria would be dismembered.
The Russians can get there first by dropping in paratroopers. In other words, what the insane neoconservatives are doing is giving the Russian government a big incentive to introduce Russian ground troops into the conflict. Once those troops are there, you can safely bet that the insane neoconservatives will cause conflict between them and US/Turkish forces. A wider war will have begun from which neither side can back down.
Here is a description of the race to Raqqa: http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/02/the-race-to-raqqa-is-on-to-keep-its-unity-syria-must-win-.html
Here is The Saker’s take on the seriousness of the situation: http://thesaker.is/week-eighteen-of-the-russian-intervention-in-syria-a-dramatic-escalation-appears-imminent/
Friday, February 12, 2016
Paul Craig Roberts reviews all the ways your government is "consistently acting internationally and domestically as a criminal, disregarding its own laws, international laws, the sovereignty of other countries, and the US Constitution. A worse criminal government has never existed. Yet, Americans remain subservient to the criminals that they have placed in power over themselves." And much, much more. Wake up America!
Are Americans Too Insouciant To Survive? — Paul Craig Roberts
February 11, 2016 | Original Here Go here to sign up to receive email notice of this news letter
Are Americans Too Insouciant To Survive?
Paul Craig Roberts
When one looks at the deplorable state of the world, one cannot help but wonder at the insouciance of the American people. Where are they? Do they exist or are they a myth? Have they been put to sleep by an evil demon? Are they so lost in The Matrix that they cannot get out?
Ever since Clinton’s second term the US has been consistently acting internationally and domestically as a criminal, disregarding its own laws, international laws, the sovereignty of other countries, and the US Constitution. A worse criminal government has never existed. Yet, Americans remain subservient to the criminals that they have placed in power over themselves.
According to polls, Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders are splitting the Democratic vote 50-50 as preferred Democratic presidential candidate. This is extraordinary.
Hillary Clinton represents the interests of Wall Street and the mega-banks, the Israel Lobby, and the interests of the military/security complex. These interests are totally opposed to the interests of the American people.
In his book, What’s the Matter with Kansas, Thomas Frank raised the question of why Amerians vote against their own interests? Why do Americans go to the voting both and do themselves in?
Whether you agree with Thomas Frank’s answer or not, Americans do, on a regular basis, harm themselves by voting for people who are agents of vested interests diametrically opposed to the interests of American citizens.
How is it possible, if Democrats are informed people, that half of them prefer Hillary Clinton? Between February 2001 and May 2015 Bill and Hilary collected $153 million in speaking fees. The fees averaged $210,795 per speech. http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/02/06/no-artful-smear-clintons-paid-153-million-speaking-fees-analysis-shows
I can remember when Bill and Hillary were in public office when their speeches were free. No one wanted to listen to them when the speeches were free. Clearly, Bill is being paid off for his past services to the powerful interest groups that control the United States, and Hillary is being paid off for her future service to the same groups.
How then is it possible that half of Democrats would prefer Hillary? Is it because she is a woman and women want a woman president more than they want their civil liberties, peace, and employment for themselves, their spouses and their children?
Or is it because, given the pressitute character of the American media, the people haven’t a clue?
If you vote for Hillary, you are voting for someone who has been paid off to the tune of $153 million by powerful vested interests who have no concern whatsoever for your interests. In addition, Hillary has the necessary campaign funds from the powerful interest groups for her presidential nomination campaign. As if this isn’t damning enough, Hugh Wharton writes that the National Democratic Committee is in league with Hillary to steal, if necessary, the nomination from Sanders and the voters. http://usuncut.com/news/the-dnc-superdelegates-just-screwed-over-bernie-sanders-and-spit-in-the-faces-of-voters/
In contrast, the interest groups who rule America are not contributing to Sanders.
Therefore, the choice of Sanders is obvious, but 50% of Democrats are too braindead to see it.
Although Hillary is a substantial threat to America, the threat of nuclear war is much greater, and the Democratic Obama regime in the hands of neoconservatives has just greatly amplified the threat of nuclear war.
The United States government, or perhaps we should say the exploiter and deceiver of the American people, has announced a three-fold increase in its military presence on Russia’s borders. The excuse for this great boost in the profits and power of the US military-security complex is “Russian aggression.”
But there is no sign of this agression. So Washington and its servile presstitutes in the Western media make it up. They prolaim a lie.
“Russia invaded Ukraine” proclaims the propaganda. No mention is made of Washington’s coup in Ukraine that overthrew a democratically elected government and began a war against the Russian populations of eastern and southern Ukraine, former provinces of Russia added to the Ukrainian Soviet Republic by Soviet leaders. In the presstitute media, no mention is made of Washington’s intention of seizing Russia’s only warm water port in Crimea on the Black Sea. http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/02/us-control-over-crimea-aim-of-coup-in.html
Having created a nonexistant Russian invasion in place of the real US coup in Ukraine in the minds of the indoctrinated Americans, Washington now claims that Russia is going to invade the Baltics and Poland. Nothing could be further from the truth, but this lie from the Obama regime now determines that the US military presence on Russia’s borders will increase three-fold.
The escalation of the US/NATO threat on Russia’s borders forces a Russian response. Considering that the Russophobic governments in Poland and the Baltic States have unstable judgement, military buildups bring risks of miscalculations.
There is a limit to the level of threat that the Russian government can tolerate. The impotent Obama is in the firm grip of the neoconservatives and the military-security complex. The neoconservatives are motivated by their ideology of American world hegemony. The military-security complex is motivated by power and profit. These motives bring the United States and its vassals into conflict with Russia’s (and China’s) sovereign existence.
Within the councils of American foreign policy there is not sufficient weight to counter the neoconservative drive to war with Russia and China. In conventional war, the US is not a military match for the Russian/Chinese strategic alliance. Therefore, the war would be nuclear. The power of hydrogen bombs is immensely more powerful than the atomic bombs that the US dropped on Japan. Nuclear war means the end of life on earth.
Americans can know that democracy has failed them, because there is no check on the neoconservatives’ ability to foment war with Russia and China.
The neocons control the press, and the press portrays Russia as “an existential threat to the United States.” Once this fiction is drilled into the brains of Americans, it is child’s play for propagandists to create endless fears that deplete taxpayers of income in order to create profits for the military-security complex by relaunching the Cold War and an armaments race.
That is what is currently going on. The inability of Americans to realize that they are being taken into a conflict that benefits only the profits and power of the military-security complex and the ideology of a small group of crazies demonstrates the impotence of American democracy.
Universities and think tanks are replete with ambitious people who, chasing grants and influence, fuel the Russophobic hysteria. For example, on February 9 the Washington Post published an article by Michael Ignatieff, the Edward R. Murrow professor at Harvard University’s Kennedy School, and Leon Wieseltier, the Isaiah Berlin Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington. The article is a complete misrepresentation of the facts in Syria and called for US measures that would result in military conflict with Russia. It was irresponsible for the Washington Post to publish the article, but the decision is consistent with the Post’s presstitute nature. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-era-of-us-abdication-on-syria-must-end/2016/02/09/55226716-ce96-11e5-88cd-753e80cd29ad_story.html
The propaganda line maintained by the US government, the neoconservatives, the military/security complex, the presstitutes, and fiction-writers such as Ignatieff and Wieseltier is that Russia is not bombing the Islamic State jihadists who are attempting to overthrow the Syrian government in order to establish a jihadish state that would threaten the Middle East, Iran, and Russia herself. The official line is that the Russians are bombing the democratic “rebels” who are trying to overthrow an alleged “brutal Syrian dictator.” The conflict that the US government started by sending ISIS to Syria to overthrow the Syrian government is blamed on the Russian and Syrian governments.
Ignatieff and Wieseltier say that the US has put its “moral standing” at risk by permitting the Russians to bomb and to starve innocent women and children, as if the US had any moral standing after destroying seven countries so far in the 21st century, producing millions of dead and displaced persons, many of whom are now overrunning Europe as refugees from Washington’s wars.
The recently retired head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Michael Flynn, has said that the Obama regime made a “willful decision” to support ISIS and use ISIS against the Assad government in Syria. That the violence in Syria originated in a US/ISIS conspiracy against Syria is ignored by Ignatieff and Wieseltier. Instead, they blame Russia despite the fact that it is Russia’s air support for the Syrian Army that has rolled back ISIS.
Where were Ignatieff and Wieseltier when Washington and its vassals destroyed Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Afghanistan, Yemen, much of Pakistan, overthrew the first democratically elected government in Egypt, overthrew the government in Ukraine and started a war against the Russian population, and supplied Israel with the weapons and money to steal Palestine from the Palestinians? Where were they when Clinton destroyed Yugoslavia and Serbia? Where are they when ISIS murders Syrians and eats the livers of its executed victims?
It would be interesting to know who financed the professorship in Edward R. Murrow’s name and the fellowship in Isiah Berlin’s name and how these positions came to be staffed with their current occupants.
Reagan and Gorbachev brought the Cold War to an end. The George H.W. Bush administration supported the end of the Cold War and gave further guarantees to Russia. But Clinton attacked Serbia, a Russian ally and broke the agreement that NATO would not expand into Eastern Europe to Russia’s border. When the neoconservatives’ plans to invade Syria and to attack Iran were frustrated by Russian diplomacy, the neocons turned on Russia with fury.
In 1961 President Eisenhower warned the American people of the threat posed by the military-security complex. That was 55 years ago. This complex is so strong today that it is able to divert massive taxpayer resources to its coffers while the living standard and economic prospects of the American people decline.
The military/security complex requires an enemy. When the Cold War ended, the “Muslim Threat” was created. This “threat” has now been superseded by the “Russian Threat,” which is much more useful in keeping Europe in line and in scaring people with prospective invasions and nuclear attacks that are far beyond the power and reach of jihadists.
Superpower America required a more dangerous enemy than a few lightly armed jihadists, so the “Russian threat” was created. To drive home the threat, Russia and her president are constantly demonized. The conclusion is unavoidable that the insouciant American people are being prepared for war.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
















