Category: CIA

About CIA

Subscribe Feeds

Sleepwet: vrijgegeven documenten bewijzen dat de VS gewone burgers bespioneert >> zie ons voorland…….

Posted on by Telmo Claro

Onlangs vrijgegeven documenten, gepubliceerd door ‘The Electronic Border Foundation’ (EFF) en verkregen van de in opspraak geraakte Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), bewiijzen dat de VS wel degelijk gewone burgers bespioneert, mensen die niets onwettigs hebben gedaan…..

Vooral de NSA en FBI maken zich schuldig aan het afluisteren van gesprekken tussen mensen die op geen manier een bedreiging vormen…… Ook aan het publiek in de VS is meermaals voorgehouden dat met metadata verzameling hun privacy niet geschonden zou worden, wel dus…….
Overigens bleek eerder al, dat de geheime diensten in de VS (waartoe ik in deze ook de FBI reken) foto’s en filmpjes uit internet bestanden van mensen plukken en bekijken……..

‘Onafhankelijke’ rechters besluiten achter gesloten deuren wat wel of niet is toegestaan en daarover is geen enkele openheid…… In Nederland wil de regering met de Sleepwet die stap zelfs achterwege laten bij het verzamelen van data en reken maar dat men wel degelijk telefoongesprekken zal beluisteren, ook al is daar geen enkele reden toe…… De toestemming mag met de Sleepwet in werking, ook achteraf worden gevraagd en gegeven >> de dood in de pot voor ons recht op privacy, onze privacy waar al niet teveel meer van over is……..

Zie in de VS waar wij naar toe gaan met de nieuwe Sleepwet, die Rutte 3 van plan is erdoor te drukken…… Geloof maar niet dat het referendum, zelfs als de grote meerderheid tegen de Sleepwet stemt, daar enige verandering in zal brengen……. We hebben immers niet voor niets een ‘constitutionele democratie’, met een volksvertegenwoordiging, uh ik bedoel een bedrijven- en welgesteldenvertegenwoordiging…….

Newly Released Documents Prove the US Gov’t Is Spying on Innocent Americans

February 26, 2018 at 7:39 am
Written by Derrick Broze
(AP) — The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has acquired formerly classified court orders from the controversial Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) which detail how the court violates the privacy of innocent Americans caught in the crossfire of federal surveillance. The documents are the result of Freedom of Information Act requests filed by the EFF as part of an effort to shine light on the inner workings of the secret court.
The EFF writes:

These documents raise larger questions about whether the government can meaningfully protect people’s privacy and free expression rights under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which permits officials to engage in warrantless mass surveillance with far less court oversight than is required under the “traditional” FISA warrant process.[…]

Although many of the 13 opinions are heavily redacted — and the government withheld another 26 in full — the readable portions show several instances of the court blocking government efforts to expand its surveillance or ordering the destruction of information obtained improperly as a result of its spying.

The documents provided to the EFF detail several cases where conversations of people not targeted by federal authorities were swept up in the course of surveillance investigations. Specifically, the documents show the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) spying on innocent people and attempting to conceal the practice. A 40-page court opinion from 2004 or 2005 details how FISC Judge Harold Baker declined a proposal from FBI to save these conversations, often known as incidental collection. “The opinion demonstrates both the risks of over-collection as part of targeted surveillance as well as the benefits of engaged, detailed court oversight,” The EFF notes.
Under the standards set by section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the FISC approves digital surveillance for federal agencies who are supposed to follow certain procedures to prevent the accidental interception of innocent people’s communications. The new documents highlight how the FBI used incidental collection to capture the communications of a number of innocent people.
The FBI attempted to argue to Judge Baker that the practice has “minimal, if any” impact on the Fourth Amendment protections against invasions of privacy. The FISC apparently actually did their job by attempting to prevent this practice from continuing and becoming normalized. The surveillance court appeared to admonish the FBI for expanding the use of incidental communications, rather than deleting the communications of individuals unrelated to ongoing investigations.
The EFF notes that the court “faulted the FBI for failing to account ‘the possibility that overzealous or ill-intentioned personnel might be inclined to misuse information, if given the opportunity.’ As the court put it, ‘the advantage of minimization at the acquisition stage is clear. Information that is never acquired in the first place cannot be misused.’”
The surveillance court was originally created under the the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) in response to reports produced by the 1975 Church Committee. The Senate panel was tasked with investigating the foreign and domestic surveillance operations by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), NSA, and FBI during the 1970s. The Church Committee also released detailed reports on the governments Counter Intelligence Programs (COINTELPRO) that were used against activists and influential voices of opposition during the 1950s and ’60s.
These newly released documents offer the latest example of how the secret surveillance court is ripe for abuse. Although this example shows one judge working to maintain some level of accountability, the vast majority of the documents were redacted so there is no way to see if this case is the exception or the norm. Further, this court order is thirteen to fourteen years old. Take a moment to consider the massive growth of the U.S. surveillance state and the FISC specifically. There is simply no way to trust that this single judges effort to hold the federal government accountable represent the status quo.
Much of the issues surrounding the secret surveillance court related to Section 702 of the FISA bill. According the EFF, Section 702 “allows the NSA to collect emails, browser history and chat logs of Americans. Section 702 also allows other agencies, like the FBI, to search through that data without a warrant. Those searches are called ‘backdoor searches.’” As revealed by whistleblower Edward Snowden in 2013, Section 702 also authorizes two Internet surveillance programs known as PRISM and Upstream.
PRISM gathers messaging data sent via Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, and other tech companies, while Upstream taps into the so-called backbone of the Internet to gather data on targets. The NSA began collecting Americans’ international phone calls and emails without a warrant immediately after the 9/11 attacks as part of the Stellar Wind program. Once the public became aware of the program in 2008, Congress codified the program into law by passing section 702 of FISA.
The FISA Court is a glaring example of The Deep State. A secret court run by secret judges who interpret the law behind closed doors and who refuse to publicly release their findings or their interpretation.
By Derrick Broze / Republished with permission / Activist Post / Report a typo

================================

Zie ook: ‘Volkskrant en Nieuwsuur Fake News over ‘Russische hacks…..’‘

Via Artwave Art de volgende link: ‘Hoe zit het precies met die ‘sleepwet’? In deze vier podcasts leggen we het uit’ (door de Volkskrant, dus let op en geloof vooral niet alles wat je verteld wordt, zo zouden wij ook voordelen hebben van de sleepwet….. ha! ha! ha! ha! Alsof ze je had eraf hakken en dan stellen dat je nu veel beter gebruik van je andere hand zal gaan maken….)

Venezuela: VS verandering van regime mislukt >> de Venezolanen wacht een VS invasie

Posted on by Telmo Claro

Na alle moeite die de VS zich al 20 jaar getroost om een eind te maken aan het democratisch gekozen socialistisch bewind van Venezuela, wijst alles erop dat de VS bezig is met Peru, Colombia en Brazilië, van wie de laatste twee landen grenzen aan Venezuela, een invasie voor te bereiden in dat land……..

Er hebben in 2017 al vier grote militaire oefeningen plaats gevonden in Latijns Amerika en zelfs de NAVO schijnt nu een militaire basis te hebben in Brazilië, waarschijnlijk dezelfde als de ‘tijdelijke’ militaire VS basis in Brazilië, in de buurt waar Venezuela, Brazilië en Colombia aan elkaar grenzen…… Zoals gezegd: vorig jaar hebben er maar liefst 4 grote militaire oefeningen plaatsgevonden, met deelname van Colombia, Brazilië en Peru, alles o.l.v. de VS….. Eén van die oefeningen, ‘Operation: America United’ was zelfs de grootste militaire oefening ooit gehouden in Midden- en Zuid-Amerika (Latijns Amerika)………

 Overigens heeft de VS al militaire bases in Colombia en het Caraïbisch gebied, onderhoudt daarnaast innige banden met andere landen in de buurt van Venezuela, wat dat betreft is Venezuela al omsingeld met VS militaire bases (uiteraard speelt ook Nederland weer ‘een mooie rol’ in deze…)
De VS is al meer dan 18 jaar bezig met een economische oorlog tegen Venezuela, al heeft deze tot nu toe weinig of niets opgeleverd wat betreft ‘regime change’. Al onder ‘vredesduif’ Obama heeft de VS deze oorlog verscherpt en VS bedrijven ‘dringend aangeraden’ hun supermarktketens in Venezuela niet langer te bevoorraden. Hetzelfde deed de VS met buitenlandse investeerders en je weet het waarschijnlijk wel, als de VS dreigt, gehoorzamen de bedrijven en instellingen, daar ze het anders wel kunnen vergeten als bedrijf of instelling……..

 Als gevolg van deze boycot is er niet alleen een groot tekort aan levensmiddelen, maar bijvoorbeeld ook aan medicijnen. Daarmee kan de VS ten overvloede nog eens worden aangewezen als een terreurstaat, die schijt heeft aan ellende onder de gewone bevolking en aan mensenrechten, zoals dit gestolen land al zo vaak elders heeft laten zien, maar zeker in Zuid- en Midden-Amerika…….

 De gewelddadige demonstraties in Venezuela van vorig jaar, werden ook al door de VS georganiseerd, waar zelfs gewapende groepen uit het buitenland werden ingezet tegen politie en leger van Venezuela……

 In 2002 heeft er al een militaire coup plaatsgevonden in Venezuela, die met hulp van de (arme) bevolking de kop werd ingedrukt, een coup die zoals gewoonlijk werd geregisseerd door de CIA…….
Een militaire coup nu lijkt zeer onwaarschijnlijk ,daar het leger voor het overgrote deel achter de socialistische regering Maduro staat.
Lees het volgend uitstekende en sterk onderbouwde artikel dat duidelijk maakt waar de VS mee bezig is t.a.v. Venezuela, een artikel van Kevin Zeese en Maragaret Flowers, door Anti-Media overgenomen van Consortium News:

US Regime Change Fails in Venezuela: Military Coup or Invasion Next?

February 14, 2018 at 10:27 am
Written by Consortium News
(CN) — Several signals point to a possible military strike on Venezuela, with high-ranking officials and influential politicians making clear that it is a distinct possibility.
Speaking at his alma mater, the University of Texas, on February 1, Secretary of State Tillerson suggested a potential military coup in in the country. Tillerson then visited allied Latin American countries urging regime change and more economic sanctions on Venezuela. Tillerson is also reportedly considering banning the processing or sale of Venezuelan oil in the United States and is discouraging other countries from buying Venezuelan oil.
In a series of tweets, Senator Marco Rubio, the Republican from Florida, where many Venezuelan oligarchs live, openly called for a military coup in Venezuela. “The world would support the Armed Forces in #Venezuela if they decide to protect the people & restore democracy by removing a dictator,” the former presidential candidate tweeted.
How absurd — remove an elected president with a military coup to restore democracy? Does that pass the straight face test? This refrain of Rubio and Tillerson seems to be the nonsensical public position of U.S. policy.
The U.S. has been seeking regime change in Venezuela since Hugo Chavez was elected in 1998. Trump joined Presidents Obama and Bush before him in continuing efforts to change the government and put in place a U.S.-friendly oligarch government.
They came closest in 2002 when a military coup removed Chavez. The Commander-in-Chief of the Venezuelan military announced Chavez had resigned and Pedro Carmona, of the Venezuelan Chamber of Commerce, became interim president. Carmona dissolved the National Assembly and Supreme Court and declared the Constitution void. The people surrounded the presidential palace and seized television stations, Carmona resigned and fled to Colombia. Within 47 hours, civilians and the military restored Chavez to the presidency. The coup was a turning point that strengthened the Bolivarian Revolution, showed people could defeat a coup and exposed the US and oligarchs.
U.S. Regime Change Tactics Have Failed In Venezuela
The U.S. and oligarchs continue their efforts to reverse the Bolivarian Revolution. The United States has a long history of regime change around the world and has tried all of its regime change tools in Venezuela. So far they have failed.
Economic War
Destroying the Venezuelan economy has been an ongoing campaign by the US and oligarchs. It is reminiscent of the US coup in Chile which ended the presidency of Salvador Allende. To create the environment for the Chilean coup, President Nixon ordered the CIA to “make the economy scream.”
Henry Kissinger devised the coup noting a billion dollars of investment were at stake. He also feared the “the insidious model effect” of the example of Chile leading to other countries breaking from the United States and capitalism. Kissinger’s top deputy at the National Security Council, Viron Vaky, opposed the coup saying, “What we propose is patently a violation of our own principles and policy tenets .… If these principles have any meaning, we normally depart from them only to meet the gravest threat … our survival.”
These objections hold true regarding recent US coups, including in Venezuela and Honduras, Ukraine and Brazil, among others. Allende died in the coup and wrote his last words to the people of Chile, especially the workers, “Long live the people! Long live the workers!” He was replaced by Augusto Pinochet, a brutal and violent dictator.
For decades the US has been fighting an economic war, “making the economy scream,” in Venezuela.
Wealthy Venezuelans have been conducting economic sabotage aided by the US with sanctions and other tactics. This includes hoarding food, supplies and other necessities in warehouses or in Colombia while Venezuelan markets are bare. The scarcity is used to fuel protests, e.g. “The March of the Empty Pots,” a carbon copy of marches in Chile before the September 11, 1973 coup. Economic warfare has escalated through Obama and under Trump, with Tillerson now urging economic sanctions on oil.
President Maduro recognized the economic hardship but also said sanctions open up the opportunity for a new era of independence and “begins the stage of post-domination by the United States, with Venezuela again at the center of this struggle for dignity and liberation.” The second-in-command of the Socialist Party, Diosdado Cabello, said, “[if they] apply sanctions, we will apply elections.”
Opposition Protests
Another common US regime change tool is supporting opposition protests. The Trump administration renewed regime change operations in Venezuela and the anti-Maduro protests, which began under Obama, grew more violent. The opposition protests included barricades, snipers and murders as well as widespread injuries. When police arrested those using violence, the US claimed Venezuela opposed free speech and protests.
The opposition tried to use the crack down against violence to achieve the U.S. tactic of dividing the military. The U.S. and western media ignored opposition violence and blamed the Venezuelan government instead. Violence became so extreme it looked like the opposition was pushing Venezuela into a Syrian-type civil war. Instead, opposition violence backfired on them.
Violent protests are part of U.S. regime change repertoire. This was demonstrated in the U.S. coup in Ukraine, where the U.S. spent $5 billion to organize government opposition including U.S. and EU funding violent protesters. This tactic was used in early US coups like the 1953 Iran coup of Prime Minister Mossadegh. The U.S. has admitted organizing this coup that ended Iran’s brief experience with democracy. Like Venezuela, a key reason for the Iran coup was control of the nation’s oil.
Funding Opposition
There has been massive U.S. investment in creating opposition to the Venezuelan government. Tens of millions of dollars have been openly spent through USAID, the National Endowment for Democracy and other related US regime change agencies. It is unknown how much the CIA has spent from its secret budget, but the CIA has also been involved in Venezuela. Current CIA director, Mike Pompeo, said he is “hopeful there can be a transition in Venezuela.”
The United States has also educated leaders of opposition movements, e.g. Leopoldo López was educated at private schools in the US, including the CIA-associated Kenyon College. He was groomed at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government and made repeated visits to the regime change agency, the National Republican Institute.
Elections
While the US calls Venezuela a dictatorship, it is in fact a strong democracy with an excellent voting system. Election observers monitor every election.
In 2016, the economic crisis led to the opposition winning a majority in the National Assembly. One of their first acts was to pass an amnesty law. The law described 17 years of crimes including violent felonies and terrorism committed by the opposition. It was an admission of crimes back to the 2002 coup and through 2016. The law demonstrated violent treason against Venezuela. One month later, the Supreme Court of Venezuela ruled the amnesty law was unconstitutional. U.S. media, regime change advocates and anti-Venezuela human rights groups attacked the Supreme Court decision, showing their alliance with the admitted criminals.
Years of violent protests and regime change attempts, and then admitting their crimes in an amnesty bill, have caused those opposed to the Bolivarian Revolution to lose power and become unpopular. In three recent elections Maduro’s party won regional, local and the Constituent Assembly elections.
The electoral commission announced the presidential election will be held on April 22. Maduro will run for re-election with the United Socialist Party. Opposition leaders such as Henry Ramos and Henri Falcon have expressed interest in running, but the opposition has not decided whether to participate. Henrique Capriles, who narrowly lost to Maduro in the last election, was banned from running for office because of irregularities in his campaign, including taking foreign donations. Capriles has been a leader of the violent protests. When his ban was announced he called for protests to remove Maduro from office. Also banned was Leopoldo Lopez, another leader of the violent protests who is under house arrest serving a thirteen year sentence for inciting violence.
Now, the United States says it will not recognize the presidential election and urges a military coup. For two years, the opposition demanded presidential elections, but now it is unclear whether they will participate. They know they are unpopular and Maduro is likely to be re-elected.
Is War Against Venezuela Coming?
A military coup faces challenges in Venezuela as the people, including the military, are well educated about US imperialism. Tillerson openly urging a military coup makes it more difficult.
The government and opposition recently negotiated a peace settlement entitled “Democratic Coexistence Agreement for Venezuela.” They agreed on all of the issues including ending economic sanctions, scheduling elections and more. They agreed on the date of the next presidential election. It was originally planned for March, but in a concession to the opposition, it was rescheduled for the end of April. Maduro signed the agreement even though the opposition did not attend the signing ceremony. They backed out after Colombian President Santos, who was meeting with Secretary Tillerson, called and told them not to sign. Maduro will now make the agreement a public issue by allowing the people of Venezuela to sign it.
Not recognizing elections and urging a military coup are bad enough, but more disconcerting is that Admiral Kurt Tidd, head of Southcom, held a closed door meeting in Colombia after Tillerson’s visit. The topic was “regional destabilization” and Venezuela was a focus.
A military attack on Venezuela from its Colombian and Brazilian borders is not far fetched. In January, the NY Times asked, “Should the US military invade Venezuela?” President Trump said the US is considering US military force against Venezuela. His chief of staff, John Kelly, was formerly the general in charge of Southcom. Tidd has claimed the crisis, created in large part by the economic war against Venezuela, requires military action for humanitarian reasons.
War preparations are already underway in Colombia, which plays the role of Israel for the US in Latin America. The coup government in Brazil, increased its military budget 36 percent, and participated in Operation: America United, the largest joint military exercise in Latin American history. It was one of four military exercises by the US with Brazil, Colombia and Peru in Latin America in 2017. The US Congress ordered the Pentagon to develop military contingencies for Venezuela in the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act.
While there is opposition to US military bases, James Patrick Jordan explains, on our radio show, the US has military bases in Colombia and the Caribbean and military agreements with countries in the region; and therefore, Venezuela is already surrounded.
The United States is targeting Venezuela because the Bolivarian Revolution provides an example against U.S. imperialism. An invasion of Venezuela will become another war-quagmire that kills innocent Venezuelans, U.S. soldiers and others over control of oil. People in the United States who support the self-determination of countries should show solidarity with Venezuelans, expose the U.S. agenda and publicly denounce regime change. We need to educate people about what is really happening in Venezuela to overcome the false media coverage.
Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers co-direct Popular Resistance. [This article originally appeared at https://popularresistance.org and is republished with authors’ permission.]
By Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers / Republished with permission / Consortium News / Report a typo

==================================

Ter herinneren aan de enorme agressie van de VS: ‘VS buitenlandbeleid sinds WOII: een lange lijst van staatsgrepen en oorlogen……….‘ en: ‘List of wars involving the United States‘

Zie ook:
‘Halliburton en Chevron hebben groot belang bij ‘regime change’ in Venezuela‘

 ‘Mike Pence (vicepresident VS) gaf Guaidó, de door de VS gewenste leider, groen licht voor de coup in Venezuela‘

‘VS coup tegen Maduro in volle gang……..‘

‘VS weer op oorlogspad in Latijns-Amerika: Venezuela het volgende slachtoffer…….‘

‘Als de VS stopt met spelen van ‘politieagent’ en het vernielen van de wereld, zullen de slechte krachten winnen……‘

‘VS zet Latijns-Amerikaanse landen tegen elkaar op en is bezig met voorbereiding invasie Venezuela‘

‘Trump wilde naast de economische oorlogsvoering tegen Venezuela dat land daadwerkelijk militair aanvallen……‘

‘Venezolaanse regionale verkiezingen gehekeld door westen, terwijl internationale waarnemers deze als eerlijk beoordeelden……….‘

‘Venezuela: ‘studentenprotest’ wordt uitgevoerd door ingehuurde troepen………‘

‘Venezuela: Target of Economic Warfare‘

‘Venezuela moet en zal ‘verlost’ worden van Maduro, met ‘oh wonder’ een dikke rol van de VS en de reguliere westerse media‘

‘Venezolaanse regering treedt terecht op tegen de uiterst gewelddadige oppositie!!‘

‘Venezuela ontwricht, wat de reguliere media u niet vertellen……..‘

‘VS steunt rechtse coalitie (MUD) in Venezuela………‘






‘The Left and Venezuela‘ (met mogelijkheid tot directe vertaling)


VS bewandelt dezelfde weg richting Iran, als die voor de illegale oorlog tegen Irak in 2003, aldus één van de verantwoordelijken voor die oorlog……..

Posted on by Telmo Claro

Alsof we terug zijn in de tijd, de tijd voor de illegale aanval van de VS tegen Irak in 2003. Destijds werd er door Collin Powell (toenmalig VS minister van buitenlandse zaken) keihard gelogen in de VN, om een enorme oorlogsmisdaad van te voren recht te kunnen praten……. (een oorlog tegen een ander land voeren is een gigantische oorlogsmisdaad)

Ook nu wordt er door de VS ambassadeur voor de VN, hare kwaadaardigheid en superoplichter Haley, zonder blikken of blozen gelogen over ‘het gevaar Iran…….’

Lawrence Wilkerson was de stafchef van Colin Powell. Hij was dan ook één van de medeverantwoordelijken voor de illegale oorlog tegen Irak in 2003…….

Dezelfde Wilkerson beschuldigt nu de Trump administratie van het manipuleren van ‘bewijsmateriaal’ en het angstzaaien voor Iran (waar Wilkerson vergeet haatzaaien te noemen, dit is immers een vast onderdeel in de leugencampagnes die de VS voert, haatzaaien tegen een tegenstander, neem de leugens over het vermoorden van couveuse baby’s in Koeweit door Iraakse militairen, voorafgaand aan de eerste illegale oorlog van de VS in 1991 tegen Irak….. In 2003 waren het de massavernietigingswapens die Irak zou hebben, terwijl de VN wapeninspecteur Blix meermaals stelde dat dit niet het geval was en dat was het dan ‘ook niet…..’

Of wat dacht je van de beschuldigingen aan het adres van Syrië voor het gebruiken van gifgas tegen de eigen bevolking, dit is nooit bewezen, sterker nog: wel werd bewezen dat elke gifgasaanval die werd onderzocht in Syrië, op de ‘doodsrekening’ staat van de ‘gematigde rebellen’, geteisem dat door het westen wordt gesteund…… Maakt allemaal niet uit: alsnog blijven de westerse reguliere (massa-) media en het grootste deel van de westerse politici deze leugens herhalen…… Dit zijn ‘false flag’ operaties, dus met opzet, zoals in dit geval, mensen gruwelijk vermoorden (of de poging daartoe) met gifgas en dit in de schoenen van een ander schuiven…..

De Trump administratie had zelfs het gore lef te stellen dat Iran samenwerkt met Al Qaida, terwijl Al Qaida elke sjiiet die het tegenkomt vermoord. Hetzelfde werd voor de oorlog tegen Irak gesteld, terwijl Al Qaida onder Saddam Hoessein geen poot aan de grond kreeg in Irak……. Intussen heeft de VS samengewerkt met Al Qaida Syrië en de tak van deze terreurgroep in Syrië zelfs van de zwarte terreurlijst heeft gehaald……

Ik snap werkelijk niet waarom de reguliere media hier geen aandacht aan hebben besteed en elke (zelfs bewezen) claim dat de VS samenwerkt met IS of Al Qaida afdoen als complotdenken…… Daar kan maar één reden voor zijn, de welgestelde bazen of investeringsgroepen die deze media in handen hebben en de regeringen (die middels subsidies voor de publieke omroepen hun zeggenschap kunnen afdwingen) tevreden houden, kortom: kwade opzet! (al zullen die media dit ook afdoen als een complottheorie…..)

Nog een ‘klein detail’ in deze: met het meegaan van de reguliere massamedia in het keihard liegen, brachten (in het geval van de twee VS oorlogen tegen Irak) en brengen de reguliere (massa-) media een ongelofelijke berg ‘fake news’ (‘nepnieuws…)…… Dezelfde media die nu om het hardst schreeuwen dat de sociale media vol staan met ‘fake news’ ofwel ‘nepnieuws’

Lees het prima artikel van Carey:

Man Who Sold America the Iraq War Just Warned Iran Is Next, but Is Anyone Listening?

February 6, 2018 at 12:45 pm
Written by Carey Wedler
(ANTIMEDIA) — Fifteen years after the calamitous U.S. invasion of Iraq, an architect of the propaganda used to drum up support for the war is warning that it’s happening again — this time with Iran.
Lawrence Wilkerson, who was chief of staff to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, helped the then-secretary “paint a clear picture that war was the only choice” in his infamous 2003 speech to the U.N. This week, writing for the New York Times — an outlet that, at the time, parroted misleading narratives in support of the war — Wilkerson accused the Trump administration of manipulating evidence and fear-mongering in the same way the Bush administration did to cultivate public support for ousting Saddam Hussein.
In his Monday op-ed, titled “ I Helped Sell the False Choice of War Once. It’s Happening Again,” he wrote:
“As his chief of staff, I helped Secretary Powell paint a clear picture that war was the only choice, that when ‘we confront a regime that harbors ambitions for regional domination, hides weapons of mass destruction and provides haven and active support for terrorists, we are not confronting the past, we are confronting the present. And unless we act, we are confronting an even more frightening future.’”
Though the U.N. and much of the world didn’t buy it, Wilkerson says Americans did, and it amounted to the culmination of a two-year effort by the Bush administration to initiate the war, which he now condemns
“That effort led to a war of choice with Iraq — one that resulted in catastrophic losses for the region and the United States-led coalition, and that destabilized the entire Middle East,” he wrote, going on to call out the Trump administration for pushing the United States down the same path in Iran.
“This should not be forgotten,” he urged, “since the Trump administration is using much the same playbook to create a false impression that war is the only way to address the threats posed by Iran.”
Wilkerson singled out Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, for her recent saber-rattling against Iran. He accused her of presenting questionable evidence that “Iran was not complying with Security Council resolutions regarding its ballistic missile program and Yemen,” comparing her directly to Powell. “Just like Mr. Powell, Ms. Haley showed satellite images and other physical evidence available only to the United States intelligence community to prove her case. But the evidence fell significantly short.”
Wilkerson accused Haley’s claims about Iran of essentially mirroring Powell’s claims about Iraq, also warning that war with Iran will be very different. It is “a country of almost 80 million people whose vast strategic depth and difficult terrain make it a far greater challenge than Iraq, would be 10 to 15 times worse than the Iraq war in terms of casualties and costs,” he cautioned, still asserting that countries like China, Russia, and North Korea pose far more “formidable challenges to America” than Iran does.
The former chief of staff to Powell further criticized the Trump administration, citing its National Security Strategy, which claims:
“The longer we ignore threats from countries determined to proliferate and develop weapons of mass destruction, the worse such threats become, and the fewer defensive options we have.”
“The Bush-Cheney team could not have said it better as it contemplated invading Iraq,” Wilkerson wrote, going on to call out not just Haley and the Trump administration but also the executive branch in general, Congress, and the media.
“Though Ms. Haley’s presentation missed the mark, and no one other than the national security elite will even read the strategy, it won’t matter,” he lamented. “We’ve seen this before: a campaign built on the politicization of intelligence and shortsighted policy decisions to make the case for war. And the American people have apparently become so accustomed to executive branch warmongering — approved almost unanimously by the Congress — that such actions are not significantly contested.”
He implicated the news media, as well, noting that outlets recently “failed to refute false narratives” from the Trump administration that Iran worked with Al-Qaeda to undermine the U.S. (never forget the CIA’s overseas meddling helped lay the foundation for Al-Qaeda in the first place, and its policy of arming extremists in Syria also ended up empowering the terror group). He compared this false conflation with Dick Cheney’s attempts to link Saddam Hussein to Al-Qaeda during the Bush years.
Nevertheless, Wilkerson wrote, “[t]oday, the analysts claiming close ties between Al Qaeda and Iran come from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which vehemently opposes the Iran nuclear deal and unabashedly calls for regime change in Iran.”
He went on to list the variety of ways the Trump administration is drumming up unfounded support for war against Iran:
“We should include the president’s decertification ultimatum in January that Congress must ‘fix’ the Iran nuclear deal, despite the reality of Iran’s compliance; the White House’s pressure on the intelligence community to cook up evidence of Iran’s noncompliance; and the administration’s choosing to view the recent protests in Iran as the beginning of regime change. Like the Bush administration before, these seemingly disconnected events serve to create a narrative in which war with Iran is the only viable policy.”
Considering Iran has long been a crown jewel in the U.S. hegemonic efforts, it should be no surprise the Trump administration isn’t budging on its plans to intervene. Wilkerson, however, knows far better than most the dangers of pushing unsubstantiated claims to advocate war.
He warned:
“As I look back at our lock-step march toward war with Iraq, I realize that it didn’t seem to matter to us that we used shoddy or cherry-picked intelligence; that it was unrealistic to argue that the war would ‘pay for itself,’ rather than cost trillions of dollars; that we might be hopelessly naïve in thinking that the war would lead to democracy instead of pushing the region into a downward spiral.”
Creative Commons / Anti-Media / Report a typo
========================================

en: ‘Iraanse protesten allesbehalve compleet spontaan (zoals VS ambassadeur bij de VN Haley durfde te stellen…)….‘

en: ‘Protesten Iran opgezet door de VS en Israël‘

en: ‘Iran, de protesten en wat de media je niet vertellen………‘

en: ‘De VS gaf meer dan 1 miljoen dollar uit om protesten tegen Iraans bewind uit te buiten (en te organiseren)‘

en: ‘Het verborgen motief achter de Israëlische agressie tegen Iran en Syrië‘

en: ‘Netanyahu vergelijkt Iran met nazi-Duitsland en stelt dat Iran een bedreiging is voor de wereldvrede….. ha! ha! ha! ha!‘

en: ‘Washington uit op oorlog met Iran……‘

en: ‘Oliemaatschappijen weigeren n.a.v. VS sancties de jet van Iraanse minister af te tanken‘

en: ‘Israël bezig met voorbereiding op meerdere fronten oorlog…….. (met hulp van de VS‘

en: ‘John Bolton heeft beloofd dat Iran voor 2019 onder een ander regime zal leven…….‘

en: ‘Saoedi-Arabië dreigt Iran aan te vallen voor vanuit Jemen afgevuurde ‘raketten’ op Saoedische ‘doelen……….’‘

en: ‘VS rechter gelast Iran miljarden te betalen aan de families van 911 slachtoffers…..‘

en: ‘Iran moet hangen en Iran-deal moet van tafel……. Israël speelt wolf in schaapskleren‘

en: ‘Iran houdt zich aan de nucleaire deal dit in tegenstelling tot de VS……..‘

en: ‘Israël laat er geen twijfel over bestaan: met het uit de Iran-deal stappen van de VS is definitief de oorlog verklaard aan Iran………‘

en: ‘Netanyahu en Bolton stoken het vuur in het Midden-Oosten verder op: Iran moet en zal vallen…..‘

en: ‘Trump beloofde geen extra oorlog in het Midden-Oosten >> toch heeft hij het pad vrijgemaakt voor oorlog tegen Iran……‘

en: ‘VS ‘laat zien op vrede uit te zijn’ door dreiging Iran te vermorzelen……‘

en: ‘Iran het volgende slachtoffer van ongebreidelde VS terreur‘

Mike Pence (vicepresident VS) waarschuwt voor Koreaanse samenwerking op Olympische Spelen…….. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!

Posted on by Telmo Claro

BBC World Service kwam vanmorgen met een waarschuwing van VS vicepresident Mike Pence voor de samenwerking tussen Noord- en Zuid-Korea op de Olympische Winterspelen die a.s. vrijdag van start gaan.

Waarvoor Pence waarschuwt? Voor kennis uit het verleden! Pence stelt dat Noord- en Zuid-Korea ook tijdens de Olympische Winterspelen van 2006 samenwerkten en tijdens die spelen deden de Noord-Koreanen voor het eerst een kernproef……. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! Ten eerste is het nog steeds niet duidelijk of Noord-Korea een atoombom heeft, daar niemand tot nu toe radioactieve straling heeft gemeten, boven de plek waaronder de Noord-Koreanen de kernproeven houden (tot een paar dagen na zo’n ondergrondse proef is radioactieve straling te meten boven die plek, ook te meten met satellieten…) Ten tweede: waar slaat het op? Alsof Noord-Korea voor elke ‘kernproef’ een speciale gelegenheid uitzoekt…….

De VS is in ieder geval het land dat voor haar grootschalige terreur geen speciale gelegenheden nodig heeft, dat heeft dit gestolen land al veelvuldig bewezen in het (recente) verleden…… Oh, met één uitzondering: de staatsgreep in Oekraïne, geheel ‘toevallig’ (zo de waard is vertrouwt deze zijn/haar gasten) tijdens de Olympische Winterspelen in Sotsji!! De opstand en de daarop volgende coup werd door Hillary Clinton en de CIA voorbereid, geregisseerd en betaald (met 4 miljard dollar!!)……… Uiteraard had Rusland het veel te druk met die Spelen om in de gaten te houden waar de VS mee bezig was. Al zullen er na die coup wel wat topfiguren uit de FSB (Russische geheime dienst) zijn geschopt, immers die hadden e.e.a moeten zien aankomen…..

Gezien dat laatste mogen de Noord-Koreanen wel uitkijken tijdens de komende Spelen, immers ook Zuid-Korea is tegen een aanval van de VS op Noord-Korea en heeft tijdens die Spelen vast geen tijd om in de gaten te houden wat de VS uitvreet……….

Mike Pence, vertegenwoordiger van de VS, de grootste terreurentiteit op onze kleine aarde……

Hier ‘wat’ feiten over VS terreur: ‘VS buitenlandbeleid sinds WOII: een lange lijst van staatsgrepen en oorlogen……….‘ en: ‘List of wars involving the United States‘ (vanaf de oprichting van het middels een genocide gestolen land dat men de VS of ‘Amerika’ noemt…)

FBI beweert dat Lesin, de oprichter van RT, zichzelf heeft doodgeslagen……. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!

Posted on by Telmo Claro

Dat de gehieme diensten van de VS vooral heel vaak liegen als ze iets beweren is al heel lang bekend, maar de FBI maakt ‘t nu wel helemaal bont……..

De oprichter van RT (Russia Today) en voormalig media adviseur van de Russische regering, Mikhail Lesin, werd in november 2015 dood gevonden in zijn hotelkamer te Washington (DC). De autoriteiten hielden het op een hartaanval, een conclusie die haaks stond op de werkelijkheid, gezien het autopsie rapport dat maanden later verscheen……

Zo had Lesin wonden aan het hoofd en het lichaam die waren toegebracht met een stomp voorwerp…….

De FBI maakte hier later het verhaal van dat Lesin zichzelf had dood geslagen, o.a. door zich herhaaldelijk tegen de grond te werpen, dit onder invloed van ethanol, ofwel alcohol…….. Je snapt ‘t al: kul van groot kaliber! De VS sloot in 2016 het dossier uiteindelijk met de conclusie dat Lesin op een natuurlijke manier aan z’n einde was gekomen……ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! Kortom: alweer is ook de FBI verantwoordelijk voor ‘fake news….’

‘Toevallig’ kwamen in de tijd van Lesins dood en daarna meerdere Russische hoogwaardigheidsbekleders e.d. ‘op een vreemde manier’ aan hun einde……… (zie de links onder het ZeroHedge artikel)

Gezien de agressie van de geheime diensten in de VS, is het de vraag hoe lang het zal duren voordat deze moorden worden toegeschreven aan die geheime diensten, dan wel dat ze door deze diensten werden geïnitieerd……..

Hier het artikel dat Tyler Durden hierover schreef en dat o.a. op ZeroHedge werd geplaatst:

FBI Releases Docs Claiming RT Founder Beat Himself To Death In His Hotel Room

Mon, 01/29/2018 – 04:22
The FBI just released the results of their investigation claiming that the media mogul and found of RT killed himself by repeatedly smashing his head and upper body into the ground.
In November 2015, the Free Thought Project reported that Mikhail Lesin, the former head of media affairs for the Russian government, and the founder of Russia Today (RT), was found dead in the hotel room that he was staying at in Washington DC.
Originally, authorities announced that Lesin died from a heart attack.
However, the results of his autopsy released months later indicated a far more sinister cause of death and the heavily redacted FBI documents that were just released add to that story.
The documents, detailing the FBI investigation into Lesin’s death were just released Saturday morning in spite of the investigation ending in October of 2016.
In spite of the original cause of death noted as a heart attack, a few months later, the District of Colombia’s Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME) and Metropolitan Police Department said that “blunt force injuries of the neck, torso, upper extremities and lower extremities” contributed to Lesin’s death. “The Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME) has released the cause and manner of death for Mikhail Lesin… Cause of Death: blunt force injuries of the head,” the statement said.
Now, FBI investigators have released the results of their investigation claiming that the blunt force trauma all over his body was self-inflicted.

“Mr. Lesin died as a result of blunt for injuries to his head, with contributing causes being blunt force injuries of the neck, torso, upper extremities, and lower extremities, which were induced by falls, with acute ethanol intoxication,” the report states.

In other words, the FBI is claiming that Lesin got so drunk that he repeatedly and violently fell on things until he killed himself.
To show just how much information the FBI is willing to release on these findings, here is the version of the amended autopsy report they released in the report.
Essentially, all other information in regards to the findings of Lesin’s death has been scrubbed from the documents as the remaining pages are almost entirely redacted.
Not only did the US remain tight-lipped on the investigation but they also refused to allow Russian authorities to cooperate.
As RT reports, back in 2016, months before the closing of the case, Moscow said it was expecting Washington to explain why Russia had not received any details from the probe into Lesin’s death, despite repeated requests.

“We are awaiting the related clarifications from Washington and the official data on the progress of the investigation,” Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova wrote in a Facebook post at that time. She added that if the media reports citing the forensic statement are confirmed, Russia will send an official request to the US “for international legal assistance.”

In October 2016, the US authorities announced that Lesin died of natural causes and closed the case. “Based on the evidence, including video footage and witness interviews, Mr. Lesin entered his hotel room on the morning of Wednesday, Nov. 4, 2015, after days of excessive consumption of alcohol and sustained the injuries that resulted in his death while alone in his hotel room,” the US attorney for the District of Columbia said in a statement.
Lesin’s death came at a time where he was surrounded by controversy, especially in the US. RT, the Russian-based news source that Lesin founded has become very controversial in the US—ostensibly for the fake Russiagate scandal—but in reality, for challenging the western narrative of foreign policy and privacy issues. Some US politicians have suggested that RT be banned in the US for “spreading propaganda,” while others have been blatant enough to attack Lesin personally.
According to the NY Times, until late 2014 Lesin ran the media wing of the state’s energy giant, Gazprom, before stepping down or, more likely, being forced out. He ended up in the United States, where he and his family owned properties in Los Angeles said to be worth far more than the salary of the former government minister.
Some US Senators, including Roger Wicker of Mississippi, had called for the Department of Justice to open an investigation into Lesin’s finances prior to his death.
Wicker was concerned that Lesin made too much money, something that was really none of his business.

“That a Russian public servant could have amassed the considerable funds required to acquire and maintain these assets in Europe and the United States raises serious questions,” Wicker said.

The original announcement of the heart attack back in November 2015 makes this case all the more ominous considering the fact that the medical examiner’s office also said Lesin’s body had blunt force trauma to the neck, torso, arms and legs too. How did authorities overlook his wounds?
As RT reports, Lesin was considered one of the most influential figures in the Russian media landscape. A graduate of Moscow State University with a degree in Civil Engineering, he served as Minister of Press and Mass Media from 1999 to 2004. He was also a presidential media adviser from 2004 to 2009. Lesin became chief executive officer at Garprom-Media in 2013 and remained in the position until early 2015.

Zie ook: ‘Media stilte over dood 4 Russische diplomaten………‘

en: ‘Russische diplomaten: 9 verdachte sterfgevallen de afgelopen paar jaar………‘

De langzame moord op de ideeën van Martin Luther King…………….. Ofwel: Dr. Martin Luther Kings lessen willens en wetens verzwegen….

Posted on by Telmo Claro
Het volgende uitstekende artikel van Paul Street handelt over de lessen van Martin Luther King (in de VS vaak aangeduid als MLK) waarover men in de VS en de rest van het westen liever niet spreekt, dit daar in zijn visie o.a. alleen echte gelijkheid kan ontstaan in een vorm van socialisme………

 Het is op 4 april a.s. 50 jaar geleden dat de staat dr. Martin Luther King liet vermoorden….. Vandaar veel aandacht dit jaar voor deze vrijheid en gelijkheidsstrijder. In de VS is 15 januari, de geboortedag van MLK, een vrije dag: ‘Martin Luther King Day’. Een uiterst hypocriet gebeuren als je het Paul Street vraagt, daar men vooral niet spreekt over de ideeën die King had over de ideale maatschappij en de vorm van bestuur die alle burgers ten goede zou komen, niet alleen de witte midden en hoge inkomens. Een wereld waarin arbeiders niet langer uitgebuit worden door en voor de ondernemers en aandeelhouders (en welgestelden in het algemeen).

 Zo is echt socialisme of communisme een oplossing voor veel van de huidige ellende in de wereld. Vergeet niet dat communisme tot nu toe nooit heeft bestaan in onze wereld. Wat betreft socialisme kan je het Chili van Allende, Cuba van Fidel Castro en Venezuela onder Chavez en Maduro aanwijzen als voorbeelden (ook al was en is dit nog niet zoals het zou moeten zijn, echter wel zo goed dat de arme bevolking een veel beter leven kreeg, inclusief gezondheidszorg, een fatsoenlijk dak boven het hoofd en alfabetisering. Vandaar ook dat de VS zo haar best doet daar een eind aan te maken, wat tot nu toe al een aantal keren is gelukt, neem de uiterst bloedige staatsgreep tegen de democratisch gekozen regering van president Salvador Allende op 11 september 1973 in Chili, waarbij Allende strijdend werd vermoord…….. (betaald door- en onder regie en mede verantwoording van de CIA…..)

 Momenteel is de VS naast het voeren van illegale oorlogen bezig met een economische oorlog tegen Venezuela, helaas is een heel groot deel van de Venezolaanse bevolking op de hoogte van de smerige streken die de VS het land levert (stop op leveringen van medicijnen en levensmiddelen) dat ze aan de kant van Maduro blijven staan. (dit nog naast de door de CIA georganiseerde gewelddadige protesten in Venezuela….)
De kijk van MLK op de wereld was volgens de schrijver van het volgende artikel, Paul Street, de reden waarom de overheid in de VS King alleen wil herdenken als strijder voor gelijke rechten t.b.v. gekleurde burgers……. Men leidt willens en wetens de aandacht af van de visie die King had op de VS en de wereld in het groot. Street spreekt dan ook (terecht) van een voortdurende morele en intellectuele moord op Martin Luther Kung………. (‘vreemd genoeg’ is er ook in de EU amper of geen aandacht voor de linkse kant van King….)

 Zijn visie op de wereld, gecombineerd met zijn charisma is dan ook de reden waarom Martin Luther King ‘een bedreiging was’ voor de overheid en ‘wel vermoord moest worden…..’
Counterpunch JANUARY 19, 2018

Dr. King’s Long Assassination

Photo by Ron Cogswell | CC BY 2.0
As the 50th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King’s violent death (on April 4, 1968) grows closer, you can expect to hear more and more in U.S. corporate media about the real and alleged details of his immediate physical assassination (or perhaps execution). You will not be told about King’s subsequent and ongoing moral, intellectual, and ideological assassination.
I am referring to the conventional, neo-McCarthyite, and whitewashed narrative of King that is purveyed across the nation every year, especially during and around the national holiday that bears his name. This domesticated, bourgeois airbrushing portrays King as a mild liberal reformist who wanted little more than a few basic civil rights adjustments in a supposedly good and decent American System – a loyal supplicant who was grateful to the nation’s leaders for finally making noble alterations. This year was no exception.
The official commemorations never say anything about the Dr. King who studied Marx sympathetically at a young age and who said in his last years that “if we are to achieve real equality, the United States will have to adopt a modified form of socialism.” They delete the King who wrote that “the real issue to be faced” beyond “superficial” matters was the need for a radical social revolution.
It deletes the King who went on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) in late 1967 to reflect on how little the Black freedom struggle had attained beyond some fractional changes in the South. He deplored “the arresting of the limited forward progress” Blacks and their allies had attained “by [a] white resistance [that] revealed the latent racism that was [still] deeply rooted in U.S. society.”

 “As elation and expectations died,” King explained on the CBC, “Negroes became more sharply aware that the goal of freedom was still distant and our immediate plight was substantially still an agony of deprivation. In the past decade, little has been done for Northern ghettoes. Al the legislation was to remedy Southern conditions – and even these were only partially improved.”
Worse than merely limited, King felt, the gains won by Black Americans during what he considered just the “first phase” of their freedom struggle (1955-1965) were dangerous in that they “brought whites a sense of completion” – a preposterous impression that the so-called “Negro problem” had been solved and that there was therefore no more basis or justification for further black activism. “When Negroes assertively moved on to ascend to the second rung of the ladder,” King noted, “a firm resistance from the white community developed…In some quarters it was a courteous rejection, in others it was a singing white backlash. In all quarters unmistakably, it was outright resistance.”
Explaining to his CBC listeners the remarkable wave of race riots that washed across U.S. cities in the summers of 1966 and 1967, King made no apologies for Black violence. He blamed “the white power structure…still seeking to keep the walls of segregation and inequality intact” for the disturbances. He found the leading cause of the riots in the reactionary posture of “the white society, unprepared and unwilling to accept radical structural change,” which” produc[ed] chaos” by telling Blacks (whose expectations for substantive change had been aroused) “that they must expect to remain permanently unequal and permanently poor.”
King also blamed the riots in part on Washington’s imperialist and mass-murderous war on Vietnam. Along with the misery it inflicted on Indochina, King said, the United States’ savage military aggression against Southeast Asia stole resources from Lyndon Johnson’s briefly declared and barely fought “War on Poverty.” It sent poor Blacks to the front killing lines to a disproportionate degree. It advanced the notion that violence was a reasonable response and even a solution to social and political problems.
Black Americans and others sensed what King called “the cruel irony of watching Negro and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable to seat them together in the same school. We watch them in brutal solidarity burning the huts of a poor village, but we realize that they would never live on the same block in Detroit,” King said on the CBC, adding that he “could not be silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of the poor.”
Racial hypocrisy aside, King said that “a nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense [here he might better have said “military empire”] than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom.”
Did the rioters disrespect the law, as their liberal and conservative critics alike charged? Yes, King said, but added that the rioters’ transgressions were “derivative crimes…born of the greater crimes of the…policy-makers of the white society,” who “created discrimination…created slums [and] perpetuate unemployment, ignorance, and poverty… [T]he white man,” King elaborated, “does not abide by law in the ghetto. Day in and day out he violates welfare laws to deprive the poor of their meager allotments; he flagrantly violates building codes and regulations; his police make a mockery of law; he violates laws on equal employment and education and the provision of public services. The slums are a handiwork of a vicious system of the white society.”
Did the rioters engage in violence? Yes, King said, but noted that their aggression was “to a startling degree…focused against property rather than against people.” He observed that “property represents the white power structure, which [the rioters] were [quite understandably] attacking and trying to destroy.” Against those who held property “sacred,” King argued that “Property is intended to serve life, and no matter how much we surround with rights and respect, it has no personal being.”
What to do? King advanced radical changes that went against the grain of the nation’s corporate state, reflecting his agreement with New Left militants that “only by structural change can current evils be eliminated, because the roots are in the system rather in man or faulty operations.” King advocated an emergency national program providing either decent-paying jobs for all or a guaranteed national income “at levels that sustain life in decent circumstances.” He also called for the “demolition of slums and rebuilding by the population that lives in them.”
His proposals, he said, aimed for more than racial justice alone. Seeking to abolish poverty for all, including poor whites, he felt that “the Negro revolt” was properly challenging each of what he called “the interrelated triple evils” of racism, economic injustice/poverty (capitalism) and war (militarism and imperialism). The Black struggle had thankfully “evolve[ed] into more than a quest for [racial] desegregation and equality,” King said. It had become “a challenge to a system that has created miracles of production and technology” but had failed to “create justice.”

 “If humanism is locked outside the [capitalist] system,” King said on CBC five months before his assassination (or execution), “Negroes will have revealed its inner core of despotism and a far greater struggle for liberation will unfold. The United States is substantially challenged to demonstrate that it can abolish not only the evils of racism but the scourge of poverty and the horrors of war….”
There should be no doubt that King meant capitalism when he referred to “the system” and its “inner core of despotism.” This is clear from the best scholarship on King, including David Garrow’s epic, Pulitzer Prize-winning biography, Bearing the Cross: Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Southern Christian Leadership Council (HarperCollins, 1986)

No careful listener to King’s CBC talks could have missed the radicalism of his vision and tactics. “The dispossessed of this nation – the poor, both White and Negro – live in a cruelly unjust society,” King said. “They must organize a revolution against that injustice,” he added.
Such a revolution would require “more than a statement to the larger society,” more than “street marches” King proclaimed. “There must,” he added, “be a force that interrupts [that society’s] functioning at some key point.” That force would use “mass civil disobedience” to “transmute the deep rage of the ghetto into a constructive and creative force” by “dislocate[ing] the functioning of a society.”
“The storm is rising against the privileged minority of the earth,” King added for good measure. “The storm will not abate until [there is a] just distribution of the fruits of the earth…” The “massive, active, nonviolent resistance to the evils of the modern system” that King advocated was “international in scope,” reflecting the fact that “the poor countries are poor primarily because [rich Western nations] have exploited them through political or economic colonialism. Americans in particular must help their nation repent of her modern economic imperialism.”
King was a democratic socialist mass-disobedience-advocating and anti-imperialist world revolution advocate. The guardians of national memory don’t want you to know about that when they purvey the official, doctrinally imposed memory of King as an at most liberal and milquetoast reformer. (In a similar vein, our ideological overlords don’t want us to know that Albert Einstein [Time magazine’s “Person of the 20th Century”] wrote a brilliant essay making the case for socialism in the first issue of venerable U.S.-Marxist magazine Monthly Review – or that Helen Keller was a fan of the Russian Revolution.)
The threat posed to the official bourgeois memory by King’s CBC lectures – and by much more that King said and wrote in the last three years of his life – is not just that they show an officially iconic gradualist reformer to have been a democratic socialist opponent of the profits system and its empire. It is also about how clearly King analyzed the incomplete and unfinished nature of the nation’s progress against racial and class injustice, around which all forward developments pretty much ceased in the 1970s, thanks to a white backlash that was already well underway in the early and mid-1960s (before the rise of the Black Panthers, who liberal historians like to blame for the nation’s rightward racial drift under Nixon and Reagan) and to a top-down corporate war on working-class Americans that started under Jimmy Carter and then went ballistic under Ronald Reagan.
The “spiritual doom” imposed by U.S. militarism has lived on, with Washington having directly and indirectly killed untold millions of Central Americans, South Americans, Africans, Muslims, Arabs, and Asians in many different ways over the years since Vietnam. Accounting for roughly 40 percent of the world’s military expenditure, the U.S. maintains Cold War-level “defense” (empire) budgets to sustain an historically unmatched global empire (with at least 800 military bases spread across more than 80 foreign countries and “troops or other military personnel in about 160 foreign countries and territories”) even as a near-record 45 million U.S.-Americans remain stuck under the federal government’s notoriously inadequate poverty level. A very disproportionate number of the nation’s poor are Black and Latino/a.
It is obvious that the racist and white-supremacist real estate baron Donald J. Trump spoke disingenuously in tongue when he mouthed nice words about Dr. King last Monday. But what about his predecessor, Barack Obama, the nation’s first technically Black president? It was cruelly ironic that Obama kept a bust of King in the Oval Office to watch over his regular betrayal of the martyred peace and justice leader’s ideals. Consistent with Dr. Adolph Reed Jr.’s early (1996) dead-on description of the future President as “a smooth Harvard lawyer with impeccable credentials and vacuous to repressive neoliberal politics,” Obama consistently backed top corporate and financial interests (whose representatives filled and dominated his administrations, campaigns, and campaign coffers) over and against those who would undertake serious programs to end poverty, redistribute wealth (the savage re-concentration of which since Dr. King’s time has produced a New Gilded Age in the U.S.), grant free and universal health care, constrain capital, and save livable ecology as it approached a number of critical tipping points on the accelerating path to irreversible catastrophe. Thus is that one of Obama’s supporters (Ezra Klein) was moved in late 2012 to complain that a president “whose platform consists of Romney’s health care bill, Newt Gingrich’s environmental policies, John McCain’s deficit-financed payroll tax cuts, George W. Bush’s bailouts of filing banks and corporations, and a mixture of the Bush and Clinton tax rate” was still being denounced as a “leftist.”

 Obama opposed calls for any special programs or serious federal attention to the nation’s savage racial inequalities, so vast now that the median of white households was 20 times that of black households and 18 times that of Hispanic households near the end of his presidency. He did this while the fact of his ascendency to the White House deeply reinforced white America’s sense that racism was over as a barrier to black advancement and generated its own significant white backlash that only worsened the situation of less privileged black Americans.
Obama made it crystal clear in ways that no white president could that what Dr. King in 1963 called America’s unpaid “promissory note” and “bad check” to Black America would remain un-cashed. This was all too sadly consistent with Obama’s preposterous 2007 campaign claim (at a commemoration of the King-led 1965 Selma Voting Rights March) to believe that Blacks had already come “90 percent” of the way to equality in the U.S.
Completing the “triple evils” hat trick, Obama – the self-appointed chief-executioner atop the Special Forces Global War on (of) Terror Kill List – embraced and expanded upon the vast criminal and worldwide spying and killing operation he inherited from Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and George W. Bush. He tamped down Bush’s failed ground wars only to ramp up and inflate the role of unaccountable special force and drone attacks in the spirit of his dashing and reckless imperial role model John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Obama’s drone program, Noam Chomsky noted in early 2015, was “the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times.” It “target[ed] people suspected of perhaps intending to harm us some day, and any unfortunates who happen to be nearby,” Chomsky wrote.
In waging his deadly and disastrous, nation-wrecking and regionally destabilizing air war on Libya, Obama (unlike Bush prior to the invasion of Iraq) did not even bother with the pretense of seeking Congressional approval. “It should be a scandal,” Stansfield Smith wrote on CounterPunch one year ago, “that left-liberals paint Trump as a special threat, a war mongerer – [but] not Obama who is the first president to be at war every day of his eight years, who is waging seven wars at present, who dropped three bombs an hour, 24 hours a day, in 2016.” As Alan Nairn told Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman in early 2010, Obama kept the nation’s giant imperial machinery “set on kill.”
Meanwhile, Obama far surpassed the Cheney-Bush regime when it came to repressing antiwar dissenters, not to mention those who opposed the rule of the 1 percent – smashed by a coordinated federal campaign in the fall of 2011. “As all kinds of journalists have continuously pointed out,” Glenn Greenwald noted in early 2014, “the Obama administration is more aggressive and more vindictive when it comes to punishing whistleblowers than any administration in American history, including the Nixon administration.”
Furthermore, and to make matters far worse, Obama helped keep the planet set on burn. As Stansfield Smith noted two days before the horrid Trump’s inauguration:

Obama, who says he recognizes the threat to humanity posed by climate change, still invested at least $34 billion to promote fossil fuel projects in other countries. That is three times as much as George W Bush spent in his two terms, almost twice that of Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush and Bill Clinton put together…Obama financed 70 foreign fossil fuel projects. When completed they will release 164 million metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year – about the same output as the 95 currently operating coal-fired power plants in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Oklahoma. He financed two natural gas plants on an island in the Great Barrier Reef, as well as two of the largest coalmines on the planet… Moreover, under Obama, the U.S. has reversed the steady drop in U.S. oil production which had continued unchecked since 1971. The U.S. was pumping just 5.1 million barrels per day when Obama took office. By April 2016 it was up to 8.9 million barrels per day. A 74% increase.

As Obama proudly said in 2012, in the film This Changes Everything:

‘Over the last three years I’ve directed my administration to open up millions of acres for gas and oil exploration across 23 different states. We’re opening up more than 75% of our potential oil resources offshore. We’ve quadrupled the number of operating rigs to a record high. We’ve added enough oil and gas pipelines to encircle the earth and then some. So, we are drilling all over the place, right now.’

“Drill, baby, drill!”
Perhaps the dismal neoliberal Obama presidency – a key midwife to the Trump atrocity – was at least an object lesson on how real progressive and democratic change is about something bigger than a change in the party or color of the people in nominal power. That is certainly something King (who would be 88 today) would have understood very well had he been able to witness the endless mendacity of the nation’s first half-white president first-hand.
“The black revolution,” King wrote in a posthumously published 1969 essay titled “A Testament of Hope” (embracing a very different, authentically progressive sort of hope than that purveyed by Brand Obama in 2008) “is much more than a struggle for the rights of Negroes. It is forcing America to face all its interrelated flaws – racism, poverty, militarism, and materialism. It is exposing evils that are rooted deeply in the whole structure of our society. It reveals systemic rather than superficial flaws and suggests that radical reconstruction society of society itself is the real issue to be faced.”
Those words ring as true as ever today, with heightened urgency as it becomes undeniable that the profits system is driving humanity over an environmental cliff. They are words we never hear during official King Day commemorations.
King, it is worth recalling, was recruited by antiwar progressives to run for the U.S. presidency in 1967. He politely declined, claiming that he’d have little chance of winning and that he preferred to serve as a force of moral conscience for all the nation’s political parties.
The deeper truth, clear from his late-life writing and speeches, is that he had no interest in climbing into the power elite: his passion was directed toward a “revolution” of “the dispossessed” and a mass grassroots movement for the redistribution of wealth and power – a “radical reconstruction of society itself” – from the bottom up. Dr. King was interested in what the late radical U.S. historian Howard Zinn considered the more urgent politics of “who’s sitting in the streets,” very different from what Zinn saw as the comparatively superficial politics of “who’s sitting in the White House.”

 King’s officially deleted radical record and Zinn’s clever and sage dichotomy are worth bearing in mind in coming months and years as we watch the nation’s “left” liberals try to call forth and herald a new Obama (Oprah perhaps?) in 2020. That is certainly one of the last things we need.
Help Paul Street keep writing here.


 More articles by:PAUL STREET

Paul Street’s latest book is They Rule: The 1% v. Democracy (Paradigm, 2014)

Zie ook: ‘Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.: 8 wijze lessen!‘

en: ‘Martin Luther King jr. vermoord door de overheid, aldus rechter……..‘

en: ‘Martin Luther King misbruikt door Radio1‘

en: ‘Martin Luther King: de moord van 50 jaar geleden door de VS overheid uiterst beperkt herdacht‘

en: ‘De oorlog tegen het arme deel van de VS bevolking‘

en: ‘Nam Kurt Cobain zijn eigen leven? Niet volgens een flink aantal mensen‘

en: ‘Paul Scheffer, het media-orakel met een ‘vlijmscherpe analyse’ over het racistische optreden van de politie in de VS……… AUW!!!‘

en: ‘Willem Post over de zegeningen van het zero tolerance beleid in de VS en ach, het is misschien ietsje doorgeschoten…….‘

FBI, de spin in het Russiagate web……..

Posted on by Telmo Claro

Er is al veel geschreven (althans in de alternatieve media) over de ware schuldigen achter Russiagate, met bewijzen werd en wordt aangetoond dat de geheime diensten FBI, CIA en NSA de ware schuldigen zijn achter Russiagate, waar overigens het campagneteam van hare kwaadaardigheid Clinton, aanstichter en mededader is…….

Gisteren op het blog van Stan van Houcke een artikel geschreven door Ray McGovern (ex-CIA) en gepubliceerd op de site van schrijver/journalist Paul Craig Roberts, die het overnam van Consortium News (kan je het nog volgen?). McGovern legt op een gedegen manier uit dat de FBI de ware grote dader is achter Russiagate.

Niet voor niets zegt nu zelfs de Wall Street Journal dat er een punt moet worden gezegd achter het Russiagate verhaal……. ha! Ha! Ha! Eerst liepen de persen van de Wall Street Journal zo hard op deze leugen dat ze bij wijze van spreken bijna vastliepen…….. Waar nu blijkt dat het Clinton campagneteam en de geheime diensten samen hebben gewerkt om te voorkomen dat Trump in het Witte Huis zou komen, wil deze bijna grootste krant van de VS dus een punt achter het enorme leugenverhaal dat Russiagate is………*

Nogmaals toont een massamediaorgaan aan ‘fake news’ (of: nepnieuws) te hebben gebracht en daar het volk maandenlang over te hebben voorgelogen……

Lezen mensen, een geweldig stuk over dombo’s Strzak en Page, die dachten in het geheim te kunnen communiceren, maar van wie onlangs een eerste deel van hun lange correspondentie werd vrijgegeven en waardoor ten overvloede de FBI nog eens kan worden aangewezen als spin in het Russiagate web…….

The FBI Hand Behind Russia-gate

By Ray McGovern
January 15, 2018 Paul Craig Roberts.

As I have reported from the beginning, Russiagate is an orchestrated hoax by the security agencies for the purpose of preventing Trump from normalizing relations with Russia and, if necessary, for removing him from office. Russiagate is an act of treason by the security agencies. Those responsible must be arrested, prosecuted, and convicted. — PCR

“After months of breathless searching for ‘evidence’ of Russian-Trump collusion designed to put Trump in the White House, what now exists is actual evidence that senior officials of the Obama administration colluded to keep Trump out of the White House.” — Ray McGovern

Special Report: In the Watergate era, liberals warned about U.S. intelligence agencies manipulating U.S. politics, but now Trump-hatred has blinded many of them to this danger becoming real, as ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern notes. January 12, 2017, Information Clearing House
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/48572.htm

The FBI Hand Behind Russia-gate
By Ray McGovern

Russia-gate is becoming FBI-gate, thanks to the official release of unguarded text messages between loose-lipped FBI counterintelligence official Peter Strzok and his garrulous girlfriend, FBI lawyer Lisa Page. (Ten illustrative texts from their exchange appear at the end of this article.)

Despite his former job as chief of the FBI’s counterintelligence section, Strzok had the naive notion that texting on FBI phones could not be traced. Strzok must have slept through “Security 101.” Or perhaps he was busy texting during that class. Girlfriend Page cannot be happy at being misled by his assurance that using office phones would be a secure way to conduct their affair(s).

It would have been unfortunate enough for Strzok and Page to have their adolescent-sounding texts merely exposed, revealing the reckless abandon of star-crossed lovers hiding (they thought) secrets from cuckolded spouses, office colleagues, and the rest of us. However, for the never-Trump plotters in the FBI, the official release of just a fraction (375) of almost 10,000 messages does incalculably more damage than that.

We suddenly have documentary proof that key elements of the U.S. intelligence community were trying to short-circuit the U.S. democratic process. And that puts in a new and dark context the year-long promotion of Russia-gate. It now appears that it was not the Russians trying to rig the outcome of the U.S. election, but leading officials of the U.S. intelligence community, shadowy characters sometimes called the Deep State.

More of the Strzok-Page texting dialogue is expected to be released. And the Department of Justice Inspector General reportedly has additional damaging texts from others on the team that Special Counsel Robert Mueller selected to help him investigate Russia-gate.

Besides forcing the removal of Strzok and Page, the text exposures also sounded the death knell for the career of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, in whose office some of the plotting took place and who has already announced his plans to retire soon.

But the main casualty is the FBI’s 18-month campaign to sabotage candidate-and-now-President Donald Trump by using the Obama administration’s Russia-gate intelligence “assessment,” electronic surveillance of dubious legality, and a salacious dossier that could never pass the smell test, while at the same time using equally dubious techniques to immunize Hillary Clinton and her closest advisers from crimes that include lying to the FBI and endangering secrets.

Ironically, the Strzok-Page texts provide something that the Russia-gate investigation has been sorely lacking: first-hand evidence of both corrupt intent and action. After months of breathless searching for “evidence” of Russian-Trump collusion designed to put Trump in the White House, what now exists is actual evidence that senior officials of the Obama administration colluded to keep Trump out of the White House – proof of what old-time gumshoes used to call “means, motive and opportunity.”

Even more unfortunately for Russia-gate enthusiasts, the FBI lovers’ correspondence provides factual evidence exposing much of the made-up “Resistance” narrative – the contrived storyline that The New York Times and much of the rest of the U.S. mainstream media deemed fit to print with little skepticism and few if any caveats, a scenario about brilliantly devious Russians that not only lacks actual evidence – relying on unverified hearsay and rumor – but doesn’t make sense on its face.

The Russia-gate narrative always hinged on the preposterous notion that Russian President Vladimir
Putin foresaw years ago what no American political analyst considered even possible, the political ascendancy of Donald Trump. According to the narrative, the fortune-telling Putin then risked creating even worse tensions with a nuclear-armed America that would – by all odds – have been led by a vengeful President Hillary Clinton.

Besides this wildly improbable storyline, there were flat denials from WikiLeaks, which distributed the supposedly “hacked” Democratic emails, that the information came from Russia – and there was the curious inability of the National Security Agency to use its immense powers to supply any technical evidence to support the Russia-hack scenario.
The Trump Shock

But the shock of Trump’s election and the decision of many never-Trumpers to cast their lot with the Resistance led to a situation in which any prudent skepticism or demand for evidence was swept aside.
So, on Jan. 6, 2017, President Obama’s Director of National Intelligence James Clapper released an evidence-free report that he said was compiled by “hand-picked” analysts from the CIA, FBI and NSA, offering an “assessment” that Russia and President Putin were behind the release of the Democratic emails in a plot to help Trump win the presidency.

Despite the extraordinary gravity of the charge, even New York Times correspondent Scott Shane noted that proof was lacking. He wrote at the time: “What is missing from the [the Jan. 6] public report is what many Americans most eagerly anticipated: hard evidence to back up the agencies’ claims that the Russian government engineered the election attack. … Instead, the message from the agencies essentially amounts to ‘trust us.’”

But the “assessment” served a useful purpose for the never-Trumpers: it applied an official imprimatur on the case for delegitimizing Trump’s election and even raised the long-shot hope that the Electoral College might reverse the outcome and possibly install a compromise candidate, such as former Secretary of State Colin Powell, in the White House. Though the Powell ploy fizzled, the hope of somehow removing Trump from office continued to bubble, fueled by the growing hysteria around Russia-gate.

Virtually all skepticism about the evidence-free “assessment” was banned. For months, the Times and other newspapers of record repeated the lie that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies had concurred in the conclusion about the Russian “hack.” Even when that falsehood was belatedly acknowledged, the major news outlets just shifted the phrasing slightly to say that U.S. intelligence agencies had reached the Russian “hack” conclusion. Shane’s blunt initial recognition about the lack of proof disappeared from the mainstream media’s approved narrative of Russia-gate.

Doubts about the Russian “hack” or dissident suggestions that what we were witnessing was a “soft coup” were scoffed at by leading media commentators. Other warnings from veteran U.S. intelligence professionals about the weaknesses of the Russia-gate narrative and the danger of letting politicized intelligence overturn a constitutional election were also brushed aside in pursuit of the goal of removing Trump from the White House.

It didn’t even seem to matter when new Russia-gate disclosures conflicted with the original narrative that Putin had somehow set Trump up as a Manchurian candidate. All normal journalistic skepticism was jettisoned. It was as if the Russia-gate advocates started with the conclusion that Trump must go and then made the facts fit into that mold, but anyone who noted the violations of normal investigative procedures was dismissed as a “Trump enabler” or a “Moscow stooge.”

The Text Evidence

But then came the FBI text messages, providing documentary evivdence that key FBI officials involved in the Russia-gate investigation were indeed deeply biased and out to get Trump, adding hard proof to Trump’s longstanding lament that he was the subject of a “witch hunt.”

Justified or not, Trump’s feeling of vindication could hardly be more dangerous — particularly at a time when the most urgent need is to drain some testosterone from the self-styled Stable-Genius-in-Chief and his martinet generals.

On the home front, Trump, his wealthy friends, and like-thinkers in Congress may now feel they have an even wider carte blanche to visit untold misery on the poor, the widow, the stranger and other vulnerable humans. That was always an underlying danger of the Resistance’s strategy to seize on whatever weapons were available – no matter how reckless or unfair – to “get Trump.”

Beyond that, Russia-gate has become so central to the Washington establishment’s storyline that there appears to be no room for second-thoughts or turning back. The momentum is such that some Democrats and the media never-Trumpers can’t stop stoking the smoke of Russia-gate and holding out hope against hope that it will somehow justify Trump’s impeachment.

Yet, the sordid process of using legal/investigative means to settle political scores further compromises the principle of the “rule of law” and integrity of journalism in the eyes of many Americans. After a year of Russia-gate, the “rule of law” and “pursuit of truth” appear to have been reduced to high-falutin’ phrases for political score-setttling, a process besmirched by Republicans in earlier pursuits of Democrats and now appearing to be a bipartisan method for punishing political rivals regardless of the lack of evidence.

 Strzok and Page

Peter Strzok (pronounced “struck”) has an interesting pedigree with multiple tasks regarding both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump. As the FBI’s chief of counterespionage during the investigation into then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s unauthorized use of a personal email server for classified information, Strzok reportedly changed the words “grossly negligent” (which could have triggered legal prosecution) to the far less serious “extremely careless” in FBI Director James Comey’s depiction of Clinton’s actions. This semantic shift cleared the way for Comey to conclude just 20 days before the Democratic National Convention began in July 2016, that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring charges against Mrs. Clinton.

Then, as Deputy Assistant Director of the Counterintelligence Division, Strzok led the FBI’s investigation into alleged Russian interference in the U.S. election of 2016. It is a safe bet that he took a strong hand in hand-picking the FBI contingent of analysts that joined “hand-picked” counterparts from CIA and NSA in preparing the evidence-free, Jan. 6, 2017 assessment accusing Russian President Vladimir Putin of interfering in the election of 2016. (Although accepted in Establishment groupthink as revealed truth, that poor excuse for analysis reflected the apogee of intelligence politicization — rivaled only by the fraudulent intelligence on “weapons of mass destruction“ in Iraq 15 years ago.)

In June and July 2017 Strzok was the top FBI official working on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into possible links between the Trump campaign and Russia, but was taken off that job when the Justice Department IG learned of the Strzok-Page text-message exchange and told Mueller.

There is no little irony in the fact that what did in the FBI sweathearts was their visceral disdain for Mr. Trump, their cheerleading-cum-kid-gloves treatment of Mrs. Clinton and her associates, their 1950-ish, James Clapperesque attitude toward Russians as “almost genetically driven” to evil, and their (Strzok/Page) elitist conviction that they know far better what is good for the country than regular American citizens, including those “deplorables” whom Clinton said made up half of Trump’s supporters.

But Strzok/Page had no idea that their hubris, elitism and scheming would be revealed in so tangible a way. Worst of all for them, the very thing that Strzok, in particular, worked so hard to achieve — the sabotaging of Trump and immunization of Mrs. Clinton and her closest advisers is now coming apart at the seams.

Congress: Oversee? or Overlook?

At this point, the $64 question is whether the various congressional oversight committees will remain ensconced in their customarily cozy role as “overlook” committees, or whether they will have the courage to attempt to carry out their Constitutional duty. The latter course would mean confronting a powerful Deep State and its large toolbox of well-practiced retaliatory techniques, including J. Edgar Hoover-style blackmail on steroids, enabled by electronic surveillance of just about everything and everyone. Yes, today’s technology permits blanket collection, and “Collect Everything” has become the motto.
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-New York, with almost four decades of membership in the House and Senate, openly warned incoming President Trump in January 2017 against criticizing the U.S. intelligence community because U.S. intelligence officials have “six ways from Sunday to get back at you” if you are “dumb” enough to take them on.

Thanks to the almost 10,000 text messages between Strzok and Page, only a small fraction of which were given to Congress four weeks ago, there is now real evidentiary meat on the bones of the suspicions that there indeed was a “deep-state coup” to “correct” the outcome of the 2016 election. We now know that the supposedly apolitical FBI officials had huge political axes to grind. The Strzok-Page exchanges drip with disdain for Trump and those deemed his smelly deplorable supporters. In one text message, Strzok expressed visceral contempt for those working-class Trump voters, writing on Aug. 26, 2016, “Just went to a southern Virginia Walmart. I could SMELL the Trump support. … it’s scary real down here.”

The texts even show Strzok warning of the need for an “insurance policy” to thwart Trump on the off-chance that his poll numbers closed in on those of Mrs. Clinton.

An Aug. 6, 2016 text message, for example, shows Page giving her knight in shining armor strong affirmation: “Maybe you’re meant to stay where you are because you’re meant to protect the country from that menace [Trump].” That text to Strzok includes a link to a David Brooks column in The New York Times, in which Brooks concludes with the clarion call: “There comes a time when neutrality and laying low become dishonorable. If you’re not in revolt, you’re in cahoots. When this period and your name are mentioned, decades hence, your grandkids will look away in shame.”

Another text message shows that other senior government officials – alarmed at the possibility of a Trump presidency – joined the discussion. In an apparent reference to an August 2016 meeting with FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Strzok wrote to Page on Aug. 15, 2016, “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office — that there’s no way he [Trump] gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk.” Strzok added, “It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event that you die before you’re 40.”

Insurance Policy?

Senate Judiciary Committee chair Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, says he will ask Strzok to explain the “insurance policy” when he calls him to testify. What seems already clear is that the celebrated “Steele Dossier” was part of the “insurance,” as was the evidence-less legend that Russia hacked the DNC’s and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s emails and gave them to WikiLeaks.

If congressional investigators have been paying attention, they already know what former weapons inspector Scott Ritter shared with Veteran intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) colleagues this week; namely, that Fusion GPS’s Glenn Simpson, who commissioned the Russia dossier using Democratic Party money, said he reached out to Steele after June 17, just three days before Steele’s first report was published, drawing on seven sources.

“There is a snowball’s chance in hell that this is raw intelligence gathered by Steele; rather he seems to have drawn on a single ‘trusted intermediary’ to gather unsubstantiated rumor already in existence.”

Another VIPS colleague, Phil Giraldi, writing out of his own experience in private sector consulting, added: “The fact that you do not control your sources frequently means that they will feed you what they think you want to hear. Since they are only doing it for money, the more lurid the details the better, as it increases the apparent value of the information. The private security firm in turn, which is also doing it for the money, will pass on the stories and even embroider them to keep the client happy and to encourage him to come back for more. When I read the Steele dossier it looked awfully familiar to me, like the scores of similar reports I had seen which combined bullshit with enough credible information to make the whole product look respectable.”

It is now widely known that the Democrats ponied up the “insurance premiums,” so to speak, for former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele’s “dossier” of lurid — but largely unproven — “intelligence” on Trump and the Russians. If, as many have concluded, the dossier was used to help justify a FISA warrant to snoop on the Trump campaign, those involved will be in deep kimchi, if congressional overseers do their job.

How, you might ask, could Strzok and associates undertake these extra-legal steps with such blithe disregard for the possible consequences should they be caught? The answer is easy; Mrs. Clinton was a shoo-in, remember? This was just extra insurance with no expectation of any “death benefit” ever coming into play — save for Trump’s electoral demise in November 2016. The attitude seemed to be that, if abuse of the FISA law should eventually be discovered — there would be little interest in a serious investigation by the editors of The New York Times and other anti-Trump publications and whatever troubles remained could be handled by President Hillary Clinton.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, who chairs the Judiciary Subcommittee of Judiciary on Crime and Terrorism, joined Sen. Grassley in signing the letter referring Christopher Steele to the Justice Department to investigate what appear to be false statements about the dossier. In signing, Graham noted the “many stop signs the Department of Justice ignored in its use of the dossier.” The signature of committee ranking member Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, however, was missing — an early sign that a highly partisan battle royale is in the offing. On Tuesday, Feinstein unilaterally released a voluminous transcript of Glenn Simpson’s earlier testimony and, as though on cue, Establishment pundits portrayed Steele as a good source and Fusion GPS’s Glenn Simpson as a victim.
The Donnybrook is now underway; the outcome uncertain.

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He was an Army and CIA intelligence analyst for 30 years; prepared and briefed the President’s Daily Brief for Nixon, Ford, and Reagan; and is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
+++++++++++++

Sample text messages between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, released to Congress and the media on December 13, 2016
++++++++++++++
03/04/2016
Strzok – God Hillary should win. 100,000,000-0.
Page – I know
++++++++++++
04/02/2016
Page – So look, you say we text on that phone when we talk about Hillary because it can’t be traced, you were just venting, bc you feel bad that you’re gone so much but that can’t be helped right now.
++++++++++
07/08/2016
Strzok – And meanwhile, we have Black Lives Matter protestors, right now, chanting “no justice no peace” around DoJ and the White House…
Page – That’s awful.
+++++++++
07/14/2016
Page – Have you read this? It’s really frightening. For Whites Sensing Decline, Donald Trump Unleashes Words of Resistance http://NYTI/ms/29WCu5!
Strzok – I have not. But I think it’s clear he’s capturing all the white, poor voters who the mainstream republicans abandoned in all but name in the quest for the almighty $$$
Page – Yeah, it’s not good.
Strzok – Poll Finds Emails Weighing on Hillary Clinton, Now Tied With Donald Trump http://nyti.ms/29RV5gf
Page – It is
+++++++++++++
07/26/2016
Strzok – And hey. Congrats on a woman nominated for President in a major party! About damn time! Many many more returns of the day!!
Page – That’s cute. Thanks
++++++++++
08/06/2016
Page – Jesus. You should read this. And Trump should go f himself. Moment in Convention Glare Shakes Up Khans American Life http://nyti.ms/2aHulE0
Strzok – God that’s a great article. Thanks for sharing. And F TRUMP.
++++++++
08/06/2016
Page – And maybe you’re meant to stay where you are because you’re meant to protect the country from that menace. To that end comma, read this:
Page – Trump Enablers Will Finally Have to Take A Stand http://nyti.ms/2aFakry
Strzok – Thanks. It’s absolutely true that we’re both very fortunate. And of course I’ll try and approach it that way. I just know it will be tough at times. I can protect our country at many levels, not sure if that helps
++++++++++++
08/09/2016
Page – He’s not ever going to become president, right? Right?!
Strzok – OMG did you hear what Trump just said?
+++++++++++
08/26/2016
Strzok – Just went to a southern Virginia Walmart. I could SMELL the Trump support…
Page – Yep. Out to lunch with (redacted) We both hate everyone and everything.
Page – Just riffing on the hot mess that is our country.
Strzok – Yeah…it’s scary real down here
+++++++++
10/20/2016
Strzok: I am riled up. Trump is a f***ing idiot, is unable to provide a coherent answer.
Strzok – I CAN’T PULL AWAY, WHAT THE F**K HAPPENED TO OUR COUNTRY (redacted)??!?!
Page– I don’t know. But we’ll get it back. We’re America. We rock.
Strzok– Donald just said “bad hombres”
Strzok– Trump just said what the FBI did is disgraceful.
This article was originally published by Consortium News –

====

Was the DNC/Clinton campaign-funded dossier used to obtain warrants on Trump team from the secret court?
=============================
* Zie: ‘Wall Street Journal wil punt achter Russiagate‘

Zie ook: ‘WikiLeaks belooft The Guardian 1 miljoen dollar als het haar leugens i.z. Assange en Russiagate kan bewijzen…….‘

en: ‘Russiagate? Britaingate zal je bedoelen!‘

en: ‘Facebook gebruikte ‘fake news’ beschuldiging om de aandacht voor schandalen af te leiden‘

en ‘Politico rapport bevestigt: Russiagate is een hoax‘

en: ‘New York Times ‘bewijzen’ voor Russiagate vallen door de mand……‘

en: ‘Russiagate sprookje ondermijnt VS democratie en de midterm verkiezingen‘

en: ‘Google, de volgende ‘die advertentieruimte verkocht aan Putin zelf……’ ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!‘

en: ‘Russiagate, of: hoe de media u belazeren met verhalen over Russische bemoeienis met de VS presidentsverkiezingen……..‘

en: ‘Publicly Available Evidence Doesn’t Support Russian Gov Hacking of 2016 Election‘

en: ‘CIA chef Pompeo waarschuwt voor complot van WikiLeaks om de VS op alle mogelijke manieren neer te halen……. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!‘

en: ‘‘Russiagate’ een verhaal van a t/m z westers ‘fake news…..’‘

en: ‘Rusland zou onafhankelijkheid Californië willen uitlokken met reclame voor borsjt…….‘

en: ‘Clinton te kakken gezet: Donna Brazile (Democratische Partij VS) draagt haar boek op aan Seth Rich, het vermoorde lid van DNC die belastende documenten lekte‘

en: ‘CIA deed zich voor als het Russische Kaspersky Lab, aldus Wikileaks Vault 8…..‘ (zie ook de andere links onder dat bericht)

en: ‘Kajsa Ollongren (D66 vicepremier): Nederland staat in het vizier van Russische inlichtingendiensten……. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!‘

en: ‘Ollongren gesteund door Thomas Boesgaard (AD), ‘Rusland verpakt het nepnieuws gekoppeld aan echt nieuws…..’ Oei!!‘ (ja ook deze D66 plork gaat plat op de bek!)

en: ‘RT America één van de eerste slachtoffers in een heksenjacht op westerse alternatieve media en nadenkend links……‘

en: ‘Rusland heeft niets van doen met manipulaties van de VS presidentsverkiezingen via Facebook, wel maakt Facebook meer kapot dan je lief is…….‘

en: ‘‘False flag terror’ bestaat wel degelijk: bekentenissen en feiten over heel smerige zaken……….‘

en: ‘CIA 70 jaar: 70 jaar moorden, martelen, coups plegen, nazi’s beschermen, media manipulatie enz. enz………‘

en: ‘CIA en 70 jaar desinformatie in Europese opiniebladen…………‘

en: ‘Pompeo (CIA opperhoofd met koperen fluit): heeft alle aanwijzingen dat Rusland de midterm verkiezingen zal manipuleren……‘

 en: ‘‘Russiagate’ een complot van CIA, FBI, Hillary Clinton en het DNC………..‘

 en: ‘De Russiagate samenzweringstheorie dient de machthebbers………‘

 en: ‘‘Fake News’ hysterie willens en wetens gelanceerd om sociale media tot zwijgen te brengen, Rusland te demoniseren en daarmee de waarheid te verbergen……..‘

Iran, de protesten en wat de media je niet vertellen………

Posted on by Telmo Claro
De protesten in Iran worden met grote graagte door de westerse media en politici uitgedragen als een welkome opstand tegen de fundamentalistische heersers, zonder rekening te houden met de huidige gematigde regering. Iran is fout punt uit!
Door deze eenzijdige reactie van het westen, krijgen juist de fundamentalistische heersers op de achtergrond de wind in de zeilen, immers het westen is allesbehalve een vriend van Iran of haar burgers. De roep om ingrijpen in Iran klinkt al jaren keihard, niet bepaald in de laatste plaats door de VS en het grootste deel van de NAVO leden. Daar deed de handreiking van Obama weinig aan af, een handreiking die intussen al weer is teruggedraaid door de Trump administratie……

De VS heeft trouwens al veel langer gewelddadige activisten in Iran gesteund, dit om de regering ten val te brengen (waarin ook Nederland een rol speelde) en reken maar dat de CIA zelf ook actief is in Iran……..
De huidige demonstranten zijn bepaald niet vreedzaam, zoals dit wel het geval was tijdens het grootste deel van de ‘Groene Revolutie’ in 2009, ze zijn gewapend en brengen grote vernielingen aan, zoals het in brand steken van gebouwen…… De aantallen demonstranten zijn een stuk minder groot dan men aanneemt in het westen. Politiebureaus en wapendepots zijn door demonstranten overvallen om zo aan meer wapens te komen….
Zoals gezegd: de kans is weer levensgroot dat een deel van de demonstranten in Iran is gekocht door de VS, die een reputatie hebben op het gebied van opstanden organiseren, opstanden die dan moeten uitlopen in het afzetten van een VS onwelgevallige regering……. Voorbeelden van het organiseren van dit soort opstanden door de VS (CIA), opstanden die in een coup moesten uitmonden en wat meestal lukt: Libië, Oekraïne, Syrië (in dit land mislukte de coup tegen Assad) en voor Zuid-Amerika Honduras, Brazilië en Venezuela (let wel: dit zijn de laatst bekende voorbeelden). In het volgende artikel kan u lezen dat Rex Tillerson, de VS minister van Buitenlandse Zaken, e.e.a. toegeeft wat betreft Iran, zo bleek uit een uitgelekt memorandum…..

 Ook in het volgende artikel (van Darius Shahtahmasebi) o.a. de stelling dat de conservatieve krachten in Iran baat hebben bij deze protesten om zo de gematigde president Rohani onder druk te zetten…… Dat de VS zelfs deze krachten zou steunen is niets nieuws, als de VS een regering ten val wil brengen, schijnt alles geoorloofd te zijn (zelfs samenwerking met terreurgroepen als IS en Al Qaida…)……

Everything the Media Isn’t Telling You About the Protests Rocking Iran Right Now

January 2, 2018 at 12:53 pm
(ANTIMEDIA Op-ed) — Over the past week, Iran has been hit with series of protests, reportedly in relation to the country’s current economic climate. Where this particular narrative is headed is of major concern because of the current atmosphere in the Middle East and its deadly dynamics.
Approximately two weeks ago, the truth about U.S. foreign policy was revealed in a leaked memo that purportedly coached Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on how to use human rights as a pretense to attack America’s adversaries
“Allies should be treated differently — and better — than adversaries. Otherwise, we end up with more adversaries, and fewer allies,” stated the memo, which was written by Tillerson’s influential policy aide, Brian Hook. Approximately two weeks ago, the truth about U.S. foreign policy was revealed in a leaked memo that purportedly coached Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on how to use human rights as a pretense to attack America’s adversaries
As part of the U.S. foreign policy playbook, in June 2017, Tillerson himself confirmed that official U.S. policy towards Iran included a regime change strategy. He said:
“We continually review the merits both from the standpoint of diplomatic but also international consequences of designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in its entirety as a terrorist organization. As you know, we have designated the Quds [Force]. Our policy towards Iran is to push back on this hegemony, contain their ability to develop obviously nuclear weapons, and to work toward support of those elements inside of Iran that would lead to a peaceful transition of that government. Those elements are there, certainly as we know.” [emphasis added]
Around the same time, the Trump administration appointed Michael D’Andrea, the CIA’s “Dark Prince,” to head the CIA’s “Iran operations.” Given the CIA overthrew Iran’s democratically elected government in 1953, relying almost completely on one die-hard agent to do so, this program’s trajectory should be clear.
Barely days after D’Andrea’s appointment, Iran was coincidentally rocked by an ISIS-inspired attack. Republican congressman Rep. Dana Rohrabacher suggested the attack was “a good thing.”
In December, CIA director Mike Pompeo admitted he sent a letter to General Qassem Soleimani, a stalwart leader of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), saying he will hold Iran and Soleimani “accountable” for any attacks on Washington’s interests in Iraq. This is the same IRGC commander who announced Iran would begin supporting Palestinian forces in the Gaza strip after Trump’s infamous Jerusalem debacle.
Unsurprisingly, U.S. intelligence agencies reportedly just gave the green light to Israel to assassinate this commander, a clear act of war.

 The timing of the current protests has coincided with reports that the U.S. and Israel formulated a joint plan to specifically target Iran. This coincides with Nikki Haley’s grandiose anti-Iran performance, which has been full of deceit and hawkish propaganda. Further, Israel hopes these protests will be an opportunity to take the Iranian government’s attention away from Israel, according to a top intelligence expert.
Even without Iranians taking to the streets, it is clear that the Trump administration and its regional allies have been planning to take the fight to Iran.
Discerning the Truth About the Recent Protests
What should we make of the recent protests sweeping the country?
Even according to the mainstream media, the protests are not exactly what they seem. Iran’s president acknowledged that Iranians have a right to peaceful protest and that the protesters are not necessarily guided by foreign elements as “a number of them are the people who came to the streets because of their (economic) problems.”
“Criticism is different [from] violence and destroying public property,” he also reportedly said.
According to Haaretz, the protests were initially riled up by Iran’s conservative hard-line opposition to put pressure on the current Iranian president, who is considered a moderate. The protesters are not necessarily the democracy-seeking students the media has portrayed them as.
The mainstream media further acknowledged that the Iranian authorities are actively trying to avoid a massive crackdown. From Slate:
“It seems clear that Iranian leaders are trying to avoid a massive crackdown of the surprisingly large protests for now, worried that any huge repression could lead to a crisis similar to what took place in 2009.”
As Reuters explained:

“Iranian moderates are appealing for caution even though some hardliners are calling for an iron fist to crush one of the gravest threats to Iran’s clerical leaders, who came to power in the 1979 Islamic revolution.
“Those divisions are making it hard for the authorities to defuse spontaneous demonstration, especially as there are no apparent protest leaders who can be identified and rounded up.”
The media is still treating the videos of anti-government protesters shouting “Death to the dictator!” as “unconfirmed,” meaning they haven’t been properly verified. Or consider this recent Reuters report, which stated the following:
“Mohsen Nasj Hamadani, deputy security chief in Tehran province, said about 50 people had rallied in a square but most had left after being asked to by police, while a few who refused were ‘temporarily detained,’ the ILNA news agency reported.”
Carl Bildt, former Swedish prime minister and co-chair for the European Council on Foreign Relations quickly took to Twitter to state that there were “[r]eports of signals of international satellite TV networks jammed in large cities of Iran. Would be sign of regime fear of today’s protests spreading.” However, the only reports that can be found online of jammed international TV networks are from at least five years prior to the current unrest. Not surprisingly, Wikileaks cables suggested Bildt served as a U.S. government informant when he was just 27 years old.
In other words, it would pay to be overly meticulous when following the reports on this intricate topic.
To be clear, the protests are not nearly as concerned with Iran’s foreign policy as much as some media outlets are claiming they are. As the Atlantic explained:
“Unlike what President Trump suggests, the protests aren’t about Iran’s broader behaviour and foreign policy. And they’re not about the regime’s support for terrorism…their main concern lies in the price of day-to-day items and goods, such as poultry and eggs, as well as unemployment and access to services.”
The death toll in the protests and the authorities’ inevitable response quickly grew to at least 12 — a damning statistic for the Iranian government. However, whether the following allegations are true or not, the mainstream media has acknowledged that deaths occurred as a result of confrontation, specifically, the claim that armed protesters began storming military bases and police stations. Other government compounds were stormed, as well, with protesters lighting fires in government offices.
These are no longer students who are complaining about the price of eggs or the right to dress in modern clothing (in a remarkable coincidence, just before the protests erupted, Tehran’s police stated they would no longer arrest women for violating the Islamic dress code). Overrunning military bases and police stations with arms doesn’t make you a protester, it makes you a militant. As journalist Ben Norton wrote on his Facebook page, “If ‘armed protesters’ (quite a phrase) tried to overrun military bases and police stations in the US, it would declare martial law.”
Things may not be so dire in Iran to require an armed uprising just yet (just take a look at the thousands of pro-government supporters who have rallied the streets of Iran’s major cities). It would be disingenuous to pay sole attention to the anti-government protesters while ignoring the thousands of those who do support their government. This is not to say that Iranians do not have genuine cause to take to the streets and protest, but it certainly gives good cause to the international community that perhaps — just this once — it would do well to mind its own business.
Even according to some of the biggest corporate media outlets, there is likely foul play if people are taking arms against the Iranian government in the current circumstances. As the New York Magazine acknowledged:
“As The Guardian and New York Times point out, small protests focused on economic issues are normal in Iran, but politically charged protests across the country where people feel safe chanting ‘death to the dictator’ — a knock on Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei — are not. The protests will undoubtedly be an important test for the relatively moderate Rouhani, who has not been spared as a subject of chanting at the rallies; in his remarks on Sunday, Rouhani was clearly trying to walk a delicate line. There is also apparently suspicion among members of his administration and other reformers about what forces may be behind the unrest.” [emphasis added]
The West’s Hypocrisy is Staggering
Despite this, Donald Trump was quick to take to Twitter to condemn Iran and voice his support for the protesters. State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert also said in a statement that the U.S. urged “all nations to publicly support the Iranian people and their demands for basic rights and an end to corruption.”
This is the same administration that banned the Iranian people from merely visiting the United States.
Even Hillary Clinton voiced her support for the Iranian people currently protesting against the government. Apparently, Clinton has forgotten about the video of her where she broke into hysterical laughter while talking about the U.S.’ desire to launch a war against Iran, which would undoubtedly kill hundreds of thousands of ordinary Iranians.
We would also do well to remember that after Donald Trump was elected U.S. president at the end of 2016, America was inundated with anti-Trump protests. Los Angeles police arrested at least 462 people at the time. America’s NATO ally Turkey arrested, detained, suspended, and fired tens of thousands of teachers, lawyers, military officers, and court officials (with at least 249 deaths in total) – and yet Donald Trump has only appeared to praise the Turkish government’s crackdown.
America’s Middle Eastern darling, Israel, has also been rocked by thousands of protesters participating in anti-corruption marches specifically targeting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Israel also infamously locked up a young teenage girl who was brave enough to slap an Israeli soldier who had invaded her home.
For the sake of argument, let’s all agree that Iran’s protests are genuine. That fact alone isn’t grounds for an illegal regime change operation given the international standards the rest of the world has been operating under for years. Allowing Trump to take the protests for a ride to serve his own ludicrous foreign policy agenda also undermines the intellect and history of Iran and its people, as the Atlantic explains:
“Iranians aren’t ‘finally’ waking up and ‘getting wise,’ as Trump suggests. Instead, Iran has a dynamic and active civil society, which has created and embraced opportunities for reformation and progress for decades…And many Iranians have paid for these ideals with their lives.”
Don’t buy into the hypocrisy. Donald Trump does not care about ordinary Iranians, and he certainly doesn’t care about Iran’s access to democracy. If Donald Trump cared about the Iranian people’s economic concerns, the simple solution would be to stop unilaterally slamming the country with economic sanctions on a routine basis.
In the words of the Atlantic, Donald Trump “barely understands the country he’s repeatedly demonized.”
We’ve been here before. The groundwork is being laid for a direct confrontation with Iran, and we are naïve at best if we decide to take the bait. America’s footprint in the Middle East was never rooted in any concerns for human rights, and believe it or not, America’s interests and desires are always rooted in money.
The last thing Iran needs right now in order to move towards a more democratic and economically viable country is the direct interference of the United States, a country that has reportedly killed over one million Muslims since the 9/11 attacks.
If the Iranians want to exact change; they can and will do it themselves. As stated by the Tudeh Party of Iran, an Iranian communist party formed in 1941:
“It should be noted that under the critical conditions of the current dangerous regional tensions, the regional reaction – supported by the Trump administration in the US and the right-wing government of Netanyahu in Israel – is seeking to distinctly impact the developments in our country and to replace the current reactionary regime with another reactionary regime.
“The support of these forces…for the Iranian monarchists and those political groups whose agenda is to cooperate with the most reactionary regimes of the region and to persuade the European states to impose sanctions on Iran’s economy – thereby exacerbating the misery for the destitute and disadvantaged people of our country – and to encourage foreign states to interfere militarily in Iran, leaves no room whatsoever for any optimism regarding the future designs of such ‘opposition’…We should not let the past repeat itself whereby the heroic struggle of the nation for freedom, democracy and social justice is hijacked by a bunch of reactionary opportunities who do not believe in the people’s rights or democratic freedoms.”
Correction: A previous version of this article stated the Trump administration was behind the arrests of protesters in Los Angeles after his election in November 2016. It has been corrected to reflect that while police arrested protesters, they did not do so at the direction of the Trump administration as he had not yet taken office. Protesters at his inauguration, however, were arrested and have gone on to face charges this year.

============================

Zie ook:
‘Rutte 3 heeft begrip voor de moord op Soleimani en hoopt dat de VS zich niet terugtrekt uit Irak, een soeverein land >> westerse propaganda……‘

‘KLM vliegt na ‘risicoanalyse’ niet meer in luchtruim van Iran en Irak‘

‘Oorlog tegen Iran: VS heeft lak aan democratie >> Irak wordt gedreigd met sancties en ‘herstelbetaling’‘

‘VS moord op Qasem Soleimani is een oorlogsverklaring aan adres van Iran…….‘

 ‘Iran stelt terecht dat het VS leger een terroristische organisatie is‘

‘Iraakse regering pissig over VS beschuldiging dat Iraanse bewind corrupt is‘

 ‘Trump volgt het scenario van deep state: oorlog met Iran ‘is onvermijdelijk….’‘
‘Rudy Giuliani viert het sterven van Iraniërs en stelt desondanks dat het Iraanse bewind door de VS geweldloos zal ondergaan…….‘



‘Iraanse protesten gezien door de propaganda bril van de VS en de rest van het westen……..‘

 ‘Protesten Iran opgezet door de VS en Israël‘

 ‘Iraanse protesten allesbehalve compleet spontaan (zoals VS ambassadeur bij de VN Haley durfde te stellen…)….‘


‘Rudy Giuliani viert het sterven van Iraniërs en stelt desondanks dat het Iraanse bewind door de VS geweldloos zal ondergaan…….‘

 ‘US Empire Is Running The Same Script With Iran That It Ran With Libya, Syria‘

 ‘Nikki Haley (VS ambassadeur in de VN) bedreigt sjiitisch Iran met militair ingrijpen……‘ (klik ook op de links onder dat bericht)

 ‘VS liegt schaamteloos om het westen verder op te zetten tegen Iran……..‘

 ‘Reagan middels manipulaties tot president gekozen; waarom de gijzelaars in Iran moesten wachten op hun vrijheid….‘

 ‘Saoedi-Arabië beschuldigt Houthi’s en Iran van raketbeschieting en noemt dit een oorlogsverklaring…………‘




en zie:

Warmonger Called Out on Live TV After Pretending to Care About Iranian Protesters

Georganiseerde misdaad en overheid, wat is het verschil tussen die twee? Een uiterst hilarische lezing van Michael Parenti over de moord op JFK!

Posted on by Telmo Claro

Brasscheck TV kwam afgelopen zaterdag met een lezing van Michael Parenti, waarin de vraag wordt beantwoord of er een verschil bestaat tussen georganiseerde misdaad en de politiek in de meeste landen.

Het zal je waarschijnlijk niet verbazen dat er amper of geen verschil is.

 De staat is er vooral om de belangen van de welgestelden te beschermen en verdeeldheid te zaaien als minderheden of groepen die zich verzetten tegen onrecht of afbraak van het milieu, zich organiseren….. (verdeel en heers…) Waarnaast de gekleurde bevolking van de VS vanaf eind 60er jaren willens en wetens door de overheid werd volgepropt met drugs, dezelfde overheid die sinds begin 70er jaren zogenaamd een oorlog tegen drugs voert…………….

 Dezelfde VS die er niet mee zit vooraanstaande leiders van minderheden te vermoorden, of zelfs een president te vermoorden, waar Parenti vooral spreekt over de moord op J.F. Kennedy. Parenti noemde de film JFK van Oliver Stone, de enige film die 6 maanden voordat deze werd uitgebracht al kritiek kreeg, o.a. van de reguliere (massa-) media in de VS, die de staat steunt waar het maar kan…… Diezelfde staat was van meet af bang aan voor deze film (gezien de kritiek die Stone keer op keer gaf op het ‘land’ dat zich de United States of America durft te noemen…….

Of neem de houding van die massamedia (overigens ook in de rest van wat men het westen noemt), voorafgaand en tijdens de illegale oorlogen tegen Afghanistan, Irak, Libië en Syrië (wat betreft de laatste: de reden voor de VS een opstand te organiseren in Syrië en het land vol te proppen met terroristen en wapens, was Assad, die moest hoe dan ook weg…… De VS was al in 2006 bezig met de voorbereidingen daartoe……. Deze zaken moesten tijdens de lezing van Parenti nog plaatsvinden, de lezing dateert uit 1993.

 Voorts gaat Parenti nog in op het begrip ‘Deep State’.

Beluister deze geweldige en uiterst hilarische lezing waar Perenti, die zoals gezegd, vooral spreekt over de moord op J.F. Kennedy en de grote en belachelijke leugens die daar over werden verteld. Luister en oordeel zelf, althans als je nog niet overtuigd was van het feit dat de overheid achter de moord op JFK zat. Dit keer geen video, maar audio van Brasscheck:

The Gangster Nature of the State

MICHAEL PARENTI (1993)

Can someone tell me the difference between organized crime and most States including our own?
One analyst Michael Parenti examined the question and could not find any real difference.
One of the best talks on this subject you’ll ever hear.

“TOUGH, HILARIOUS, RIGHT-ON MIX OF SCHOLAR AND STREET”

Can someone tell me the difference between organized crime and most States including our own?
One analyst Michael Parenti examined the question and could not find any real difference.
“This tough, hilarious, right-on mix of scholar and street.” – KPFA-Pacifica, 1994
Michael Parenti was born and raised in an Italian-American working class family in New York City. After high school he worked for a number of years then returned to school, eventually earning a B.A. from City College of New York, an M.A. from Brown University, and a Ph.D. in political science from Yale University. His many books include The Face of Imperialism (2011); God and His Demons (2010); The Assassination of Julius Caesar (2003); and Democracy for the Few, 9th edition (2010). He recently published a warmly received “ethnic memoir” entitled Waiting for Yesterday: Pages from a Street Kid’s Life.
Portions of his writings have been translated into some twenty languages. Books and articles of his have been used extensively in college courses and also by lay readers. Over 550 articles of his have appeared in scholarly journals, political periodicals, various magazines, newspapers, books of collected readings, and online publications.
More about Parenti here: http://www.michaelparenti.org

================================

Zie ook: ‘Martin Luther King jr. vermoord door de overheid, aldus rechter……..‘

en: ‘JFK de moord: de macht van de geheime diensten gecombineerd met die van het militair-industrieel complex‘

en: ‘J.F. Kennedy vermoord door Lyndon Johnson en z’n maten in misdaad, geheime diensten en politiek…..‘

en: ‘Kabinet ‘wil kunnen hacken’, zonder daar melding van te maken………. Hoe bedoelt u, ‘politiestaat??’‘

PS: het begrip ‘conspiracy Theory’ (samenzweringstheorie) is door de CIA geïntroduceerd na de moord op JFK, om zo het volk juist weg te houden van de smerige, stinkende waarheid…..

Door VS gesteunde bewind in Honduras heeft de staat van beleg afgekondigd……..

Posted on by Telmo Claro

Het door de VS gewilde en gesteunde bewind van president Juan Orlando Hernandez heeft de staat van beleg afgekondigd, nadat er rellen uitbraken als reactie op overduidelijke manipulaties van de verkiezingsuitslagen….. Burgerrechten zijn buiten werking gesteld, waarnaast politie en leger grote bevoegdheden zijn toegekend, bovendien is er een avondklok ingesteld……

Overigens was het opgaan voor een tweede termijn door president Hernandez al zeer omstreden, daar dit verboden is volgens de Hondurese grondwet, een eerdere president, de socialist Zelaya, wilde dit nog geen 10 jaar geleden, waarop het leger onder regie van de VS (Hillary Clinton) een bloedige staatsgreep pleegde….

Ontslagen en nieuwe benoemingen in het hooggerechtshof, door destijds parlementsvoorzitter Hernandez, werd het eerdere verbod op herverkiezing geschrapt door de nieuw benoemde rechters….. Daardoor kon dezelfde Hernandez nu wel opgaan voor een tweede termijn……. (zonder dat het leger, onder supervisie van de VS, ingrijpt……)

Lid van het congres in de VS, Jan Schakowsky sprak haar ernstige zorgen uit over de verkiezingen in Honduras en zij eist dan ook volledige transparantie van het hoogste Hondurese verkiezingstribunaal (TSE) over de afwikkeling van de verkiezingen. De uitslagen zijn nog steeds niet bekend, het autocratische bewind van Hernandez schijnt de telling stil te hebben gelegd……

Overigens is het de vraag voor de grote onderlaag onder de Hondurezen of ze wat opschieten met de tegenkandidaat van Hernandez, Salvador Nasralla, daar deze lid is van de centrumrechtse coalitie……. En u weet het: waar ‘rechts’ aan de macht is, is de menselijke maat ver te zoeken en is de grote arme onderlaag altijd de klos…… Gelukkig stelt Nasralla wel dat hij de grootschalige corruptie zal aanpakken, al is het maar de vraag of de VS daar blij mee is, immers met een bak geld kon en kan de VS invloed kopen in Honduras………

Intussen treden het leger en politie keihard op tegen demonstranten die vinden dat hun stem is gestolen door de zittende president, daarbij zijn al meerdere doden gevallen…….

Videos: US-Backed Regime in Honduras Imposes Martial Law, Slaughtering Civilians

December 2, 2017 at 1:04 pm
Written by Anti-Media Team
(ANTIMEDIA) — In 2009, a U.S.-backed coup ousted the democratically elected government of Honduras and replaced it with the regime currently in power. Last Sunday, Hondurans went to the polls to elect a new leader. The contest was primarily between the current President Juan Orlando Hernández and Opposition Alliance candidate Salvador Nasralla.
As BBC summarized:
“Monday 27 November, 02:00 local time with 57.2% of votes counted:
  • Salvador Nasralla leads by 5 percentage points (93,975 votes).
Tuesday 28 November, 18:15 local time with 65.7% of votes counted:
  • Salvador Nasralla leads by 3.3 percentage points (72,697 votes).
Wednesday 29 November, 16:58 local time with 82.9% of votes counted:
  • Juan Orlando Hernández leads by 0.1 percentage points (2,911 votes).
Thursday 30 November, 05:00 local time with 88.8% of votes counted:
  • Juan Orlando Hernández leads by 0.8 percentage points (22,677 votes).”
Thursday’s updated vote tally inspired Salvador Nasralla to accuse the electoral court of manipulating the results. “They take us for idiots and want to steal our victory,” he claimed before calling on Hondurans to take to the streets in protest. Nasralla said he will not accept the poll count.
U.S. Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky issued the following statement in response to the presidential election that took place in Honduras on Sunday:

“Confusion and chaos reign in Honduras following Sunday’s presidential election. I am deeply troubled by the delays and lack of transparency that we have seen from the Honduran Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE). I have serious concerns that they are engaging in election tampering and falsifying the results of the election. I am joining the European Union’s electoral observer mission and the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights in Tegucigalpa in calling for the TSE to be fully transparent and immediately offer clear, detailed updates on the results of the election. I hope that our State Department can for once put aside their blind support for President Juan Orlando Hernandez and evaluate this election fairly and objectively. We owe it to the Honduran people to put our support behind free and fair elections – not our candidate of choice. The eyes of the world are on Honduras. Democracy must prevail.” [emphasis added]

Following the release of the disputed results and their candidate’s call for protest, Nasralla’s supporters filled the streets. They claim to have evidence of vote tampering and are refusing to end their protests until the electoral court hears their grievances.
Clashes quickly resulted in the use of tear gas against protesters on Thursday before descending into chaos Friday night after senior government official Ebal Diaz announced on television that the Honduran government had suspended constitutional rights, giving the army and police more power to crush the protests.
“The suspension of constitutional guarantees was approved so that the armed forces and the national police can contain this wave of violence that has engulfed the country,” Diaz said.
Government minister Jorge Ramon Hernandez announced in a statement simultaneously broadcast to TV and radio that beginning immediately, a nationwide curfew would run from 6 pm to 6 am and would continue for 10 days. Under the decree, all local authorities must obey the orders of the army and national police.
On Saturday, Anti-Media readers in Honduras contacted the outlet in an attempt to share their perspective of the grim situation with the world. Hondurans have claimed that state-funded media is neglecting to inform both Hondurans and the world of the violence the army and national police are using against protesters during the suspension of constitutional rights.
The violence includes the use of tear gas, batons, and lethal fire that has resulted in the deaths of multiple Hondurans, which can be seen in the raw video shared with Anti Media below.
(WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT BELOW)

==================================================

Voor meer video’s, die ik niet kan kopiëren, zie het origineel.

Zie ook:
‘VS gebruikt chemische wapens tegen ongewapende vluchtelingen waaronder kinderen‘

‘BBC volkomen krom over de vluchtelingen uit Honduras die wel degelijk door Trump met geweld worden bedreigd‘

‘Trump letterlijk: “Barbwire used in the right way can be a beautiful sight” Trump op een verkiezingsbijeenkomst over het ‘probleem van de vluchtelingenkaravaan’ uit de door de VS gecreëerde ellende in Honduras‘

‘VS stuurt 5.000 militairen extra naar de grens met Mexico, als wapen tegen de karavaan met armen uit Latijns-Amerika‘

‘Trump stuurt 800 militairen naar de Mexicaanse grens met de VS om arme vluchtende drommels tegen te houden……‘

‘VS heeft Hondurese speciale eenheden getraind die protesten tegen een waterkrachtcentrale gewelddadig hebben neergeslagen……‘

‘Hillary Clinton mede verantwoordelijk voor moord op Berta Cáceres………..‘

‘Hondurese activiste ontvoerd en vermoord (alweer…), met instemming van de VS………‘

‘Berta Cáceres voorvechter gelijke rechten en milieuactivist vermoord in Honduras‘

‘Hondurese activiste ontvoerd en vermoord (alweer…), met instemming van de VS………‘

en gerelateerd:
‘VS vermoordde meer dan 20 miljoen mensen sinds het einde van WOII……..‘

‘Obama biedt excuses aan voor staatsgreep in Argentinië en stelt dat het VS beleid drastisch is veranderd…….. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!‘

‘Argentinië: protesten bij politiek proces tegen welzijnsactivist……‘

‘Mexico: mensenrechten- en milieuactivist Isidro Baldenegro vermoord……..‘