Next Page: 10000

          Deep State and MSM Will Fight to the Death Against Trump – Paul...      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   


Deep State and MSM Will Fight to the Death Against Trump – Paul Craig Roberts


          DEMAND INVESTIGATION OF HILLARY AND THE DEEP STATE      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
Serious laws were broken concerning national security and treasonous actions during OBama's administration. From the email server to Uranium One to ileagally leasing our port (Pelican deal) and more!
          Comment on Alex Jones: Infowars has racked up 5.6 million new subscribers in the past 48 hours by Wrong Again      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
None of them are real, he’s an entertainer and it’s NOT his job to indicate reality in any way. In fact, I can report he actually obtained 10 million subscribers, he’s just reporting the lower number so the deep state doesn’t take him out tomorrow, they have that power you know. Q told me.
          The Deep State Plans Something Big: Ban On Infowars Was First Step https://t.co/YADUDc0RSI      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
The Deep State Plans Something Big: Ban On Infowars Was First Step pic.twitter.com/YADUDc0RSI
          Comment on Anonymous vows to take down Q by Aaron Johnson      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
"murky deep state collective called Q". You have any evidence to back this claim? Q is a result of deep state operatives? Love to see your source on that...
          The Deep State Plans Something Big: Ban On Infowars Was First Step      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
Roger Stone reveals why Infowars was banned as the first step in a larger battle between President Trump and the Deep State.
          Comment on Giving Trump Carte Blanche for War by F. G. Sanford      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
In a recent interview, Mr. Kiriakou discussed signs that an attack on Iran might be imminent. He mentioned that aggregation of several aircraft carrier battle groups in the Eastern Mediterranean, Indian Ocean, Arabian Sea, etc. would be a giveaway. Aircraft carriers have become the post-WWII "gunboat diplomacy" weapons of choice. Such vessels can stand off and pound targets inland with no risk to themselves. It has had great success against 3rd world countries with insignificant air and naval resources to resist. Countries like Libya and Yemen can be easily pulverized with this strategy. Countries like Iran - maybe not. The propaganda afoot and efforts to shut down discourse are symptomatic of what the "deep state" has realized, but the general public has not. The US economy is on life support. Aircraft carriers are no longer an invincible strategic weapon. The petrodollar is under assault by three of the largest countries in the world: Russia, China and India. European countries are apparently determined to continue purchasing Iranian gas and oil. So is Turkey. Germany sees advantages to friendly relations with Russia. The stock market is propped up by ZIRP financed buybacks. Popular narratives suggest that we "trust the plan", yet fail to notice that "the plan" bears a striking resemblance to the same old neocon pablum. It's just packaged in a different box. (Yes, I'm trying to say that "Q" is a neocon psyop.) Tyrannical governments in decline eventually attack their own populations. They have to have someone other than themselves to blame. The inevitable disenfranchisement and unrest leads to protest: the self-fulfilling prophesy yields "internal enemies" that must be squelched. Martyanov provides an understated synopsis of American strategic disadvantages. Let me put it starkly. There is no defense against ballistic missiles aimed at ships. There is no countermeasure. The survivability of an aircraft carrier attacked with ballistic missiles is zero. Even if the warheads fail to detonate, the kinetic energy alone could theoretically achieve a sinking. It's like that line from The Karate Kid: "There is no defense". Does this mean there will be no war? I have no idea. But if there is, it is already lost. I'm betting we're gonna start doing a lot of jaw-jaw. Wait and see.
          Civil War 2.0 Looms, But It Won't Be A Race War      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   

Authored by Kevin Barrett via Unz.com,

When we get tired of blowing up Muslims for Israel, will we turn on ourselves?

Scenarios for a second American Civil War have existed ever since the first one ended. Some hyperbolists called Reconstruction the Second Civil War. Alt-history novelists have imagined the ascension of Huey Long or George McGovern to the presidency as Civil War II trigger. The real-life (?!) ascension of Trump has inspired similar fantasies, leading red state partisans to gleefully thump their chests and imagine how easy and fun it would be to take San Francisco—a fantasy that triggers the hell out of the SF-based blue staters.

How might civil unrest spill over into civil war?

One common scenario is race war. The late Charles Manson, we are told, staged his killer-hippie mass knifings because he thought the Beatles were sending him secret orders to start a black-vs. white apocalypse. Obviously Manson must have been taking some really, REALLY bad acid while playing Beatles records backward in hopes of hearing John sneering “Paul is dead”—then suddenly grokked that the White Album, whose mysterious title does not appear on the record and makes no sense anyway, is really about white power! Manson lieutenant Tex Watkins explained: “and what it (the song ‘Helter Skelter’) meant was the Negros were going to come down and rip the cities all apart…Before Helter Skelter came along, all Charlie cared about was orgies.”

Though Manson was a raving nut, his vision of race war was inspired by contemporary reality. Indeed, while the hippies carried on with their orgies, “the Negros” did rip cities apart. Even before the Deep State murdered Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., blacks in New Jersey, Detroit, Minneapolis, and many other cities had been tearing things up and burning neighborhoods down. The “Long, Hot Summer” of 1967 featured 159 race riots in dozens of US urban centers, and elements of the National Security State were drawing up contingency plans for a race based civil war.

William Pepper - the King family’s attorney who proved in a court of law that the CIA, FBI, and US army killed Dr. King with the help of their organized crime assets - once spoke with a US Army Colonel who admitted to helping plan the assassination. The Colonel said that the military had done extensive focus group style interviews with participants in the 1967 race riots and determined that Dr. King’s charisma was the biggest factor driving the riots. Counterintuitively, the apostle of nonviolence was inspiring the psychological liberation of black people in such a way that a certain percentage felt empowered to act out their repressed anger. So when King determined to bring half a million followers to Washington, DC and stay there until the feds pulled out of Vietnam and declared a real war on poverty, the Colonel and his friends immediately envisioned the nation’s capital erupting into mass violence that could spread nationwide on a scale many orders of magnitude beyond what had happened during 1967’s Long Hot Summer, perhaps precipitating a real civil war culminating in the revolutionary overthrow of the American State. This, the Colonel explained to Pepper, was the primary reason King had to be terminated…with extreme prejudice.

Predictably, the Deep State’s murder of Dr. King did not solve the racial violence problem. The assassination itself set off a wave of new riots in cities including Chicago, Baltimore, and - sorry, Colonel - Washington, DC. White-dominated forces of the State retaliated with escalating repression. Black communities felt increasingly under siege, and have continued to feel that way until the present day. Whether it is panicky white police shooting down black people during traffic stops, on sidewalks, or in the black people’s own backyards, or whether it is black people “acting out” against whites (an interesting and under-reported case is the possibly-Cointelpro-orchestrated[*] Zebra killings discussed here by Ron Unz) the simmering racial violence in America is a seemingly unavoidable component of most projections for a New Civil War.

Most red state vs. blue state scenarios, of course, have a race war component. When Trump’s red-staters invade San Francisco, for example, it will not only be to punish the latté liberals and happy homos for their mushy-headedness and luxuriously deviant lifestyles, but more importantly to “make America white again” by ending the sanctuary city movement and deporting the illegal immigrants…while presumably also putting any black people who have managed to remain in America’s highest-rent city, as well as the déclassé ones across the Bay, in their properly subservient place. In other words, just as the first Civil War was really about race (i.e., slavery) the second one will build on the same theme.

American War

Or will it? Omar al-Akkad’s notable 2017 novel American War begs to differ.

In El-Akkad’s dystopian vision, the War on Muslims mutates into the War on Southerners—but has nothing to do with race. Instead, the Yankee Terror State turns its savagery against the New Rebels of the Free Southern States because those good ole boys and girls (of all shades of skin pigmentation and sexual preference) refuse to give up fossil fuels, choosing instead to secede from the Union.

Al-Akkad’s vision of blue vs. red global-warming-driven war run amok in a near-future America that has completely forgotten about the whole concept of race is surprisingly plausible, at least while you are reading it. (Civil War I, after all, was really about economics not race, so why shouldn’t Civil War II also be over an economic issue?) The plot turns on the adventures of Sarat, a young Red State woman of mixed and meaningless (near-black Chicano and po’ white trash) ancestry who awakens politically and goes after the Blue State occupiers in pretty much the same way the Iraqi resistance went after George W. Bush’s storm troopers.

Unlike most dystopian science fiction, American War is not just showing us a terrible future that is really an exaggerated (we hope) depiction of the present-day world we live in. Al-Akkad’s fictional 2074 America is not so much a pessimistic caricature of actual 2017 America as a wish-fulfillment dream of Americans karmically reaping what they’ve sown in their War on Muslims, euphemistically known as the “war on terror.” The horrors that Sarat and other southerners experience under Yankee occupation - drone killings, rape, massacres, torture, internment camps, orange jumpsuits - are precisely those that Muslims have been experiencing since the false flag event of September 11th, 2001. Sarat’s fictional resistance, which culminates in a fantastically horrific act of revenge against the Yankees, represents gratifying fantasy payback for the real-life Terror War’s murder of 32 million Muslims, and a prescient and timely warning about what GWOT is likely to lead to. The whole thing is premised on helping the American/Western reader empathetically imagine what the post-9/11 world looks like to Muslims in general and resistance fighters in particular: Al-Akkad fosters empathy and identification with our victims by casting the archetypal victim-turned-resistance-fighter as ordinary American rather than exotic foreigner.

Zone 23

An even better dystopian “new civil war” novel, C.J. Hopkins’ Zone 23, hasn’t yet garnered the kind of mainstream support that helped American War collect positive reviews in such outlets as The New York Times, win awards, and generally get noticed and sell plenty of copies.

Perhaps that shouldn’t surprise us, since Hopkins, a regular contributor to Unz Review, is on the red side in the real red-vs.-blue civil war that is raging all around us. (I’m talking about the red-pill vs. blue pill war, of course, not the phony culture wars thing ginned up by the Deep State.) Omar El Akkad, despite the subversive aspects of his book, is basically a blue pill kind of guy: His global warming alarmism, gratuitous decision to make his heroine a lesbian, denial of the existence of race, and general penchant for victimology (not to mention his complete avoidance of 9/11 truth in a Muslim-POV takedown of the “war on terror”) all go down well with the Establishment.

C.J. Hopkins offers a deeper, more accurate, vastly funnier, more genuinely subversive vision. His far-future America, which bears an uncanny resemblance to our nightmarish present, features drone-patrolled hyper-surveiled cities, each of which is divided by an Israeli-style Wall complete with Israeli-style checkpoints and incursions featuring Israeli-style killings of hapless untermenschen. But instead of Israelis vs. Palestinians, the divide here is between the Normals on one side of the wall and the Anti-Socials on the other.

The Normals -  good corporate citizens who are submitting to pharmaceutical and genetic correction so they can work and consume and conform and live meaningless lives like everybody else without batting an eyelash - are conditioned to fear and loathe the Antisocials, who retain enough humanity to rebel, in whatever pathetically insignificant way, against corporatist dystopia.

Zone 23, like American War, imagines the future as post-racial: Hopkins’ Normal vs. Antisocial divide isn’t about race. But it is, nonetheless, very much about behavioral genetics. In this (not so) far future, the Hadley Corporation of Menomonie, Wisconsin has developed a variant-corrected version of the MAO-A gene. Inserted into embryos via germline genetic engineering, this patented DNA produces “clears”: people who are intelligent but incurious, incapable of emotionally-driven fight-or-flight aggression (including the most common defensive variety), “easily trained, highly responsive to visual and verbal commands,” and so on. In other words, perfect corporate citizens!

The corporatist state naturally strives to perfect itself, imposing a “final solution” to the ASP (anti-social person) problem by mandating that henceforth no non-genetically-engineered babies may be born. The result is a very one-sided “race war” in which a few antisocial malcontents try to hold out against what amounts to a genocide against “uncorrected” humanity. The plot follows two of those ASP antiheroes as they throw rocks at the Israeli bulldozer of corporatist genocide.

Hopkins’ ferociously funny yarn is not just a satire on our ever-worsening techno-dystopia. In imagining a genetic basis to the difficulties many of us experience adjusting to hyperconformist “technologically-enhanced” lifestyles, and in portraying individuals struggling and flailing against the uber-civilization around them like flies caught a spider web, Zone 23 resonates with the great critiques of technological civilization. According to this tradition, which runs from Taoist Chinese hermits through Middle Eastern prophets and Marxian critics of “alienation” to contemporary scientists who insist that humans are genetically suited to be hunter-gatherers not high tech city dwellers, we are grossly unsuited for living the kind of lives that most modern humans are, for all practical purposes, forced to lead. Through the Brechtian device of estrangement, Hopkins forces us to recognize ourselves in his beleaguered ASP antiheros.

The apostles of race war, from Hitler to Charles Manson to today’s ultra-Zionists, are hugely bothered by what they see as a supposed basic and massive incompatibility between races, i.e. broad, loosely-identifiable swathes of the human genome. According to their bleak vision, we are doomed to fight and kill our cousins whose slightly different average genetic profiles mark them as Other.

Perhaps there is some truth to this notion. Perhaps our nature includes a strong tendency to in-group vs. out-group hostility. And perhaps we tend to divide in-group from out-group on the basis of ascribed ancestry, that is, along tribal lines.

But those who are hugely bothered by other races (or their own race), like those who loathe people of a different ideology or religion or language, may be getting all worked up over nothing. They may in fact be projecting their own experience of a much deeper alienation. They may simply be natural-born hunter gatherers caught in the trap of modern technological civilization, living fantastically comfortable yet somehow miserable lives, desperately seeking someone Other to blame for their predicament.


          Deep State and MSM Will Fight to the Death Against Trump – Paul Craig Roberts       Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
 Why is the mainstream media (MSM) and the Deep State fighting so hard against Trump? Economic expert and journalist Dr. Paul Craig Roberts contends, “All this started during the Presidential campaign when Trump started normalizing relations with Russia. It would be good for both of us, both...

[[ This is a content summary only. Visit http://www.figanews.com or http://FinanceArmageddon.blogspot.com or http://www.newsbooze.com or http://www.figanews.com for full links, other content, and more! ]]
          Pakistan's New Leader Is A Democratically Elected Populist-Visionary      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Oriental Review,

Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, which translates to the Pakistan Movement For Justice and is commonly known by its abbreviation as the PTI, came out on top in the latest elections after campaigning on a strong anti-corruption platform, but it was nevertheless a supposedly “controversial” victory because of the opposition’s claims of “military rigging” and the West’s efforts to “delegitimize” the vote.

To briefly explain, the Supreme Court disqualified former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif from office last summer and he has since been arrested for corruption, but instead of lauding this as a positive move in the right direction by an emerging democracy, it was condemned by some domestic political forces and foreign countries as supposedly being a “military-driven conspiracy” to tilt the future elections to Khan’s favor.

The narrative that his opponents have propagated is that he’s therefore nothing more than a “stooge” of the Pakistani “deep state”.

That’s not the case, however, because Pakistan’s democracy is continually improving, and the only way for it to achieve anything sustainable of significance is for the highest law of the land to be upheld irrespective of the polarized political feelings surrounding the Supreme Court’s ruling last year. Without law and order, no matter how controversial its manifestation may be, no country can ever hope to build democracy, and it’s very telling that so many millions of Pakistanis were attracted to the PTI’s anti-corruption message.

That in and of itself speaks to the need to proverbially “clean house” by holding elected officials and their business partners to account, which is what the Prime Minister-elect has promised to do. This will in turn improve domestic political administration and encourage the trust that’s needed to attract diaspora investments, which can then contribute to Pakistan pursuing value-added projects that turn the CPEC-transiting country into more than just a “Chinese highway”.

Internationally, Khan’s view of foreign affairs closely aligns with what many have interpreted the military establishment’s as being, though that shouldn’t be understood as a bad thing or abused as supposed “proof” that the armed forces “rigged” the vote to help him win.

Pakistan’s new leader seems to understand the value of “multi-aligning” his country’s international partnerships in order to promote the shared goal of multipolarity. This could predictably see him continuing with the fast-moving and full-spectrum Russian-Pakistani rapprochement in parallel with “rebalancing” Pakistan’s traditional relations with the US, all the while never shying away from talking tough to India when needed but nevertheless signaling his intent for pragmatic cooperation. The previous administration was perceived by many as being “too soft” on the US and India, so Khan is merely channeling their frustrations independently of whatever the military’s position towards these two countries may be.

The bottom line is that Pakistan’s next Prime Minister was democratically elected in a free and fair election. Bringing corrupt politicians to justice and embracing populism aren’t indicative of “military meddling”, but are the sign of our times, with Khan being the latest visionary leader to enter into office by appealing to the people’s desires.


          Ten Bombshell Revelations From Seymour Hersh's New Autobiography       Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   

Among the more interesting revelations to surface as legendary investigative journalist Seymour Hersh continues a book tour and gives interviews discussing his newly published autobiography, Reporter: A Memoir, is that he never set out to write it at all, but was actually deeply engaged in writing a massive exposé of Dick Cheney a project he decided couldn't ultimately be published in the current climate of aggressive persecution of whistleblowers which became especially intense during the Obama years.

Hersh has pointed out he worries his sources risk exposure while taking on the Cheney book, which ultimately resulted in the famed reporter opting to write an in-depth account of his storied career instead — itself full of previously hidden details connected with major historical events and state secrets

In a recent wide-ranging interview with the UK Independent, Hersh is finally asked to discuss in-depth some of the controversial investigative stories he's written on Syria, Russia-US intelligence sharing, and the Osama bin Laden death narrativewhich have gotten the Pulitzer Prize winner and five-time Polk Award recipient essentially blacklisted from his regular publication, The New Yorker magazine, for which he broke stories of monumental importance for decades.

Though few would disagree that Hersh "has single-handedly broken more stories of genuine world-historical significance than any reporter alive (or dead, perhaps)" — as The Nation put it — the man who exposed shocking cover-ups like the My Lai Massacre, the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, and the truth behind the downing of Korean Air Flight 007, has lately been shunned and even attacked by the American mainstream media especially over his controversial coverage of Syria and the bin Laden raid in 2011.

But merely a few of the many hit pieces written on this front include The Washington Post's "Sy Hersh, journalism giant: Why some who worshiped him no longer do," and elsewhere "Whatever happened to Seymour Hersh?" or "Sy Hersh's Chemical Misfire" in Foreign Policy — the latter which was written, it should be noted, by a UK blogger who conducts chemical weapons "investigations" via YouTube and Google Maps (and this is not an exaggeration). 

The Post story begins by acknowledging, "But Sy Hersh now has a problem: He thinks 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue lied about the death of Osama bin Laden, and it seems nearly everyone is mad at him for saying so" — before proceeding to take a sledgehammer to Hersh's findings while painting him as some kind of conspiracy theorist (Hersh published the bin Laden story for the London Review of Books after his usual New Yorker rejected it). 

Seymour Hersh broke the story of CIA's illegal domestic operations with a front page story in the New York Times on December 22, 1974.

However, the mainstream pundits piling on against his reporting of late ignore the clearly establish historical pattern when it comes to Hersh: nearly all of the biggest stories of his career were initially met with incredulity and severe push back from both government officials and even his fellow journalists, and yet he's managed to emerge proven right and ultimately vindicated time and again. 

* * *

Here are ten bombshell revelations and fascinating new details to lately come out of both Sy Hersh's new book, Reporter, as well as interviews he's given since publication...

1) On a leaked Bush-era intelligence memo outlining the neocon plan to remake the Middle East

(Note: though previously alluded to only anecdotally by General Wesley Clark in his memoir and in a 2007 speech, the below passage from Seymour Hersh is to our knowledge the first time this highly classified memo has been quoted. Hersh's account appears to corroborate now retired Gen. Clark's assertion that days after 9/11 a classified memo outlining plans to foster regime change in "7 countries in 5 years" was being circulated among intelligence officials.)

From Reporter: A Memoir pg. 306 — A few months after the invasion of Iraq, during an interview overseas with a general who was director of a foreign intelligence service, I was provided with a copy of a Republican neocon plan for American dominance in the Middle East. The general was an American ally, but one who was very rattled by the Bush/Cheney aggression. I was told that the document leaked to me initially had been obtained by someone in the local CIA station. There was reason to be rattled: The document declared that the war to reshape the Middle East had to begin "with the assault on Iraq. The fundamental reason for this... is that the war will start making the U.S. the hegemon of the Middle East. The correlative reason is to make the region feel in its bones, as it were, the seriousness of American intent and determination." Victory in Iraq would lead to an ultimatum to Damascus, the "defanging" of Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, and Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization, and other anti-Israeli groups. America's enemies must understand that "they are fighting for their life: Pax Americana is on its way, which implies their annihilation." I and the foreign general agreed that America's neocons were a menace to civilization.

* * *

2) On early regime change plans in Syria

From Reporter: A Memoir pages 306-307 — Donald Rumsfeld was also infected with neocon fantasy. Turkey had refused to permit America's Fourth Division to join the attack of Iraq from its territory, and the division, with its twenty-five thousand men and women, did not arrive in force inside Iraq until mid-April, when the initial fighting was essentially over. I learned then that Rumsfeld had asked the American military command in Stuttgart, Germany, which had responsibility for monitoring Europe, including Syria and Lebanon, to begin drawing up an operational plan for an invasion of Syria. A young general assigned to the task refused to do so, thereby winning applause from my friends on the inside and risking his career. The plan was seen by those I knew as especially bizarre because Bashar Assad, the ruler of secular Syria, had responded to 9/11 by sharing with the CIA hundreds of his country's most sensitive intelligence files on the Muslim Brotherhood in Hamburg, where much of the planning for 9/11 was carried out... Rumsfeld eventually came to his senses and back down, I was told...

3) On the Neocon deep state which seized power after 9/11

From Reporter: A Memoir pages 305-306 — I began to comprehend that eight or nine neoconservatives who were political outsiders in the Clinton years had essentially overthrown the government of the United States — with ease. It was stunning to realize how fragile our Constitution was. The intellectual leaders of that group — Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle — had not hidden their ideology and their belief in the power of the executive but depicted themselves in public with a great calmness and a self-assurance that masked their radicalism. I had spent many hours after 9/11 in conversations with Perle that, luckily for me, helped me understand what was coming. (Perle and I had been chatting about policy since the early 1980s, but he broke off relations in 1993 over an article I did for The New Yorker linking him, a fervent supporter of Israel, to a series of meetings with Saudi businessmen in an attempt to land a multibillion-dollar contract from Saudi Arabia. Perle responded by publicly threatening to sue me and characterizing me as a newspaper terrorist. He did not sue. 

Meanwhile, Cheney had emerged as a leader of the neocon pack. From 9/11 on he did all he could to undermine congressional oversight. I learned a great deal from the inside about his primacy in the White House, but once again I was limited in what I would write for fear of betraying my sources...

I came to understand that Cheney's goal was to run his most important military and intelligence operations with as little congressional knowledge, and interference, as possible. I was fascinating and important to learn what I did about Cheney's constant accumulation of power and authority as vice president, but it was impossible to even begin to verify the information without running the risk that Cheney would learn of my questioning and have a good idea from whom I was getting the information.

4) On Russian meddling in the US election

From the recent Independent interview based on his autobiography — Hersh has vociferously strong opinions on the subject and smells a rat. He states that there is “a great deal of animosity towards Russia. All of that stuff about Russia hacking the election appears to be preposterous.” He has been researching the subject but is not ready to go public… yet.

Hersh quips that the last time he heard the US defense establishment have high confidence, it was regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He points out that the NSA only has moderate confidence in Russian hacking. It is a point that has been made before; there has been no national intelligence estimate in which all 17 US intelligence agencies would have to sign off. “When the intel community wants to say something they say it… High confidence effectively means that they don’t know.”

5) On the Novichok poisoning 

From the recent Independent interview — Hersh is also on the record as stating that the official version of the Skripal poisoning does not stand up to scrutiny. He tells me: “The story of novichok poisoning has not held up very well. He [Skripal] was most likely talking to British intelligence services about Russian organised crime.” The unfortunate turn of events with the contamination of other victims is suggestive, according to Hersh, of organised crime elements rather than state-sponsored actions –though this files in the face of the UK government's position.

Hersh modestly points out that these are just his opinions. Opinions or not, he is scathing on Obama – “a trimmer … articulate [but] … far from a radical … a middleman”. During his Goldsmiths talk, he remarks that liberal critics underestimate Trump at their peril.

He ends the Goldsmiths talk with an anecdote about having lunch with his sources in the wake of 9/11. He vents his anger at the agencies for not sharing information. One of his CIA sources fires back: “Sy you still don’t get it after all these years – the FBI catches bank robbers, the CIA robs banks.” It is a delicious, if cryptic aphorism.

* * *

6) On the Bush-era 'Redirection' policy of arming Sunni radicals to counter Shia Iran, which in a 2007 New Yorker article Hersh accurately predicted would set off war in Syria

From the Independent interview: [Hersh] tells me it is “amazing how many times that story has been reprinted”. I ask about his argument that US policy was designed to neutralize the Shia sphere extending from Iran to Syria to Hezbollah in Lebanon and hence redraw the Sykes-Picot boundaries for the 21st century.

He goes on to say that Bush and Cheney “had it in for Iran”, although he denies the idea that Iran was heavily involved in Iraq: “They were providing intel, collecting intel … The US did many cross-border hunts to kill ops [with] much more aggression than Iran”...

He believes that the Trump administration has no memory of this approach. I’m sure though that the military-industrial complex has a longer memory...

I press him on the RAND and Stratfor reports including one authored by Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz in which they envisage deliberate ethno-sectarian partitioning of Iraq. Hersh ruefully states that: “The day after 9/11 we should have gone to Russia. We did the one thing that George Kennan warned us never to do – to expand NATO too far.”

* * *

7) On the official 9/11 narrative

From the Independent interview: We end up ruminating about 9/11, perhaps because it is another narrative ripe for deconstruction by sceptics. Polling shows that a significant proportion of the American public believes there is more to the truth. These doubts have been reinforced by the declassification of the suppressed 28 pages of the 9/11 commission report last year undermining the version that a group of terrorists acting independently managed to pull off the attacks. The implication is that they may well have been state-sponsored with the Saudis potentially involved. 

Hersh tells me: “I don’t necessarily buy the story that Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. We really don’t have an ending to the story. I’ve known people in the [intelligence] community. We don’t know anything empirical about who did what”. He continues: “The guy was living in a cave. He really didn’t know much English. He was pretty bright and he had a lot of hatred for the US. We respond by attacking the Taliban. Eighteen years later… How’s it going guys?”

8) On the media and the morality of the powerful

From a recent The Intercept interview and book review  If Hersh were a superhero, this would be his origin story. Two hundred and seventy-four pages after the Chicago anecdote, he describes his coverage of a massive slaughter of Iraqi troops and civilians by the U.S. in 1991 after a ceasefire had ended the Persian Gulf War. America’s indifference to this massacre was, Hersh writes, “a reminder of the Vietnam War’s MGR, for Mere Gook Rule: If it’s a murdered or raped gook, there is no crime.” It was also, he adds, a reminder of something else: “I had learned a domestic version of that rule decades earlier” in Chicago.

“Reporter” demonstrates that Hersh has derived three simple lessons from that rule:

  1. The powerful prey mercilessly upon the powerless, up to and including mass murder.
  2. The powerful lie constantly about their predations.
  3. The natural instinct of the media is to let the powerful get away with it.

* * *

9) On the time President Lyndon B. Johnson expressed his displeasure to a reporter over a Vietnam piece by defecating on the ground in front of him

From Reporter: A Memoir pages 201-202 — Tom [Wicker] got into the car and the two of them sped off down a dusty dirt road. No words were spoken. After a moment or two, Johnson once again slammed on the brakes, wheeling to a halt near a stand of trees. Leaving the motor running, he climbed out, walked a few dozen feet toward the trees, stopped, pulled down his pants, and defecated, in full view. The President wiped himself with leaves and grass, pulled up his pants, climbed into the car, turned in around, and sped back to the press gathering. Once there, again the brakes were slammed on, and Tom was motioned out. All of this was done without a word being spoken.

..."I knew then," Tom told me, "that the son of a bitch was never going to end the war."

10) On Sy's "most troublesome article" for which his own family received death threats

From Reporter: A Memoir pages 263-264 — The most troublesome article I did, as someone not on the staff of the newspaper, came in June 1986 and dealt with American signals intelligence showing that General Manuel Antonio Noriega, the dictator who ran Panama, had authorized the assassination of a popular political opponent. At the time, Noriega was actively involved in supplying the Reagan administration with what was said to be intelligence on the spread of communism in Central America. Noriega also permitted American military and intelligence units to operate with impunity, in secret, from bases in Panama, and the Americans, in return, looked the other way while the general dealt openly in drugs and arms. The story was published just as Noriega was giving a speech at Harvard University and created embarrassment for him, and for Harvard, along with a very disturbing telephone threat at home, directed not at me but at my family. 

* * *


          Trump won't testify      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
Spare us the interviews with Rudy Giuliani and the endless debates among cable TV lawyers about the terms and conditions of Donald Trump's testimony to special counsel Robert Mueller.

Can't we please, please put one piece of Fake News to bed?

Spare us the interviews with Rudy Giuliani and the endless debates among cable TV lawyers about the terms and conditions of Donald Trump's testimony to special counsel Robert Mueller.

There's never going to be any testimony. It's all a charade. Come what may, Trump will never appear under oath in the Russia investigation. No defense attorney worth his law license would allow it.

Those tales The New York Times reporters pass along about how the president's confident he can talk his way out of anything? He's stalling, playing for time. If push comes to shove, Trump will plead the Fifth Amendment, political consequences be damned.

He'll just keep calling the Mueller probe a partisan witch-hunt, invoke the privilege against self-incrimination and brazen it out.

Short of provoking a constitutional crisis, it's his only real play.

How many votes would the president lose that he hasn't lost already? Courtesy of a recent Facebook exchange, here's what dedicated Trumpists already believe: "I call the NY Times conspiring with the FBI and DOJ, and the Hillary Clinton campaign to fix the 2016 election and to cripple the president with the Russia collusion nonsense the behavior of the 'enemies of the people.' "

That's not quite the QAnon conspiracy, but it's in the ballpark.

But I doubt it will come to that. Mueller can issue all the subpoenas he wants, if he wants. But what for? He'd actually be doing Trump a favor, helping him to stall with tedious Supreme Court theater. Already, The Washington Post's Greg Sargent is warning us to "Get ready for this nightmare scenario involving Trump, Mueller and [Supreme Court nominee Brett] Kavanaugh."

Far better for Mueller to let the question of the president's testimony simmer on the back burner while proceeding with widely anticipated indictments of Trump campaign officials for "conspiracy to defraud the United States" along with Russian military hackers. Maybe the president could be persuaded to testify in defense of his son Donald Jr., although I doubt it.

The president basically convicted himself as an accessory after the fact on Twitter last weekend anyway. He condemned as "Fake News" a report that he was "concerned about the meeting my wonderful son, Donald, had in Trump Tower. This was a meeting to get information on an opponent, totally legal and done all the time in politics — and it went nowhere. I did not know about it!"

In short, virtually everything Trump has previously stated about the ill-fated June 2016 meeting between Donald Jr., Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort and a passel of Kremlin-connected Russians was a lie. Supposedly, it was about Russian adoptions, remember? That was the gist of the scripted denial Trump dictated aboard Air Force One and falsely attributed to his son.

A few weeks later, The New York Times obtained a series of emails between Donald Jr. and Rob Goldstone, the British-born publicist who helped arrange the Trump Tower get together by promising "dirt" on Hillary Clinton as "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump."

"If it's what you say," Donald Jr. replied, "I love it."

No mention of Russian orphans.

Meanwhile, two days before the ill-fated meeting that Trump insists he knew nothing about, he'd promised a "major speech" on June 13 regarding "all of the things that have taken place with the Clintons." Evidently because the Russian "dirt" was of low quality, that speech was never delivered.

Nevertheless, it's clear that an offer had been made and a price agreed upon. The Russians wanted repeal of the Magnitsky Act, a law making it hard for Kremlin oligarchs to launder money.

U.S. election law makes it a crime to receive from foreigners "a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value ... in connection with a Federal, State, or local election." "Dirt," aka opposition research, can be an expensive commodity. (Also contrary to Trump, hiring an agent like Christopher Steele to do opposition research is perfectly legal. It's a question of who's paying: the candidate or a hostile foreign government.)

Former George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum puts it succinctly as possible:

"They knew they would be meeting with representatives of the Russian State.

"They knew they were being offered Russian state intelligence.

"They intended to use Russian intelligence offered by Russian agents against American opponents.

"They did not alert the FBI."

Even former Trump sidekick Steve Bannon, scourge of the "Deep State," thought meeting Russian agents inside Trump Tower was at best deeply stupid. "Even if you thought that this was not treasonous, or unpatriotic, or bad s***," he said, "and I happen to think it's all of that, you should have called the FBI immediately."

And if it weren't all those things, the White House wouldn't have had to lie about it for so long.

So, no, Trump will never testify.


          Sale Blitz - A Shameless Little Con by Meli Raine      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   



Title: A Shameless Little Con
Series: The Shameless Series #1
Author: Meli Raine
Genre: Romantic Suspense
Release Date: January 30, 2018



Blurb

I didn’t do it.

I never betrayed my friend.

Last year, I was kidnapped along with presidential candidate’s daughter Lindsay Bosworth, forced to help her assailants, my mother implicated in one of the biggest political scandals in American history.

I've been cleared of any wrongdoing, but that doesn’t matter. Once you’re tried by the media, you’re guilty as sin. The truth doesn’t get the public’s attention.

But shame? Shame sells.

And everyone assumes you’re tainted.

Now I have my own personal security team, courtesy of the United States government. Not the one you learned about in civics class, though.

I’m being tracked by the deep state. The shadow government. They’ve assigned Silas Gentian to be with me twenty-four seven. He thinks he knows everything about me – all of it bad -- and he does.

On paper.

Like everyone else, he assumes I’m a traitor. A backstabber. A betrayer. Someone who helped a group of violent psychopaths, puppets of powerful men in Washington who made me into a tool.

Yet I see how he looks at me. True desire can’t be faked.

Or hidden.

And that goes both ways.

He assumes I’m trying to fool him.

And he might be right.

But not for the reasons he thinks.

A Shameless Little Con is the first book in the Shameless trilogy by USA Today bestselling author Meli Raine.

Read the whole series:

Book 1: A Shameless Little CON
Book 2: A Shameless Little LIE
Book 3: A Shameless Little BET







Purchase Links

FREE for a limited time!

AMAZON US / UK / CA / AU
B&N / KOBO / iBOOKS

ALSO AVAILABLE IN AUDIO






Excerpt

“Has it ever occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, if you thought it through, there might be a completely different angle on every part of this mess? That maybe I’m telling the truth?” I taunt him. That’s how this feels–like nothing but a nasty game. The push-pull of wanting him to treat me like a human being and wanting to lash out and hurt him is infuriating, but it is better than sitting here and taking his negativity like a passive little doormat.

“Of course I have.”

“And you’ve rejected that. Completely.”

“Yes.”

“Then you’re really bad at your job, Silas,” I say, letting all the bitterness and contempt come through my voice.

“You’ve wounded me, Jane.” Turns out he can do contempt, too. Better than I can.

“I mean it. Anyone whose job is to protect people can’t be such an absolutist. It makes you weak. Gives other people an easy shot at you.”

“‘Other people’? Do you mean people like you?”

“No. I mean people like the ones who attacked Lindsay.”

“Right. People like you.”

I shake my head slowly, the waves of panic flowing through me, giving in to them. Letting them come because what choice do I have?

And guess what?

You can feel all of that panic, let the anxiety overwhelm you, nearly black out from the incongruity of being shamed, driving toward an unknown destination where you have no control–
–and still stand up for yourself.

“I have nothing left to lose, Silas. My mom is dead, my reputation’s beyond salvageable, I don’t have a job or a place to live, and everywhere I go someone’s trying to kill me. Even my online world is nothing but garbage and threats from shitlords. So, as a simple thought exercise, can you try? You’re protecting me. Someone assigned you to me. Give me the courtesy of doing your job completely. If I’m stuck with you–and I know I am–I, at least, want you to do your best.”






Also Available


AMAZON US / UK / CA / AU

ALSO AVAILABLE IN AUDIO




AMAZON US / UK / CA / AU

ALSO AVAILABLE IN AUDIO







Author Bio

Meli Raine writes romantic suspense with hot bikers, intense undercover DEA agents, bad boys turned good, and Special Ops heroes — and the women who love them.

Meli rode her first motorcycle when she was five years old, but she played in the ocean long before that. She lives in New England with her family.


Author Links

          Trump won't testify      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
Spare us the interviews with Rudy Giuliani and the endless debates among cable TV lawyers about the terms and conditions of Donald Trump's testimony to special counsel Robert Mueller.

Can't we please, please put one piece of Fake News to bed?

Spare us the interviews with Rudy Giuliani and the endless debates among cable TV lawyers about the terms and conditions of Donald Trump's testimony to special counsel Robert Mueller.

There's never going to be any testimony. It's all a charade. Come what may, Trump will never appear under oath in the Russia investigation. No defense attorney worth his law license would allow it.

Those tales The New York Times reporters pass along about how the president's confident he can talk his way out of anything? He's stalling, playing for time. If push comes to shove, Trump will plead the Fifth Amendment, political consequences be damned.

He'll just keep calling the Mueller probe a partisan witch-hunt, invoke the privilege against self-incrimination and brazen it out.

Short of provoking a constitutional crisis, it's his only real play.

How many votes would the president lose that he hasn't lost already? Courtesy of a recent Facebook exchange, here's what dedicated Trumpists already believe: "I call the NY Times conspiring with the FBI and DOJ, and the Hillary Clinton campaign to fix the 2016 election and to cripple the president with the Russia collusion nonsense the behavior of the 'enemies of the people.' "

That's not quite the QAnon conspiracy, but it's in the ballpark.

But I doubt it will come to that. Mueller can issue all the subpoenas he wants, if he wants. But what for? He'd actually be doing Trump a favor, helping him to stall with tedious Supreme Court theater. Already, The Washington Post's Greg Sargent is warning us to "Get ready for this nightmare scenario involving Trump, Mueller and [Supreme Court nominee Brett] Kavanaugh."

Far better for Mueller to let the question of the president's testimony simmer on the back burner while proceeding with widely anticipated indictments of Trump campaign officials for "conspiracy to defraud the United States" along with Russian military hackers. Maybe the president could be persuaded to testify in defense of his son Donald Jr., although I doubt it.

The president basically convicted himself as an accessory after the fact on Twitter last weekend anyway. He condemned as "Fake News" a report that he was "concerned about the meeting my wonderful son, Donald, had in Trump Tower. This was a meeting to get information on an opponent, totally legal and done all the time in politics — and it went nowhere. I did not know about it!"

In short, virtually everything Trump has previously stated about the ill-fated June 2016 meeting between Donald Jr., Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort and a passel of Kremlin-connected Russians was a lie. Supposedly, it was about Russian adoptions, remember? That was the gist of the scripted denial Trump dictated aboard Air Force One and falsely attributed to his son.

A few weeks later, The New York Times obtained a series of emails between Donald Jr. and Rob Goldstone, the British-born publicist who helped arrange the Trump Tower get together by promising "dirt" on Hillary Clinton as "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump."

"If it's what you say," Donald Jr. replied, "I love it."

No mention of Russian orphans.

Meanwhile, two days before the ill-fated meeting that Trump insists he knew nothing about, he'd promised a "major speech" on June 13 regarding "all of the things that have taken place with the Clintons." Evidently because the Russian "dirt" was of low quality, that speech was never delivered.

Nevertheless, it's clear that an offer had been made and a price agreed upon. The Russians wanted repeal of the Magnitsky Act, a law making it hard for Kremlin oligarchs to launder money.

U.S. election law makes it a crime to receive from foreigners "a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value ... in connection with a Federal, State, or local election." "Dirt," aka opposition research, can be an expensive commodity. (Also contrary to Trump, hiring an agent like Christopher Steele to do opposition research is perfectly legal. It's a question of who's paying: the candidate or a hostile foreign government.)

Former George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum puts it succinctly as possible:

"They knew they would be meeting with representatives of the Russian State.

"They knew they were being offered Russian state intelligence.

"They intended to use Russian intelligence offered by Russian agents against American opponents.

"They did not alert the FBI."

Even former Trump sidekick Steve Bannon, scourge of the "Deep State," thought meeting Russian agents inside Trump Tower was at best deeply stupid. "Even if you thought that this was not treasonous, or unpatriotic, or bad s***," he said, "and I happen to think it's all of that, you should have called the FBI immediately."

And if it weren't all those things, the White House wouldn't have had to lie about it for so long.

So, no, Trump will never testify.


          "Alex Jones, Big Tech, and the Deep State"      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
"Alex Jones, Big Tech, and the Deep State"
by Paul Rosenberg

"They finally got to it. Alex Jones has been banned from Facebook, YouTube, iTunes, and I’m not sure what else… all within 24 hours or so, as I hear it. And he was not alone – others have been banned too. What I want you to understand is this: There’s only one reason this was done now: because they might get away with it.

I see very little of Mr. Jones’ material, but he’s clearly exposing a lot of things the deep-state types don’t like. And believing themselves to be rightful rulers – and believing that the Mr. Joneses of the world ought to be obedient and thankful – they feel entirely correct in eliminating their ridiculous opposition.

Why It Works Now: I’ll be brief: The tech companies have been brought into the machine. They’ve already altered their products to suit the spy agencies and have agents and counteragents all through their operations. When spymasters ask for favors, they do them. Furthermore, they’re super rich, and that makes you a friend of politicians by default. At that level, you need politicians to protect you, in addition to regulating away pesky competitors. And finally, they are all beholden to the money power and their low-interest loans. When mega-bankers pass a request to you through your board of directors, you comply.

Half the political world will cheer for it. In fact, they’ll say it’s necessary in order “to save our democracy.” That’s childish drivel of course, but it’s drivel that will sell to a huge contingent of over-angered, revenge-seeking types. The other half will petition Congress to regulate the tech companies. Again that’s ridiculous, since it was the state apparatus that created the problem in the first place. But idolizing the state, no matter how horribly they behave, is the superstition of the age, and changing such a thing requires real psychological strength. And so, calls for an Internet Bill of Rights or some such nonsense will ring through this contingent.

Even if they have to pull back, they’ll still gain ground. Two steps forward, one step back, in the finest Stalinist tradition. So, if you’re part of the deep state, why not go for it now? And so they have.

What Courage Would Look Like: Courage at this moment would involve the banned parties – and everyone else they could find – building their own social networks (or pouring money into one of the alternatives) and bringing everyone over. In other words, to ignore the thugs and sycophants and build their own. Hire a few dozen engineers and get started. Then hire the necessary support and management people. It isn’t rocket science anymore. After that, psychological changes would likely follow.

Interesting times."
www.freemansperspective.com

          X22 Report: “Confused On What's Happening With The Economy, Don't Be This Is The Plan"”      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   

X22 Report: "Confused On What's Happening With The Economy,
 Don't Be, This Is The Plan"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYAVSCExQQg
Related:
X22 Report: 
“Do You Feel It, The Deep State's Last Ditch Effort Will Be To Unleash…”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STX3hYO_hiY

          Gerald Celente Interview Alex Jones, Trump, Deep State, Noam Chomsky, Julian Assange      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   

from Jason Liosatos Outside The Box: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8ZqweMxCDkVideo can’t be loaded: Gerald Celente Interview Alex Jones Infowars, Trump, Deep State, Noam Chomsky, Julian Assange (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8ZqweMxCDk)

The post Gerald Celente Interview Alex Jones, Trump, Deep State, Noam Chomsky, Julian Assange appeared first on SGT Report.


          Comment on State Production on Terry FOIA Lawsuit Leaves Key Questions Unanswered by Trumped      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
This is part of why the Deep State crooks wanted Hillary to win so badly - they knew she had been involved in so many illegal acts that she was easy to blackmail and control. She has been involved in illegal operations and cover ups all of the way since the 80s when her and Bubba were covering up the drugs being flown in by the cia to Mena. She has her hands in Fast and Furious, Benghazi, running guns to syria and Libyan terrorists, shady energy deals with russia, stealing money for Haitian earthquake victims, and lots of bizarre deaths involving people she knew like Vince foster and Seth rich.
          Deep State Changes Narrative on Russia from “Election Meddling” to “Election Involvement”      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   

With US primary elections coming in November 2018, the neocon-deep state faction of the Trump administration is cleverly scapegoating Russia, while changing the narrative on what was previously called “election meddling” to now be identified as “election involvement”.

Not that any of this matters, because we have, to-date, seen no evidence of “meddling”, “collusion”, “interference”, or “involvement”.

Nevertheless, should Republicans have a poor showing in the midterms Russia will be blamed, and should Democrats have a poor showing in the midterms Russia will be blamed.


          The Deep State Intends To Destroy Alex Jones—Don’t Let Them      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   

Fabricated, unwarranted lawsuits are being used in an effort to shut down Alex Jones who raises too many issues that those who rule us do not want raised. At times Alex can be over the top, but overall he has spread a lot of awareness of events that otherwise would have received no notice.

There is no doubt whatsoever of William Binney’s expertise and integrity. This hour long interview with him is posted on Info Wars, not on CNN, BBC, MSNBC, NPR, or Fox News. It is not printed in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times or the Washington Post.

William Binney developed the NSA’s spy capability and left the agency over its misuse. In this interview—https://www.infowars.com/bill-binney-in-his-own-words-a-collaborative-conspiracy-to-subvert-the-us-government/ — you will learn many things, such as the reason that it is strictly impossible that Hillary’s emails were hacked by the Russians or anyone else; they were downloaded on a thumb drive. You will learn that it is common practice for the US Department of Justice (sic), the FBI, and the so called “security agencies” to frame totally innocent people. You will learn that the entire federal intelligence and legal apparatus is corrupt beyond belief and cannot in any way be trusted.


          Institutionalizing Intolerance: Bullies Win, Freedom Suffers When We Can't Agree To Disagree      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   

Authored by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

“Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.” ― Benjamin Franklin

What a mess.

As America has become ever more polarized, and those polarized factions have become more militant and less inclined to listen to - or even allow for the existence of - other viewpoints, we are fast becoming a nation of people who just can’t get along.

Here’s the thing: if Americans don’t learn how to get along - at the very least, agreeing to disagree and respecting each other’s right to subscribe to beliefs and opinions that may be offensive, hateful, intolerant or merely different - then we’re going to soon find that we have no rights whatsoever (to speak, assemble, agree, disagree, protest, opt in, opt out, or forge our own paths as individuals).

In such an environment, when we can’t agree to disagree, the bullies (on both sides) win and freedom suffers.

Intolerance, once the domain of the politically correct and self-righteous, has been institutionalized, normalized and politicized.

Even those who dare to defend speech that may be unpopular or hateful as a constitutional right are now accused of “weaponizing the First Amendment.”

On college campuses across the country, speakers whose views are deemed “offensive” to some of the student body are having their invitations recalled or cancelled, being shouted down by hecklers, or forced to hire costly security details. As The Washington Postconcludes, “College students support free speech—unless it offends them.”

At Hofstra University, half the students in a freshman class boycotted when the professor assigned them to read Flannery O’Connor’s short story “Artificial Nigger.” As Professor Arthur Dobrin recounts, “The boycotters refused to engage a writer who would use such an offensive word. They hadn’t read the story; they wouldn’t lower themselves to that level. Here is what they missed: The story’s title refers to a lawn jockey, a once common ornament of a black man holding a lantern. The statue symbolizes the suffering of an entire group of people and looking at it bring a moment of insight to a racist old man.”

It’s not just college students who have lost their taste for diverse viewpoints and free speech.

In Charlottesville, Va., in the wake of a violent clash between the alt-right and alt-left over whether Confederate statues should remain standing in a community park, City Council meetings were routinely “punctuated with screaming matches, confrontations, calls to order, and even arrests,” making it all but impossible for attendees and councilors alike to speak their minds.

In Maryland, a 90-year-old World War I Peace Cross memorial that pays tribute to the valor, courage and sacrifice of 49 members of the Prince George community who died in battle is under fire because a group of humanists believes the memorial, which evokes the rows of wooden Latin Crosses that mark the graves of WW I servicemen who fell on battlefields far away, is offensive.

On Twitter, President Trump has repeatedly called for the NFL to penalize players who take a knee in protest of police brutality during the national anthem, which clearly flies in the face of the First Amendment’s assurance of the right to free speech and protest (especially in light of the president’s decision to insert himself—an agent of the government—into a private workplace dispute).

On Facebook, Alex Jones, the majordomo of conspiracy theorists who spawned an empire built on alternative news, has been banned for posting content that violates the social media site’s “Community Standards,” which prohibit posts that can be construed as bullying or hateful.

Jones is not alone in being censured for content that might be construed as false or offensive.

Facebook also flagged a Canadian museum for posting abstract nude paintings by Pablo Picasso.

Even the American Civil Liberties Union, once a group known for taking on the most controversial cases, is contemplating stepping back from its full-throated defense of free (at times, hateful) speech.

“What are the defenders of free speech to do?” asks commentator William Ruger in Time magazine. 

“The sad fact is that this fundamental freedom is on its heels across America,” concludes Ruger. “Politicians of both parties want to use the power of government to silence their foes. Some in the university community seek to drive it from their campuses. And an entire generation of Americans is being taught that free speech should be curtailed as soon as it makes someone else feel uncomfortable. On the current trajectory, our nation’s dynamic marketplace of ideas will soon be replaced by either disengaged intellectual silos or even a stagnant ideological conformity. Few things would be so disastrous for our nation and the well-being of our citizenry.”

Disastrous, indeed.

You see, tolerance cuts both ways.

This isn’t an easy pill to swallow, I know, but that’s the way free speech works, especially when it comes to tolerating speech that we hate.

The most controversial issues of our day—gay rights, abortion, race, religion, sexuality, political correctness, police brutality, et al.—have become battlegrounds for those who claim to believe in freedom of speech but only when it favors the views and positions they support.

Free speech for me but not for thee” is how my good friend and free speech purist Nat Hentoff used to sum up this double standard.

This haphazard approach to the First Amendment has so muddied the waters that even First Amendment scholars are finding it hard to navigate at times.

It’s really not that hard.

The First Amendment affirms the right of the people to speak freely, worship freely, peaceably assemble, petition the government for a redress of grievances, and have a free press.

Nowhere in the First Amendment does it permit the government to limit speech in order to avoid causing offense, hurting someone’s feelings, safeguarding government secrets, protecting government officials, insulating judges from undue influence, discouraging bullying, penalizing hateful ideas and actions, eliminating terrorism, combatting prejudice and intolerance, and the like.

Unfortunately, in the war being waged between free speech purists who believe that free speech is an inalienable right and those who believe that free speech is a mere privilege to be granted only under certain conditions, the censors are winning.

We have entered into an egotistical, insulated, narcissistic era in which free speech has become regulated speech: to be celebrated when it reflects the values of the majority and tolerated otherwise, unless it moves so far beyond our political, religious and socio-economic comfort zones as to be rendered dangerous and unacceptable.

Protest laws, free speech zones, bubble zones, trespass zones, anti-bullying legislation, zero tolerance policies, hate crime laws and a host of other legalistic maladies dreamed up by politicians and prosecutors (and championed by those who want to suppress speech with which they might disagree) have conspired to corrode our core freedoms, purportedly for our own good.

On paper - at least according to the U.S. Constitution - we are technically free to speak.

In reality, however, we are only as free to speak as a government official - or corporate entities such as Facebook, Google or YouTube - may allow.

Emboldened by phrases such as “hate crimes,” “bullying,” “extremism” and “microaggressions,” the nation has been whittling away at free speech, confining it to carefully constructed “free speech zones,” criminalizing it when it skates too close to challenging the status quo, shaming it when it butts up against politically correct ideals, and muzzling it when it appears dangerous.

Free speech is no longer free.

The U.S. Supreme Court has long been the referee in the tug-of-war over the nation’s tolerance for free speech and other expressive activities protected by the First Amendment. Yet the Supreme Court’s role as arbiter of justice in these disputes is undergoing a sea change. Except in cases where it has no vested interest, the Court has begun to advocate for the government’s outsized interests, ruling in favor of the government in matters of war, national security, commerce and speech. 

When asked to choose between the rule of law and government supremacy, the Supreme Court tends to side with the government.

If we no longer have the right to tell a Census Worker to get off our property, if we no longer have the right to tell a police officer to get a search warrant before they dare to walk through our door, if we no longer have the right to stand in front of the Supreme Court wearing a protest sign or approach an elected representative to share our views, if we no longer have the right to voice our opinions in public—no matter how misogynistic, hateful, prejudiced, intolerant, misguided or politically incorrect they might be—then we do not have free speech.

What we have instead is regulated, controlled speech, and that’s a whole other ballgame.

Just as surveillance has been shown to “stifle and smother dissent, keeping a populace cowed by fear,” government censorship gives rise to self-censorship, breeds compliance, makes independent thought all but impossible, and ultimately foments a seething discontent that has no outlet but violence.

The First Amendment is a steam valve. It allows people to speak their minds, air their grievances and contribute to a larger dialogue that hopefully results in a more just world.

When there is no steam valve - when there is no one to hear what the people have to say - frustration builds, anger grows and people become more volatile and desperate to force a conversation. By bottling up dissent, we have created a pressure cooker of stifled misery and discontent that is now bubbling over and fomenting even more hate, distrust and paranoia among portions of the populace.

Silencing unpopular viewpoints with which the majority might disagree—whether it’s by shouting them down, censoring them, muzzling them, or criminalizing them—only empowers the controllers of the Deep State.

Even when the motives behind this rigidly calibrated reorientation of societal language appear well-intentioned—discouraging racism, condemning violence, denouncing discrimination and hatred—inevitably, the end result is the same: intolerance, indoctrination and infantilism.

It’s political correctness disguised as tolerance, civility and love, but what it really amounts to is the chilling of free speech and the demonizing of viewpoints that run counter to the cultural elite.

We’ve allowed ourselves to be persuaded that we need someone else to think and speak for us. And we’ve allowed ourselves to become so timid in the face of offensive words and ideas that we’ve bought into the idea that we need the government to shield us from that which is ugly or upsetting or mean.

The result is a society in which we’ve stopped debating among ourselves, stopped thinking for ourselves, and stopped believing that we can fix our own problems and resolve our own differences.

In short, we have reduced ourselves to a largely silent, passive, polarized populace incapable of working through our own problems with each other and reliant on the government to protect us from our fears of each other. 

So where does that leave us?

We’ve got to do the hard work of figuring out how to get along again.

Charlottesville, Va., is a good example of this.

It’s been a year since my hometown of Charlottesville, Va., became the poster child in a heated war of words—and actions—over racism, “sanitizing history,” extremism (both right and left), political correctness, hate speech, partisan politics, and a growing fear that violent words would end in violent actions.

Those fears were realized when what should have been an exercise in free speech quickly became a brawl that left one activist dead.

Yet lawful, peaceful, nonviolent First Amendment activity did not kill Heather Heyer. She was killed by a 20-year-old Neo-Nazi who drove his car into a crowd of pedestrians in Charlottesville, Va.

Words, no matter how distasteful or disagreeable, did not turn what should have been an exercise in free speech into a brawl. That was accomplished by militant protesters on both sides of the debate who arrived at what should have been a nonviolent protest armed with sticks and guns, bleach bottles, balloons filled with feces and urine and improvised flamethrowers, and by the law enforcement agencies who stood by and allowed it.

This is what happens when we turn our disagreements, even about critically and morally important issues, into lines in the sand.

If we can’t agree to disagree—and learn to live with each other in peace and speak with civility in order to change hearts and minds—then we’ve reached an impasse.

That way lies death, destruction and tyranny.

Now, there’s a big difference between civility (treating others with consideration and respect) and civil disobedience (refusing to comply with certain laws as a means of peaceful protest), both of which Martin Luther King Jr. employed brilliantly, and I’m a champion of both tactics when used wisely.

Frankly, I agree with journalist Bret Stephens when he says that we’re failing at the art of disagreement.

As Stephens explains in a 2017 lecture, which should be required reading for every American:

“To say the words, ‘I agree’—whether it’s agreeing to join an organization, or submit to a political authority, or subscribe to a religious faith—may be the basis of every community. But to say, I disagree; I refuse; you’re wrong; etiam si omnesego nonthese are the words that define our individuality, give us our freedom, enjoin our tolerance, enlarge our perspectives, seize our attention, energize our progress, make our democracies real, and give hope and courage to oppressed people everywhere. Galileo and Darwin; Mandela, Havel, and Liu Xiaobo; Rosa Parks and Natan Sharansky — such are the ranks of those who disagree.”

What does it mean to not merely disagree but rather to disagree well?

According to Stephens, “to disagree well you must first understand well. You have to read deeply, listen carefully, watch closely. You need to grant your adversary moral respect; give him the intellectual benefit of doubt; have sympathy for his motives and participate empathically with his line of reasoning. And you need to allow for the possibility that you might yet be persuaded of what he has to say.”

Instead of intelligent discourse, we’ve been saddled with identity politics, “a safe space from thought, rather than a safe space for thought.”

Safe spaces.

That’s what we’ve been reduced to on college campuses, in government-run forums, and now on public property and on previously open forums such as the internet.

The problem, as I make clear in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, is that the creation of so-called safe spaces—where offensive ideas and speech are prohibited—is just censorship by another name, and censorship breeds resentment, and resentment breeds conflict, and unresolved, festering conflict gives rise to violence.

Charlottesville is a prime example of this.

Anticipating the one-year anniversary of the riots in Charlottesville on August 12, the local city government, which bungled its response the first time around, is now attempting to ostensibly create a “safe space” by shutting the city down for the days surrounding the anniversary, all the while ramping up the presence of militarized police, in the hopes that no one else (meaning activists or protesters) will show up and nothing (meaning riots and brawls among activists) will happen.

What a mess.


          Pakistan's New Leader Is A Democratically Elected Populist-Visionary      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Oriental Review,

Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, which translates to the Pakistan Movement For Justice and is commonly known by its abbreviation as the PTI, came out on top in the latest elections after campaigning on a strong anti-corruption platform, but it was nevertheless a supposedly “controversial” victory because of the opposition’s claims of “military rigging” and the West’s efforts to “delegitimize” the vote.

To briefly explain, the Supreme Court disqualified former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif from office last summer and he has since been arrested for corruption, but instead of lauding this as a positive move in the right direction by an emerging democracy, it was condemned by some domestic political forces and foreign countries as supposedly being a “military-driven conspiracy” to tilt the future elections to Khan’s favor.

The narrative that his opponents have propagated is that he’s therefore nothing more than a “stooge” of the Pakistani “deep state”.

That’s not the case, however, because Pakistan’s democracy is continually improving, and the only way for it to achieve anything sustainable of significance is for the highest law of the land to be upheld irrespective of the polarized political feelings surrounding the Supreme Court’s ruling last year. Without law and order, no matter how controversial its manifestation may be, no country can ever hope to build democracy, and it’s very telling that so many millions of Pakistanis were attracted to the PTI’s anti-corruption message.

That in and of itself speaks to the need to proverbially “clean house” by holding elected officials and their business partners to account, which is what the Prime Minister-elect has promised to do. This will in turn improve domestic political administration and encourage the trust that’s needed to attract diaspora investments, which can then contribute to Pakistan pursuing value-added projects that turn the CPEC-transiting country into more than just a “Chinese highway”.

Internationally, Khan’s view of foreign affairs closely aligns with what many have interpreted the military establishment’s as being, though that shouldn’t be understood as a bad thing or abused as supposed “proof” that the armed forces “rigged” the vote to help him win.

Pakistan’s new leader seems to understand the value of “multi-aligning” his country’s international partnerships in order to promote the shared goal of multipolarity. This could predictably see him continuing with the fast-moving and full-spectrum Russian-Pakistani rapprochement in parallel with “rebalancing” Pakistan’s traditional relations with the US, all the while never shying away from talking tough to India when needed but nevertheless signaling his intent for pragmatic cooperation. The previous administration was perceived by many as being “too soft” on the US and India, so Khan is merely channeling their frustrations independently of whatever the military’s position towards these two countries may be.

The bottom line is that Pakistan’s next Prime Minister was democratically elected in a free and fair election. Bringing corrupt politicians to justice and embracing populism aren’t indicative of “military meddling”, but are the sign of our times, with Khan being the latest visionary leader to enter into office by appealing to the people’s desires.


          Ten Bombshell Revelations From Seymour Hersh's New Autobiography       Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   

Among the more interesting revelations to surface as legendary investigative journalist Seymour Hersh continues a book tour and gives interviews discussing his newly published autobiography, Reporter: A Memoir, is that he never set out to write it at all, but was actually deeply engaged in writing a massive exposé of Dick Cheney a project he decided couldn't ultimately be published in the current climate of aggressive persecution of whistleblowers which became especially intense during the Obama years.

Hersh has pointed out he worries his sources risk exposure while taking on the Cheney book, which ultimately resulted in the famed reporter opting to write an in-depth account of his storied career instead — itself full of previously hidden details connected with major historical events and state secrets

In a recent wide-ranging interview with the UK Independent, Hersh is finally asked to discuss in-depth some of the controversial investigative stories he's written on Syria, Russia-US intelligence sharing, and the Osama bin Laden death narrativewhich have gotten the Pulitzer Prize winner and five-time Polk Award recipient essentially blacklisted from his regular publication, The New Yorker magazine, for which he broke stories of monumental importance for decades.

Though few would disagree that Hersh "has single-handedly broken more stories of genuine world-historical significance than any reporter alive (or dead, perhaps)" — as The Nation put it — the man who exposed shocking cover-ups like the My Lai Massacre, the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, and the truth behind the downing of Korean Air Flight 007, has lately been shunned and even attacked by the American mainstream media especially over his controversial coverage of Syria and the bin Laden raid in 2011.

But merely a few of the many hit pieces written on this front include The Washington Post's "Sy Hersh, journalism giant: Why some who worshiped him no longer do," and elsewhere "Whatever happened to Seymour Hersh?" or "Sy Hersh's Chemical Misfire" in Foreign Policy — the latter which was written, it should be noted, by a UK blogger who conducts chemical weapons "investigations" via YouTube and Google Maps (and this is not an exaggeration). 

The Post story begins by acknowledging, "But Sy Hersh now has a problem: He thinks 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue lied about the death of Osama bin Laden, and it seems nearly everyone is mad at him for saying so" — before proceeding to take a sledgehammer to Hersh's findings while painting him as some kind of conspiracy theorist (Hersh published the bin Laden story for the London Review of Books after his usual New Yorker rejected it). 

Seymour Hersh broke the story of CIA's illegal domestic operations with a front page story in the New York Times on December 22, 1974.

However, the mainstream pundits piling on against his reporting of late ignore the clearly establish historical pattern when it comes to Hersh: nearly all of the biggest stories of his career were initially met with incredulity and severe push back from both government officials and even his fellow journalists, and yet he's managed to emerge proven right and ultimately vindicated time and again. 

* * *

Here are ten bombshell revelations and fascinating new details to lately come out of both Sy Hersh's new book, Reporter, as well as interviews he's given since publication...

1) On a leaked Bush-era intelligence memo outlining the neocon plan to remake the Middle East

(Note: though previously alluded to only anecdotally by General Wesley Clark in his memoir and in a 2007 speech, the below passage from Seymour Hersh is to our knowledge the first time this highly classified memo has been quoted. Hersh's account appears to corroborate now retired Gen. Clark's assertion that days after 9/11 a classified memo outlining plans to foster regime change in "7 countries in 5 years" was being circulated among intelligence officials.)

From Reporter: A Memoir pg. 306 — A few months after the invasion of Iraq, during an interview overseas with a general who was director of a foreign intelligence service, I was provided with a copy of a Republican neocon plan for American dominance in the Middle East. The general was an American ally, but one who was very rattled by the Bush/Cheney aggression. I was told that the document leaked to me initially had been obtained by someone in the local CIA station. There was reason to be rattled: The document declared that the war to reshape the Middle East had to begin "with the assault on Iraq. The fundamental reason for this... is that the war will start making the U.S. the hegemon of the Middle East. The correlative reason is to make the region feel in its bones, as it were, the seriousness of American intent and determination." Victory in Iraq would lead to an ultimatum to Damascus, the "defanging" of Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, and Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization, and other anti-Israeli groups. America's enemies must understand that "they are fighting for their life: Pax Americana is on its way, which implies their annihilation." I and the foreign general agreed that America's neocons were a menace to civilization.

* * *

2) On early regime change plans in Syria

From Reporter: A Memoir pages 306-307 — Donald Rumsfeld was also infected with neocon fantasy. Turkey had refused to permit America's Fourth Division to join the attack of Iraq from its territory, and the division, with its twenty-five thousand men and women, did not arrive in force inside Iraq until mid-April, when the initial fighting was essentially over. I learned then that Rumsfeld had asked the American military command in Stuttgart, Germany, which had responsibility for monitoring Europe, including Syria and Lebanon, to begin drawing up an operational plan for an invasion of Syria. A young general assigned to the task refused to do so, thereby winning applause from my friends on the inside and risking his career. The plan was seen by those I knew as especially bizarre because Bashar Assad, the ruler of secular Syria, had responded to 9/11 by sharing with the CIA hundreds of his country's most sensitive intelligence files on the Muslim Brotherhood in Hamburg, where much of the planning for 9/11 was carried out... Rumsfeld eventually came to his senses and back down, I was told...

3) On the Neocon deep state which seized power after 9/11

From Reporter: A Memoir pages 305-306 — I began to comprehend that eight or nine neoconservatives who were political outsiders in the Clinton years had essentially overthrown the government of the United States — with ease. It was stunning to realize how fragile our Constitution was. The intellectual leaders of that group — Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle — had not hidden their ideology and their belief in the power of the executive but depicted themselves in public with a great calmness and a self-assurance that masked their radicalism. I had spent many hours after 9/11 in conversations with Perle that, luckily for me, helped me understand what was coming. (Perle and I had been chatting about policy since the early 1980s, but he broke off relations in 1993 over an article I did for The New Yorker linking him, a fervent supporter of Israel, to a series of meetings with Saudi businessmen in an attempt to land a multibillion-dollar contract from Saudi Arabia. Perle responded by publicly threatening to sue me and characterizing me as a newspaper terrorist. He did not sue. 

Meanwhile, Cheney had emerged as a leader of the neocon pack. From 9/11 on he did all he could to undermine congressional oversight. I learned a great deal from the inside about his primacy in the White House, but once again I was limited in what I would write for fear of betraying my sources...

I came to understand that Cheney's goal was to run his most important military and intelligence operations with as little congressional knowledge, and interference, as possible. I was fascinating and important to learn what I did about Cheney's constant accumulation of power and authority as vice president, but it was impossible to even begin to verify the information without running the risk that Cheney would learn of my questioning and have a good idea from whom I was getting the information.

4) On Russian meddling in the US election

From the recent Independent interview based on his autobiography — Hersh has vociferously strong opinions on the subject and smells a rat. He states that there is “a great deal of animosity towards Russia. All of that stuff about Russia hacking the election appears to be preposterous.” He has been researching the subject but is not ready to go public… yet.

Hersh quips that the last time he heard the US defense establishment have high confidence, it was regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He points out that the NSA only has moderate confidence in Russian hacking. It is a point that has been made before; there has been no national intelligence estimate in which all 17 US intelligence agencies would have to sign off. “When the intel community wants to say something they say it… High confidence effectively means that they don’t know.”

5) On the Novichok poisoning 

From the recent Independent interview — Hersh is also on the record as stating that the official version of the Skripal poisoning does not stand up to scrutiny. He tells me: “The story of novichok poisoning has not held up very well. He [Skripal] was most likely talking to British intelligence services about Russian organised crime.” The unfortunate turn of events with the contamination of other victims is suggestive, according to Hersh, of organised crime elements rather than state-sponsored actions –though this files in the face of the UK government's position.

Hersh modestly points out that these are just his opinions. Opinions or not, he is scathing on Obama – “a trimmer … articulate [but] … far from a radical … a middleman”. During his Goldsmiths talk, he remarks that liberal critics underestimate Trump at their peril.

He ends the Goldsmiths talk with an anecdote about having lunch with his sources in the wake of 9/11. He vents his anger at the agencies for not sharing information. One of his CIA sources fires back: “Sy you still don’t get it after all these years – the FBI catches bank robbers, the CIA robs banks.” It is a delicious, if cryptic aphorism.

* * *

6) On the Bush-era 'Redirection' policy of arming Sunni radicals to counter Shia Iran, which in a 2007 New Yorker article Hersh accurately predicted would set off war in Syria

From the Independent interview: [Hersh] tells me it is “amazing how many times that story has been reprinted”. I ask about his argument that US policy was designed to neutralize the Shia sphere extending from Iran to Syria to Hezbollah in Lebanon and hence redraw the Sykes-Picot boundaries for the 21st century.

He goes on to say that Bush and Cheney “had it in for Iran”, although he denies the idea that Iran was heavily involved in Iraq: “They were providing intel, collecting intel … The US did many cross-border hunts to kill ops [with] much more aggression than Iran”...

He believes that the Trump administration has no memory of this approach. I’m sure though that the military-industrial complex has a longer memory...

I press him on the RAND and Stratfor reports including one authored by Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz in which they envisage deliberate ethno-sectarian partitioning of Iraq. Hersh ruefully states that: “The day after 9/11 we should have gone to Russia. We did the one thing that George Kennan warned us never to do – to expand NATO too far.”

* * *

7) On the official 9/11 narrative

From the Independent interview: We end up ruminating about 9/11, perhaps because it is another narrative ripe for deconstruction by sceptics. Polling shows that a significant proportion of the American public believes there is more to the truth. These doubts have been reinforced by the declassification of the suppressed 28 pages of the 9/11 commission report last year undermining the version that a group of terrorists acting independently managed to pull off the attacks. The implication is that they may well have been state-sponsored with the Saudis potentially involved. 

Hersh tells me: “I don’t necessarily buy the story that Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. We really don’t have an ending to the story. I’ve known people in the [intelligence] community. We don’t know anything empirical about who did what”. He continues: “The guy was living in a cave. He really didn’t know much English. He was pretty bright and he had a lot of hatred for the US. We respond by attacking the Taliban. Eighteen years later… How’s it going guys?”

8) On the media and the morality of the powerful

From a recent The Intercept interview and book review  If Hersh were a superhero, this would be his origin story. Two hundred and seventy-four pages after the Chicago anecdote, he describes his coverage of a massive slaughter of Iraqi troops and civilians by the U.S. in 1991 after a ceasefire had ended the Persian Gulf War. America’s indifference to this massacre was, Hersh writes, “a reminder of the Vietnam War’s MGR, for Mere Gook Rule: If it’s a murdered or raped gook, there is no crime.” It was also, he adds, a reminder of something else: “I had learned a domestic version of that rule decades earlier” in Chicago.

“Reporter” demonstrates that Hersh has derived three simple lessons from that rule:

  1. The powerful prey mercilessly upon the powerless, up to and including mass murder.
  2. The powerful lie constantly about their predations.
  3. The natural instinct of the media is to let the powerful get away with it.

* * *

9) On the time President Lyndon B. Johnson expressed his displeasure to a reporter over a Vietnam piece by defecating on the ground in front of him

From Reporter: A Memoir pages 201-202 — Tom [Wicker] got into the car and the two of them sped off down a dusty dirt road. No words were spoken. After a moment or two, Johnson once again slammed on the brakes, wheeling to a halt near a stand of trees. Leaving the motor running, he climbed out, walked a few dozen feet toward the trees, stopped, pulled down his pants, and defecated, in full view. The President wiped himself with leaves and grass, pulled up his pants, climbed into the car, turned in around, and sped back to the press gathering. Once there, again the brakes were slammed on, and Tom was motioned out. All of this was done without a word being spoken.

..."I knew then," Tom told me, "that the son of a bitch was never going to end the war."

10) On Sy's "most troublesome article" for which his own family received death threats

From Reporter: A Memoir pages 263-264 — The most troublesome article I did, as someone not on the staff of the newspaper, came in June 1986 and dealt with American signals intelligence showing that General Manuel Antonio Noriega, the dictator who ran Panama, had authorized the assassination of a popular political opponent. At the time, Noriega was actively involved in supplying the Reagan administration with what was said to be intelligence on the spread of communism in Central America. Noriega also permitted American military and intelligence units to operate with impunity, in secret, from bases in Panama, and the Americans, in return, looked the other way while the general dealt openly in drugs and arms. The story was published just as Noriega was giving a speech at Harvard University and created embarrassment for him, and for Harvard, along with a very disturbing telephone threat at home, directed not at me but at my family. 

* * *


          We Have the CIA to Thank for the QAnon Conspiracy Theory      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
The roots of the wackiest pro-Trump conspiracy can be traced back to the CIA.

As the editor of the JFK Facts blog, I try not to spend a lot of time on stupid conspiracy theories, but given widespread ignorance and confusion on the subject, unpleasant journalist duty often calls.

Who killed JFK? The Federal Reserve? Nah. The Secret Service man? A hoax. Ted Cruz’s father? Pure B.S. George H.W. Bush? Heavy breathing is not the same as credible evidence. On a recent Black Vault podcast, the most common JFK question I heard was, “Was Kennedy assassinated because of his interest in UFOs?” Um, no, he was not.

Which brings me to QAnon, the imaginative conspiracy theorist now dominating the internet, attracting followers of President Trump, and obsessing the Washington Post, which has published dozen articles about QAnon in the span of four days. Like many conspiracy theories, the QAnon fever dream can be traced back to the assassination of JFK.

The QAnon conspiracy theory is a psychedelic mushroom planted in the fertile manure of the Warren Commission. This mind-altering proposition grows in the gloom of anonymous chat groups. It is then stimulated by the bright lights of social media. And finally it is harvested and ingested by Trump cultists eager to prolong the alt-reality buzz that commenced on January 20, 2017.

But it all began on November 22, 1963.

Who Is QAnon?

For the uninitiated, “Q” is the moniker of a person or group of persons who post to 4Chan, a popular image website favored by the anonymous. Q’s “theory” (and I use the term generously) is that President Trump was persuaded by the military to smash a network of “deep state” pedophiles that has ruled America for decades. The president (it is said) is working with John F. Kennedy Jr. (who did not die in a plane crash). They will soon smash the perfidious plotters, QAnon predicts, and Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will be sent to Guantanamo.

You may think this is nutty stuff. Buzzfeed News speculates that QAnon is actually a leftist goof on right-wing suckers. But read the respectful coverage of the pro-Trump Washington Times, where QAnon is described as a “mysterious figure” who has been “posting provocative questions about the government since October.” This stuff is taken seriously.

The historical foundation of this mash-up of the preposterous, the ludicrous and the vile is, you guessed it, the assassination of JFK.

From a December 2017 QAnon post about Trump’s alleged enemies:

  • As a backup, they defined ‘conspiracy’ as crazy/mentally unstable and label anything ‘true’ as such.

  • This works given most of what they engage in is pure evil and simply unbelievable (hard to swallow).

  • The ‘fix’ has always been in – no matter which party won the election (-JFK (killed)/Reagan(shot)).

Why do people believe this nonsense?

One reason is that a few kernels of it are not nonsense. The CIA, in this April 1967 memo, launched a worldwide campaign to demonize critics of the Warren Commission as “conspiracy theorists.” Skepticism about official theory of JFK’s assassination, wrote one agency official with the approval of CIA director Richard Helms, “is of concern to the U.S. government including our organization.”

The agency distributed talking points for “friendly elite contacts,” including the bald-faced lie that accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald was “an unknown quantity to any professional intelligence service.” In fact, CIA counterintelligence chief James Angleton had monitored Oswald’s movements, politics, personal life and foreign contacts for four years before he allegedly killed JFK.

If that fact became known, the CIA would have a world of hurt on its hands. So the agency said in its memo that the members of the Warren Commission were eminent men and “efforts to impugn their rectitude and wisdom tend to cast doubt on the whole leadership of American society.”

The Commission’s critics, said the CIA, “are enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it; they also scoff at the Commission because it did not always answer every question with a flat decision one way or another.” In other words, the CIA did define belief in “conspiracy” as a symptom of the mentally unstable and patriotically unreliable.

In fact, the doubts were fact-based. Skepticism about the Warren Commission’s conclusions percolated among the Washington insiders (including Lyndon Johnson, Robert Kennedy, and Jackie Kennedy) and among foreign leaders (including Fidel Castro and Charles DeGaulle). All of them concluded privately that JFK had been killed by his enemies, not by a lone gunman.

Of course, there are other factors contributing to the vogue of QAnon that have nothing to do with JFK.

The echo chamber effects of social media encourage the credulous. So does a president enamored with “alternative facts” (aka bullshit). The exhaustion of the American economic system, which no longer provides the majority with affordable education or upward mobility, leaves young people grasping for explanation of their plight.

But the U.S. government’s implausible account of JFK’s assassination—and the CIA’s self-serving defense—can always be cited by those who say “The government is lying.” So if you want to trace the roots of QAnon in American society, look to the Warren Commission and Langley. Please leave us JFK researchers out of it.

The Origins of JFK Theories

As I wrote a few years ago in The Atlantic, the popular belief in a conspiracy was widespread within a week of Kennedy’s murder. Between November 25 and 29, 1963, University of Chicago pollsters asked more than 1,000 Americans who they thought was responsible for the president’s death. By then, the chief suspect, Lee Oswald—a leftist who had lived for a time in Soviet Union—had been shot dead while in police custody by Jack Ruby, a local strip club owner with organized crime connections who hated Bobby Kennedy.

While the White House, the FBI, and the Dallas Police Department all affirmed that Oswald had acted alone and no one should believe “rumors” to the contrary, 62 percent of respondents said they believed that more than one person was involved in JFK’s assassination. Only 24 percent thought Oswald had acted alone. Another poll taken in Dallas during the same week found 66 percent of city respondents believed that there had been a plot.

The belief that Kennedy was killed by his enemies was not created by “conspiracy theorists” or Oliver Stone of the KGB. It was created by the circumstances of the crime and the assassination of Oswald.

The belief in conspiracy was nurtured the factual revelations that followed: The investigations of New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison in the late 1960s, the Church Committee investigation of 1975, the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1978, and the Assassination Records Review Board in the 1990s. The vastly expanded historical record of JFK’s murder undermines the Warren Commission’s findings and destroys the CIA’s cover stories. While we still don’t have a good explanation of who killed Kennedy, we do know the available facts do not corroborate the official theory.

As long as the government and major media organizations deny the JFK facts, they give credibility to those who cultivate pernicious fantasies. They water the psychedelic mushroom now altering the American consciousness.

This article was produced by the Deep State, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

 

Related Stories


          Ex-Intel Chiefs Are Right to Warn of 'Unprecedented' Trump Threat as He Pushes 'Idiotic' Deep State Lies: Pulitzer-Winning Reporter      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
The former intelligence chiefs have lied and spied, but that doesn’t mean they’re wrong about Trump.

The spectacle of former U.S. intelligence chiefs taking the lead in opposing President Trump is making a lot of people’s heads spin. On the right, the once-venerated CIA and FBI are now scorned corrupt nests of liberal subversives. Breitbart charges the FBI is the “command center” of the anti-Trump Deep State. On the left, the once-mistrusted intelligence agencies are now seen as a bulwark against Trump’s incipient tyranny. Says Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, “God bless the ‘deep state.

The confrontation is confusing because it is unprecedented. The White House and the CIA have clashed before, most notably during the Kennedy, Nixon, and Carter presidencies. But never before have retired barons of espionage, subversion, surveillance, threat analysis, law enforcement, code breaking, and counterterrorism turned so savagely on an elected commander-in-chief.

Former director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former FBI director James Comey, and former CIA and NSA director Michael Hayden have all written bestselling books in the past years that make their case against Trump. And former CIA director John Brennan’s denunciations of Trump on CNN are so voluminous they could be compiled into a book.

These men don’t waste any breath on the now defunct art of Washington politesse. Brennan said Trump’s press conference with President Putin was “nothing short of treasonous.” Clapper said Trump’s continuing denials of collusion between his campaign and Russia are “very disturbing.” Comey likens Trump’s personal style to that of organized crime bosses, and says Trump is “morally unfit” to be president. Hayden suggests that a foreign intelligence service reporting home from Washington would conclude “President Trump appears to be what the Americans call a bullshitter.”

The 45th president has responded in kind, claiming he is the victim of a “criminal deep state” and its allies in the media. “Comey was a terrible and corrupt leader who inflicted great pain on the FBI!” he tweeted in May. Clapper, he added, is “the worlds dumbest former Intelligence Head” and “a lying machine.”

Brennan, Trump tweeted, “has disgraced himself, he has disgraced the Country, he has disgraced the entire Intelligence Community.”      

It may be tempting to view this rhetorical warfare between the president and these retired intelligence officials as a squabble among scoundrels.

After all, John Brennan did help implement the post-9/11 torture regime that disgraced the CIA, and he did help suppress the Senate intelligence committee report on it. James Clapper did lie when Sen. Ron Wyden asked him about the NSA’s mass surveillance programs. Michael Hayden did approve Stellar Wind, a warrantless wiretapping program that James Comey found “clearly unlawful.” And Comey did approve a watered-down version of Stellar Wind. And he intervened inappropriately in the 2016 campaign, not once but twice, with unauthorized statements about Hillary Clinton’s email.

Glenn Greenwald says the intelligence chiefs are hypocritical poseurs unworthy of trust or even respect. The other day he tweeted:

Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, the founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, goes further. He told Radio Sputnik on July 25, “Six weeks from now, John Brennan, James Comey and others at the highest level will have to answer for their shenanigans with respect to the soft coup attempt to prevent Trump from winning the presidency and later to make him impotent to carry out the policies he wished to create a decent relationship with Russia.”

Are the former intelligence chiefs truth-tellers or coup plotters?

To put these perplexing development in historical context, I spoke with my friend Tim Weiner, a former New York Times reporter who has an essay on the Trump v. Deep State cage match in the current issue of the New York Review of Books.

Weiner is also the author of Legacy of Ashes, a history of the CIA, and Enemies, a history of the FBI. Both books are punchy, vivid chronicles that do not flatter their subjects or aspire to artificial balance. The Agency doesn’t much like him.

The conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Jefferson Morley: What do you make of the argument that the men you call “intelligence emeriti”—Comey, Clapper, Brennan, and Hayden—have no credibility about Trump because of their role in mass surveillance and torture programs during the Bush years?

Tim Weiner: If there is a body of thought that says Comey cannot be telling the truth about Trump because he screwed Hillary Clinton during the campaign; that Hayden cannot be telling the truth about Trump because he carried out Stellar Wind; or that Brennan can’t be telling the truth about Trump because he watched over drone strikes, well, that is insane. There’s the old line of F. Scott Fitzgerald, the mark of a good mind is to be able to hold two opposing ideas in your head at the same. That argument is a straw man.

JM: Stephen Cohen, contributing editor to the Nation, says that Brennan and others who found Trump’s Helsinki summit “treasonous” are “criminalizing diplomacy.” Comment?

TW: If Stephen Cohen has a soft spot in his heart for Vladimir Putin, he ought to examine it. You have to be an effing idiot to think Putin is promoting a global cooperation, international harmony, or Atoms for Peace.

Trump represents an unprecedented and unfathomable threat to constitutional government in this country. It is remarkable that these very conservative stalwarts of the national security state are attacking the president of United States, but we entered a zone of danger when Trump was inaugurated. I believe these guys are responding with all the knowledge at their command to fight him. This doesn’t absolve them of any real, or imagined, misdeeds, including serious misdeeds. It just means in this case, they’re right. Trump is a threat. Trump is a liar. If anyone is qualified to raise the possibility that the president and his inner circle are in the thrall of Putin, it’s these guys.

JM: What about the argument that these men are invested in waging a new Cold War against Russia?

TW: It’s idiotic. It is an undeniable fact that this country was attacked in 2016 by a very sophisticated covert operation involving information warfare, propaganda, cyber-attacks, and political warfare that aimed to a) attack Hillary Clinton; b) support Donald Trump; and c) most importantly, disrupt and damage American democracy. It is also an irrefutable fact that this campaign is continuing. I believe that Robert Mueller, having laid the foundation of the nature of the Russian attack, is going to, in due course, identify Americans who conspired with the Russians.

You and I are old enough to remember Watergate. We’re at the stage we know there was a break-in. We’ve established the people who conducted the break-in. We are now going to see the ties between the burglars and the Committee to Reelect the President, and then we’ll see the ties to the White House. I have no doubt that that is where this is going. If people are too blind to see that because of ideologies, they better wake up.

I’m not exactly a cheerleader for the intelligence community. I have a pretty long record of analyzing and criticizing what they do. I’m [as] aware as anybody of crimes committed by CIA, NSA, and FBI. But no intelligent person can read what these guys have said about Trump and disagree. They’re saying that the president has played the role, at a minimum, of useful idiot, in aiding and abetting this very dangerous Russian operation. It may be hard for people to get their heads around the fact that they are right about this, but it would be a very good thing to do.

JM: Presidents and the intelligence agencies have struggled for power in the past. How is Trump’s beef with the CIA and FBI different than, say, Richard Nixon’s?

TW: Nixon hated the CIA and got rid of director Richard Helms because he wouldn’t take the fall for the Watergate burglary. When J. Edgar Hoover died, Nixon put a stooge, L. Patrick Gray, in charge of the FBI, in the mistaken belief that if he could control Gray, he could control the Bureau. If the FBI hadn’t done its job, Nixon would have served his term out. It wasn’t Woodward and Bernstein who brought down Nixon. It was the FBI.

Again, you have to hold in your head the opposite truths: that the FBI, under J. Edgar Hoover, represented an immense danger to American civil liberties and the Constitution, and that the FBI defended the Constitution in bringing down Richard Nixon. This is not a black-and-white world.

JM: After the CIA’s abuses of power were exposed in the 1970s, Congress created a new regime for regulating intelligence agencies. The FISA courts were established. So were the congressional oversight committees. Has this system worked to hold the intelligence community accountable?

TW: In fits and starts. When George W. Bush ordered NSA to conduct warrantless eavesdropping, it was the FBI, in the person of Director Robert Mueller, and the Justice Department, in the person of Acting Attorney General James Comey, who told Bush to stop it. And he did, kicking and screaming the whole way.

How did Mueller and Comey do it? By threatening to resign. Bush said in his memoir that that would have been his version of Nixon’s Saturday Night Massacre, and it might have cost him his reelection. So he backed down. That is power, and that is power wisely used.

Are the intelligence oversight committees working? Well, one is and one isn’t. In the House, Devin Nunes has done more to destroy the intelligence oversight process than anybody in the last 40 years. It’s going to take a long time to repair the damage.

Are FISA courts working? Hard to say. In the case of Stellar Wind, it was a FISA judge, Royce Lamberth, who was the first to call the warning, and he told Mueller. So the system worked, sort of.

JM: Is it hypocritical for American officeholders and law enforcement officials to complain about Russian meddling when the U.S. has interfered in so many countries’ elections?

TW: It is never lawful and legal for any nation to intervene in another nation’s election. When the CIA did, it was obviously wrong, and saying the Russians did too is no defense. But everybody has to recognize that this is different. Russia’s goal in 2016 was not to swing an election. It was to disrupt American democracy. Putin’s political warfare aims to disrupt every democracy from the western border of Russia to the West Coast of the United States. Trump is a soldier in a war against American democracy, a war that Putin is commanding and controlling. This is what Comey, Clapper, Brennan and Hayden are yelling about.


This article was produced by the Deep State, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

 

 


          Comment on Infowars’ Alex Jones blasts Apple, Google, others; warns on internet censorship by jungle      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
Yet, it's funny how nearly every MSM network predicted the election going to Hillary... while Alex predicted Trump. He also exposed the deep state in ways no other reporter would touch. Alex has a right to be heard and if you believe his ban will serve free speech, I feel sorry for you.
          Institutionalizing Intolerance: Bullies Win, Freedom Suffers When We Can't Agree To Disagree      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   

Authored by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

“Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.” ― Benjamin Franklin

What a mess.

As America has become ever more polarized, and those polarized factions have become more militant and less inclined to listen to - or even allow for the existence of - other viewpoints, we are fast becoming a nation of people who just can’t get along.

Here’s the thing: if Americans don’t learn how to get along - at the very least, agreeing to disagree and respecting each other’s right to subscribe to beliefs and opinions that may be offensive, hateful, intolerant or merely different - then we’re going to soon find that we have no rights whatsoever (to speak, assemble, agree, disagree, protest, opt in, opt out, or forge our own paths as individuals).

In such an environment, when we can’t agree to disagree, the bullies (on both sides) win and freedom suffers.

Intolerance, once the domain of the politically correct and self-righteous, has been institutionalized, normalized and politicized.

Even those who dare to defend speech that may be unpopular or hateful as a constitutional right are now accused of “weaponizing the First Amendment.”

On college campuses across the country, speakers whose views are deemed “offensive” to some of the student body are having their invitations recalled or cancelled, being shouted down by hecklers, or forced to hire costly security details. As The Washington Postconcludes, “College students support free speech—unless it offends them.”

At Hofstra University, half the students in a freshman class boycotted when the professor assigned them to read Flannery O’Connor’s short story “Artificial Nigger.” As Professor Arthur Dobrin recounts, “The boycotters refused to engage a writer who would use such an offensive word. They hadn’t read the story; they wouldn’t lower themselves to that level. Here is what they missed: The story’s title refers to a lawn jockey, a once common ornament of a black man holding a lantern. The statue symbolizes the suffering of an entire group of people and looking at it bring a moment of insight to a racist old man.”

It’s not just college students who have lost their taste for diverse viewpoints and free speech.

In Charlottesville, Va., in the wake of a violent clash between the alt-right and alt-left over whether Confederate statues should remain standing in a community park, City Council meetings were routinely “punctuated with screaming matches, confrontations, calls to order, and even arrests,” making it all but impossible for attendees and councilors alike to speak their minds.

In Maryland, a 90-year-old World War I Peace Cross memorial that pays tribute to the valor, courage and sacrifice of 49 members of the Prince George community who died in battle is under fire because a group of humanists believes the memorial, which evokes the rows of wooden Latin Crosses that mark the graves of WW I servicemen who fell on battlefields far away, is offensive.

On Twitter, President Trump has repeatedly called for the NFL to penalize players who take a knee in protest of police brutality during the national anthem, which clearly flies in the face of the First Amendment’s assurance of the right to free speech and protest (especially in light of the president’s decision to insert himself—an agent of the government—into a private workplace dispute).

On Facebook, Alex Jones, the majordomo of conspiracy theorists who spawned an empire built on alternative news, has been banned for posting content that violates the social media site’s “Community Standards,” which prohibit posts that can be construed as bullying or hateful.

Jones is not alone in being censured for content that might be construed as false or offensive.

Facebook also flagged a Canadian museum for posting abstract nude paintings by Pablo Picasso.

Even the American Civil Liberties Union, once a group known for taking on the most controversial cases, is contemplating stepping back from its full-throated defense of free (at times, hateful) speech.

“What are the defenders of free speech to do?” asks commentator William Ruger in Time magazine. 

“The sad fact is that this fundamental freedom is on its heels across America,” concludes Ruger. “Politicians of both parties want to use the power of government to silence their foes. Some in the university community seek to drive it from their campuses. And an entire generation of Americans is being taught that free speech should be curtailed as soon as it makes someone else feel uncomfortable. On the current trajectory, our nation’s dynamic marketplace of ideas will soon be replaced by either disengaged intellectual silos or even a stagnant ideological conformity. Few things would be so disastrous for our nation and the well-being of our citizenry.”

Disastrous, indeed.

You see, tolerance cuts both ways.

This isn’t an easy pill to swallow, I know, but that’s the way free speech works, especially when it comes to tolerating speech that we hate.

The most controversial issues of our day—gay rights, abortion, race, religion, sexuality, political correctness, police brutality, et al.—have become battlegrounds for those who claim to believe in freedom of speech but only when it favors the views and positions they support.

Free speech for me but not for thee” is how my good friend and free speech purist Nat Hentoff used to sum up this double standard.

This haphazard approach to the First Amendment has so muddied the waters that even First Amendment scholars are finding it hard to navigate at times.

It’s really not that hard.

The First Amendment affirms the right of the people to speak freely, worship freely, peaceably assemble, petition the government for a redress of grievances, and have a free press.

Nowhere in the First Amendment does it permit the government to limit speech in order to avoid causing offense, hurting someone’s feelings, safeguarding government secrets, protecting government officials, insulating judges from undue influence, discouraging bullying, penalizing hateful ideas and actions, eliminating terrorism, combatting prejudice and intolerance, and the like.

Unfortunately, in the war being waged between free speech purists who believe that free speech is an inalienable right and those who believe that free speech is a mere privilege to be granted only under certain conditions, the censors are winning.

We have entered into an egotistical, insulated, narcissistic era in which free speech has become regulated speech: to be celebrated when it reflects the values of the majority and tolerated otherwise, unless it moves so far beyond our political, religious and socio-economic comfort zones as to be rendered dangerous and unacceptable.

Protest laws, free speech zones, bubble zones, trespass zones, anti-bullying legislation, zero tolerance policies, hate crime laws and a host of other legalistic maladies dreamed up by politicians and prosecutors (and championed by those who want to suppress speech with which they might disagree) have conspired to corrode our core freedoms, purportedly for our own good.

On paper - at least according to the U.S. Constitution - we are technically free to speak.

In reality, however, we are only as free to speak as a government official - or corporate entities such as Facebook, Google or YouTube - may allow.

Emboldened by phrases such as “hate crimes,” “bullying,” “extremism” and “microaggressions,” the nation has been whittling away at free speech, confining it to carefully constructed “free speech zones,” criminalizing it when it skates too close to challenging the status quo, shaming it when it butts up against politically correct ideals, and muzzling it when it appears dangerous.

Free speech is no longer free.

The U.S. Supreme Court has long been the referee in the tug-of-war over the nation’s tolerance for free speech and other expressive activities protected by the First Amendment. Yet the Supreme Court’s role as arbiter of justice in these disputes is undergoing a sea change. Except in cases where it has no vested interest, the Court has begun to advocate for the government’s outsized interests, ruling in favor of the government in matters of war, national security, commerce and speech. 

When asked to choose between the rule of law and government supremacy, the Supreme Court tends to side with the government.

If we no longer have the right to tell a Census Worker to get off our property, if we no longer have the right to tell a police officer to get a search warrant before they dare to walk through our door, if we no longer have the right to stand in front of the Supreme Court wearing a protest sign or approach an elected representative to share our views, if we no longer have the right to voice our opinions in public—no matter how misogynistic, hateful, prejudiced, intolerant, misguided or politically incorrect they might be—then we do not have free speech.

What we have instead is regulated, controlled speech, and that’s a whole other ballgame.

Just as surveillance has been shown to “stifle and smother dissent, keeping a populace cowed by fear,” government censorship gives rise to self-censorship, breeds compliance, makes independent thought all but impossible, and ultimately foments a seething discontent that has no outlet but violence.

The First Amendment is a steam valve. It allows people to speak their minds, air their grievances and contribute to a larger dialogue that hopefully results in a more just world.

When there is no steam valve - when there is no one to hear what the people have to say - frustration builds, anger grows and people become more volatile and desperate to force a conversation. By bottling up dissent, we have created a pressure cooker of stifled misery and discontent that is now bubbling over and fomenting even more hate, distrust and paranoia among portions of the populace.

Silencing unpopular viewpoints with which the majority might disagree—whether it’s by shouting them down, censoring them, muzzling them, or criminalizing them—only empowers the controllers of the Deep State.

Even when the motives behind this rigidly calibrated reorientation of societal language appear well-intentioned—discouraging racism, condemning violence, denouncing discrimination and hatred—inevitably, the end result is the same: intolerance, indoctrination and infantilism.

It’s political correctness disguised as tolerance, civility and love, but what it really amounts to is the chilling of free speech and the demonizing of viewpoints that run counter to the cultural elite.

We’ve allowed ourselves to be persuaded that we need someone else to think and speak for us. And we’ve allowed ourselves to become so timid in the face of offensive words and ideas that we’ve bought into the idea that we need the government to shield us from that which is ugly or upsetting or mean.

The result is a society in which we’ve stopped debating among ourselves, stopped thinking for ourselves, and stopped believing that we can fix our own problems and resolve our own differences.

In short, we have reduced ourselves to a largely silent, passive, polarized populace incapable of working through our own problems with each other and reliant on the government to protect us from our fears of each other. 

So where does that leave us?

We’ve got to do the hard work of figuring out how to get along again.

Charlottesville, Va., is a good example of this.

It’s been a year since my hometown of Charlottesville, Va., became the poster child in a heated war of words—and actions—over racism, “sanitizing history,” extremism (both right and left), political correctness, hate speech, partisan politics, and a growing fear that violent words would end in violent actions.

Those fears were realized when what should have been an exercise in free speech quickly became a brawl that left one activist dead.

Yet lawful, peaceful, nonviolent First Amendment activity did not kill Heather Heyer. She was killed by a 20-year-old Neo-Nazi who drove his car into a crowd of pedestrians in Charlottesville, Va.

Words, no matter how distasteful or disagreeable, did not turn what should have been an exercise in free speech into a brawl. That was accomplished by militant protesters on both sides of the debate who arrived at what should have been a nonviolent protest armed with sticks and guns, bleach bottles, balloons filled with feces and urine and improvised flamethrowers, and by the law enforcement agencies who stood by and allowed it.

This is what happens when we turn our disagreements, even about critically and morally important issues, into lines in the sand.

If we can’t agree to disagree—and learn to live with each other in peace and speak with civility in order to change hearts and minds—then we’ve reached an impasse.

That way lies death, destruction and tyranny.

Now, there’s a big difference between civility (treating others with consideration and respect) and civil disobedience (refusing to comply with certain laws as a means of peaceful protest), both of which Martin Luther King Jr. employed brilliantly, and I’m a champion of both tactics when used wisely.

Frankly, I agree with journalist Bret Stephens when he says that we’re failing at the art of disagreement.

As Stephens explains in a 2017 lecture, which should be required reading for every American:

“To say the words, ‘I agree’—whether it’s agreeing to join an organization, or submit to a political authority, or subscribe to a religious faith—may be the basis of every community. But to say, I disagree; I refuse; you’re wrong; etiam si omnesego nonthese are the words that define our individuality, give us our freedom, enjoin our tolerance, enlarge our perspectives, seize our attention, energize our progress, make our democracies real, and give hope and courage to oppressed people everywhere. Galileo and Darwin; Mandela, Havel, and Liu Xiaobo; Rosa Parks and Natan Sharansky — such are the ranks of those who disagree.”

What does it mean to not merely disagree but rather to disagree well?

According to Stephens, “to disagree well you must first understand well. You have to read deeply, listen carefully, watch closely. You need to grant your adversary moral respect; give him the intellectual benefit of doubt; have sympathy for his motives and participate empathically with his line of reasoning. And you need to allow for the possibility that you might yet be persuaded of what he has to say.”

Instead of intelligent discourse, we’ve been saddled with identity politics, “a safe space from thought, rather than a safe space for thought.”

Safe spaces.

That’s what we’ve been reduced to on college campuses, in government-run forums, and now on public property and on previously open forums such as the internet.

The problem, as I make clear in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, is that the creation of so-called safe spaces—where offensive ideas and speech are prohibited—is just censorship by another name, and censorship breeds resentment, and resentment breeds conflict, and unresolved, festering conflict gives rise to violence.

Charlottesville is a prime example of this.

Anticipating the one-year anniversary of the riots in Charlottesville on August 12, the local city government, which bungled its response the first time around, is now attempting to ostensibly create a “safe space” by shutting the city down for the days surrounding the anniversary, all the while ramping up the presence of militarized police, in the hopes that no one else (meaning activists or protesters) will show up and nothing (meaning riots and brawls among activists) will happen.

What a mess.


          Comment on Analysis QAnon Meet a reallife believer in the online proTrump conspiracy theory thats bursting into view by Saborlas      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
Trump IS the deep state. He's assigning unvetted, unqualified people to positions of power... sometimes in ways that make them immune to government oversight.<p><a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://www.myconfinedspace.com/2018/08/07/analysis-qanon-meet-a-reallife-believer-in-the-online-protrump-conspiracy-theory-thats-bursting-into-view/?replytocom=1832341" lang="" onclick="return addComment.moveForm( this.lang, "1832341", "respond", "604125" )" aria-label="Reply to Saborlas">Reply</a></p>
          It's Not The Deep State That Hurts Trump — It's The Shallow State      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
President Trump and his supporters have often complained about the deep state — a cabal of hostile bureaucrats. But maybe the biggest impediment to the president comes from his cabinet.
          Paul Craig Roberts: The Deep State And The MSM Will Fight To The Death Against Trump      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   

Paul says the Deep State and the MSM find normalizing relations with Russia to be unacceptable. Here’s why… Paul Craig Roberts interviewed by Greg Hunter on USA Watchdog Why is […]

The post Paul Craig Roberts: The Deep State And The MSM Will Fight To The Death Against Trump appeared first on Silver Doctors.


          It's Not The Deep State That Hurts Trump — It's The Shallow State      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
President Trump and his supporters have often complained about the deep state — a cabal of hostile bureaucrats. But maybe the biggest impediment to the president comes from his cabinet.
          It's Not The Deep State That Hurts Trump — It's The Shallow State      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
President Trump and his supporters have often complained about the "deep state" - a supposedly shadowy cabal of opposition bureaucrats buried deep within the government. But perhaps the biggest impediment to the president isn't the deep state at all. It's the "shallow state" - which exists right below Donald Trump at the cabinet level. After all, there's a distinct pattern in the administration. The president makes a claim that seems to contradict longstanding policy. Shortly thereafter, a cabinet member or two will step up to a microphone and reiterate U.S. policy, contradicting the president. The most recent example are new sanctions the Trump administration plans to level against Russia for using a nerve agent in the attempted assassination of a former Russian agent in the United Kingdom. Shortly after the British government declared in March that Russia was behind the chemical weapons use, Trump sowed doubt on the findings. "As soon as we get the facts straight, if we agree with
          It's Not The Deep State That Hurts Trump — It's The Shallow State      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
President Trump and his supporters have often complained about the deep state — a cabal of hostile bureaucrats. But maybe the biggest impediment to the president comes from his cabinet.
          Highly Suspect – Corrupt Senate Intelligence Committee Wants To Interview Julian Assange Behind Closed Doors…      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
The most corrupt part of congress is the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI).  The SSCI is the center of the deepest part of the Deep State swamp. The SSCI never, ever,  E.V.E.R… does anything that does not protect and … Continue reading
          The Bonfire of Humanity      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
What’s the difference between an alcoholic or a junkie… and the American Deep State War Machine? Nothing.  There isn’t any. Both are deep in the grip of addictions.  Neither can exist without its drug of choice.  Alcohol or Heroin for the addict; money for the War Machine.  Each will do anything for the fix it More
          We Have the CIA to Thank for the QAnon Conspiracy Theory      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
The roots of the wackiest pro-Trump conspiracy can be traced back to the CIA.

As the editor of the JFK Facts blog, I try not to spend a lot of time on stupid conspiracy theories, but given widespread ignorance and confusion on the subject, unpleasant journalist duty often calls.

Who killed JFK? The Federal Reserve? Nah. The Secret Service man? A hoax. Ted Cruz’s father? Pure B.S. George H.W. Bush? Heavy breathing is not the same as credible evidence. On a recent Black Vault podcast, the most common JFK question I heard was, “Was Kennedy assassinated because of his interest in UFOs?” Um, no, he was not.

Which brings me to QAnon, the imaginative conspiracy theorist now dominating the internet, attracting followers of President Trump, and obsessing the Washington Post, which has published dozen articles about QAnon in the span of four days. Like many conspiracy theories, the QAnon fever dream can be traced back to the assassination of JFK.

The QAnon conspiracy theory is a psychedelic mushroom planted in the fertile manure of the Warren Commission. This mind-altering proposition grows in the gloom of anonymous chat groups. It is then stimulated by the bright lights of social media. And finally it is harvested and ingested by Trump cultists eager to prolong the alt-reality buzz that commenced on January 20, 2017.

But it all began on November 22, 1963.

Who Is QAnon?

For the uninitiated, “Q” is the moniker of a person or group of persons who post to 4Chan, a popular image website favored by the anonymous. Q’s “theory” (and I use the term generously) is that President Trump was persuaded by the military to smash a network of “deep state” pedophiles that has ruled America for decades. The president (it is said) is working with John F. Kennedy Jr. (who did not die in a plane crash). They will soon smash the perfidious plotters, QAnon predicts, and Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will be sent to Guantanamo.

You may think this is nutty stuff. Buzzfeed News speculates that QAnon is actually a leftist goof on right-wing suckers. But read the respectful coverage of the pro-Trump Washington Times, where QAnon is described as a “mysterious figure” who has been “posting provocative questions about the government since October.” This stuff is taken seriously.

The historical foundation of this mash-up of the preposterous, the ludicrous and the vile is, you guessed it, the assassination of JFK.

From a December 2017 QAnon post about Trump’s alleged enemies:

  • As a backup, they defined ‘conspiracy’ as crazy/mentally unstable and label anything ‘true’ as such.

  • This works given most of what they engage in is pure evil and simply unbelievable (hard to swallow).

  • The ‘fix’ has always been in – no matter which party won the election (-JFK (killed)/Reagan(shot)).

Why do people believe this nonsense?

One reason is that a few kernels of it are not nonsense. The CIA, in this April 1967 memo, launched a worldwide campaign to demonize critics of the Warren Commission as “conspiracy theorists.” Skepticism about official theory of JFK’s assassination, wrote one agency official with the approval of CIA director Richard Helms, “is of concern to the U.S. government including our organization.”

The agency distributed talking points for “friendly elite contacts,” including the bald-faced lie that accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald was “an unknown quantity to any professional intelligence service.” In fact, CIA counterintelligence chief James Angleton had monitored Oswald’s movements, politics, personal life and foreign contacts for four years before he allegedly killed JFK.

If that fact became known, the CIA would have a world of hurt on its hands. So the agency said in its memo that the members of the Warren Commission were eminent men and “efforts to impugn their rectitude and wisdom tend to cast doubt on the whole leadership of American society.”

The Commission’s critics, said the CIA, “are enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it; they also scoff at the Commission because it did not always answer every question with a flat decision one way or another.” In other words, the CIA did define belief in “conspiracy” as a symptom of the mentally unstable and patriotically unreliable.

In fact, the doubts were fact-based. Skepticism about the Warren Commission’s conclusions percolated among the Washington insiders (including Lyndon Johnson, Robert Kennedy, and Jackie Kennedy) and among foreign leaders (including Fidel Castro and Charles DeGaulle). All of them concluded privately that JFK had been killed by his enemies, not by a lone gunman.

Of course, there are other factors contributing to the vogue of QAnon that have nothing to do with JFK.

The echo chamber effects of social media encourage the credulous. So does a president enamored with “alternative facts” (aka bullshit). The exhaustion of the American economic system, which no longer provides the majority with affordable education or upward mobility, leaves young people grasping for explanation of their plight.

But the U.S. government’s implausible account of JFK’s assassination—and the CIA’s self-serving defense—can always be cited by those who say “The government is lying.” So if you want to trace the roots of QAnon in American society, look to the Warren Commission and Langley. Please leave us JFK researchers out of it.

The Origins of JFK Theories

As I wrote a few years ago in The Atlantic, the popular belief in a conspiracy was widespread within a week of Kennedy’s murder. Between November 25 and 29, 1963, University of Chicago pollsters asked more than 1,000 Americans who they thought was responsible for the president’s death. By then, the chief suspect, Lee Oswald—a leftist who had lived for a time in Soviet Union—had been shot dead while in police custody by Jack Ruby, a local strip club owner with organized crime connections who hated Bobby Kennedy.

While the White House, the FBI, and the Dallas Police Department all affirmed that Oswald had acted alone and no one should believe “rumors” to the contrary, 62 percent of respondents said they believed that more than one person was involved in JFK’s assassination. Only 24 percent thought Oswald had acted alone. Another poll taken in Dallas during the same week found 66 percent of city respondents believed that there had been a plot.

The belief that Kennedy was killed by his enemies was not created by “conspiracy theorists” or Oliver Stone of the KGB. It was created by the circumstances of the crime and the assassination of Oswald.

The belief in conspiracy was nurtured the factual revelations that followed: The investigations of New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison in the late 1960s, the Church Committee investigation of 1975, the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1978, and the Assassination Records Review Board in the 1990s. The vastly expanded historical record of JFK’s murder undermines the Warren Commission’s findings and destroys the CIA’s cover stories. While we still don’t have a good explanation of who killed Kennedy, we do know the available facts do not corroborate the official theory.

As long as the government and major media organizations deny the JFK facts, they give credibility to those who cultivate pernicious fantasies. They water the psychedelic mushroom now altering the American consciousness.

This article was produced by the Deep State, a project of the Independent Media Institute.


          Ex-Intel Chiefs Are Right to Warn of 'Unprecedented' Trump Threat as He Pushes 'Idiotic' Deep State Lies: Pulitzer-Winning Reporter      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
The former intelligence chiefs have lied and spied, but that doesn’t mean they’re wrong about Trump.

The spectacle of former U.S. intelligence chiefs taking the lead in opposing President Trump is making a lot of people’s heads spin. On the right, the once-venerated CIA and FBI are now scorned corrupt nests of liberal subversives. Breitbart charges the FBI is the “command center” of the anti-Trump Deep State. On the left, the once-mistrusted intelligence agencies are now seen as a bulwark against Trump’s incipient tyranny. Says Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, “God bless the ‘deep state.

The confrontation is confusing because it is unprecedented. The White House and the CIA have clashed before, most notably during the Kennedy, Nixon, and Carter presidencies. But never before have retired barons of espionage, subversion, surveillance, threat analysis, law enforcement, code breaking, and counterterrorism turned so savagely on an elected commander-in-chief.

Former director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former FBI director James Comey, and former CIA and NSA director Michael Hayden have all written bestselling books in the past years that make their case against Trump. And former CIA director John Brennan’s denunciations of Trump on CNN are so voluminous they could be compiled into a book.

These men don’t waste any breath on the now defunct art of Washington politesse. Brennan said Trump’s press conference with President Putin was “nothing short of treasonous.” Clapper said Trump’s continuing denials of collusion between his campaign and Russia are “very disturbing.” Comey likens Trump’s personal style to that of organized crime bosses, and says Trump is “morally unfit” to be president. Hayden suggests that a foreign intelligence service reporting home from Washington would conclude “President Trump appears to be what the Americans call a bullshitter.”

The 45th president has responded in kind, claiming he is the victim of a “criminal deep state” and its allies in the media. “Comey was a terrible and corrupt leader who inflicted great pain on the FBI!” he tweeted in May. Clapper, he added, is “the worlds dumbest former Intelligence Head” and “a lying machine.”

Brennan, Trump tweeted, “has disgraced himself, he has disgraced the Country, he has disgraced the entire Intelligence Community.”      

It may be tempting to view this rhetorical warfare between the president and these retired intelligence officials as a squabble among scoundrels.

After all, John Brennan did help implement the post-9/11 torture regime that disgraced the CIA, and he did help suppress the Senate intelligence committee report on it. James Clapper did lie when Sen. Ron Wyden asked him about the NSA’s mass surveillance programs. Michael Hayden did approve Stellar Wind, a warrantless wiretapping program that James Comey found “clearly unlawful.” And Comey did approve a watered-down version of Stellar Wind. And he intervened inappropriately in the 2016 campaign, not once but twice, with unauthorized statements about Hillary Clinton’s email.

Glenn Greenwald says the intelligence chiefs are hypocritical poseurs unworthy of trust or even respect. The other day he tweeted:

Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, the founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, goes further. He told Radio Sputnik on July 25, “Six weeks from now, John Brennan, James Comey and others at the highest level will have to answer for their shenanigans with respect to the soft coup attempt to prevent Trump from winning the presidency and later to make him impotent to carry out the policies he wished to create a decent relationship with Russia.”

Are the former intelligence chiefs truth-tellers or coup plotters?

To put these perplexing development in historical context, I spoke with my friend Tim Weiner, a former New York Times reporter who has an essay on the Trump v. Deep State cage match in the current issue of the New York Review of Books.

Weiner is also the author of Legacy of Ashes, a history of the CIA, and Enemies, a history of the FBI. Both books are punchy, vivid chronicles that do not flatter their subjects or aspire to artificial balance. The Agency doesn’t much like him.

The conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Jefferson Morley: What do you make of the argument that the men you call “intelligence emeriti”—Comey, Clapper, Brennan, and Hayden—have no credibility about Trump because of their role in mass surveillance and torture programs during the Bush years?

Tim Weiner: If there is a body of thought that says Comey cannot be telling the truth about Trump because he screwed Hillary Clinton during the campaign; that Hayden cannot be telling the truth about Trump because he carried out Stellar Wind; or that Brennan can’t be telling the truth about Trump because he watched over drone strikes, well, that is insane. There’s the old line of F. Scott Fitzgerald, the mark of a good mind is to be able to hold two opposing ideas in your head at the same. That argument is a straw man.

JM: Stephen Cohen, contributing editor to the Nation, says that Brennan and others who found Trump’s Helsinki summit “treasonous” are “criminalizing diplomacy.” Comment?

TW: If Stephen Cohen has a soft spot in his heart for Vladimir Putin, he ought to examine it. You have to be an effing idiot to think Putin is promoting a global cooperation, international harmony, or Atoms for Peace.

Trump represents an unprecedented and unfathomable threat to constitutional government in this country. It is remarkable that these very conservative stalwarts of the national security state are attacking the president of United States, but we entered a zone of danger when Trump was inaugurated. I believe these guys are responding with all the knowledge at their command to fight him. This doesn’t absolve them of any real, or imagined, misdeeds, including serious misdeeds. It just means in this case, they’re right. Trump is a threat. Trump is a liar. If anyone is qualified to raise the possibility that the president and his inner circle are in the thrall of Putin, it’s these guys.

JM: What about the argument that these men are invested in waging a new Cold War against Russia?

TW: It’s idiotic. It is an undeniable fact that this country was attacked in 2016 by a very sophisticated covert operation involving information warfare, propaganda, cyber-attacks, and political warfare that aimed to a) attack Hillary Clinton; b) support Donald Trump; and c) most importantly, disrupt and damage American democracy. It is also an irrefutable fact that this campaign is continuing. I believe that Robert Mueller, having laid the foundation of the nature of the Russian attack, is going to, in due course, identify Americans who conspired with the Russians.

You and I are old enough to remember Watergate. We’re at the stage we know there was a break-in. We’ve established the people who conducted the break-in. We are now going to see the ties between the burglars and the Committee to Reelect the President, and then we’ll see the ties to the White House. I have no doubt that that is where this is going. If people are too blind to see that because of ideologies, they better wake up.

I’m not exactly a cheerleader for the intelligence community. I have a pretty long record of analyzing and criticizing what they do. I’m [as] aware as anybody of crimes committed by CIA, NSA, and FBI. But no intelligent person can read what these guys have said about Trump and disagree. They’re saying that the president has played the role, at a minimum, of useful idiot, in aiding and abetting this very dangerous Russian operation. It may be hard for people to get their heads around the fact that they are right about this, but it would be a very good thing to do.

JM: Presidents and the intelligence agencies have struggled for power in the past. How is Trump’s beef with the CIA and FBI different than, say, Richard Nixon’s?

TW: Nixon hated the CIA and got rid of director Richard Helms because he wouldn’t take the fall for the Watergate burglary. When J. Edgar Hoover died, Nixon put a stooge, L. Patrick Gray, in charge of the FBI, in the mistaken belief that if he could control Gray, he could control the Bureau. If the FBI hadn’t done its job, Nixon would have served his term out. It wasn’t Woodward and Bernstein who brought down Nixon. It was the FBI.

Again, you have to hold in your head the opposite truths: that the FBI, under J. Edgar Hoover, represented an immense danger to American civil liberties and the Constitution, and that the FBI defended the Constitution in bringing down Richard Nixon. This is not a black-and-white world.

JM: After the CIA’s abuses of power were exposed in the 1970s, Congress created a new regime for regulating intelligence agencies. The FISA courts were established. So were the congressional oversight committees. Has this system worked to hold the intelligence community accountable?

TW: In fits and starts. When George W. Bush ordered NSA to conduct warrantless eavesdropping, it was the FBI, in the person of Director Robert Mueller, and the Justice Department, in the person of Acting Attorney General James Comey, who told Bush to stop it. And he did, kicking and screaming the whole way.

How did Mueller and Comey do it? By threatening to resign. Bush said in his memoir that that would have been his version of Nixon’s Saturday Night Massacre, and it might have cost him his reelection. So he backed down. That is power, and that is power wisely used.

Are the intelligence oversight committees working? Well, one is and one isn’t. In the House, Devin Nunes has done more to destroy the intelligence oversight process than anybody in the last 40 years. It’s going to take a long time to repair the damage.

Are FISA courts working? Hard to say. In the case of Stellar Wind, it was a FISA judge, Royce Lamberth, who was the first to call the warning, and he told Mueller. So the system worked, sort of.

JM: Is it hypocritical for American officeholders and law enforcement officials to complain about Russian meddling when the U.S. has interfered in so many countries’ elections?

TW: It is never lawful and legal for any nation to intervene in another nation’s election. When the CIA did, it was obviously wrong, and saying the Russians did too is no defense. But everybody has to recognize that this is different. Russia’s goal in 2016 was not to swing an election. It was to disrupt American democracy. Putin’s political warfare aims to disrupt every democracy from the western border of Russia to the West Coast of the United States. Trump is a soldier in a war against American democracy, a war that Putin is commanding and controlling. This is what Comey, Clapper, Brennan and Hayden are yelling about.


This article was produced by the Deep State, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

 

 


          'QAnon' Is About Much More than Trump — It Reveals the Deep Pathologies of the Republican Party      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
If you're not a believer, you will have difficulty understanding how anyone can believe such a patently ridiculous confabulation.

The political movement swirling around President Donald Trump -- formerly known as the Republican Party -- displays certain unique features but is really just the latest noxious excrescence of the American right. Like so many of its predecessors, the Trump movement is built on fear. And like every movement motivated by paranoia, its followers are mentally vulnerable to the most idiotic conspiracy theories.

Not surprisingly, since everything about Trump is always the "biggest" and the "best," his fans are flocking to a truly enormous and enormously deluded conspiracy known as QAnon, or simply, "Q."

Insofar as any sane reporter can determine, Q is an entity that delivers anonymous messages via internet chat boards (the same virtual locations that generally attract obsessive right-wing types who carry out harassment campaigns from their mothers' basements). Supposedly sent by some person or persons in the upper reaches of the federal government with ultra-secret security clearances, the Q "drops" assure us that Trump is actually dismantling the "deep state" and elite international pedophilia cults, both controlled by various liberal politicians and celebrities. Already, Q has reported the arrest of Hillary Clinton (which never happened).

According to Q, all of this exciting activity is being carried out under deep cover, with the assistance of none other than Robert Mueller himself. You see, the special counsel is secretly working to assist Trump, not to investigate him. The verbal assaults and tweets against him emanating from the White House, not to mention Fox News, represent a "false flag" deception. So does everything else that doesn't fit into the conspiracy.

Among the charms of Q is that any believer can invent his or her own version of this mysterious presence, because there are no facts to fetter the paranoid imagination. Inquire who is delivering those tantalizing internet hints, as a CNN reporter asked Q kooks at a Trump rally last week, and everyone offers a different answer: It's one person, or 10 people, or more; it's a committee of military flag officers; it's Trump himself; it's John F. Kennedy Jr., who didn't really die in an airplane crash off Martha's Vineyard in 1999 after all. (Not kidding!)

If you're not a believer, you will have difficulty understanding how anyone can believe such a patently ridiculous confabulation. Yet among the Trump faithful there are hundreds of thousands, perhaps soon millions, fervently joining the Q queue. They are eagerly awaiting "the Storm," their term for the moment of reckoning when Trump and Mueller will seize all those liberal pedophiles and march them off to Gitmo.

Among them is Roseanne Barr, who has promoted Q on her Twitter feed for months. But nearly every right-wing media personality, from Sean Hannity to Alex Jones, is stoking the crazy -- as are the Russians and their bots, of course, along with "alt-right" internet trolls like Jack Posobiec and Mike Cernovich. In other words, Q fans include all the usual suspects.

Now, manipulative charlatans on the right have been training stupid people to believe stupid things for decades, dating back to The John Birch Society and its insistence that former President Eisenhower, among others, was a conscious instrument of the "Communist conspiracy." Those claims offended principled conservatives, who kicked the Birchers out of their movement.

But in more recent years, the inclination to promote outrageous calumnies has penetrated the upper reaches of the Republican Party and its allies on the religious right and in right-wing media. Republican leaders who are appalled by these tactics are almost always too cowardly to disavow them.

So in the early '90s, furious over losing the White House to Bill and Hillary Clinton after three terms of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, Republicans promoted vile accusations to demonize the Democrats. Major GOP figures, including House committee chairs and especially House Speaker Newt Gingrich, slyly endorsed charges they knew to be utterly false. So did Rush Limbaugh, followed later by his many imitators on Fox. And so did Rev. Jerry Falwell, a minister of the Gospel who routinely violated the Eighth Commandment for profit.

The Clintons were slimed for years with concocted stories of cocaine trafficking and murder. Now they are said to operate an international child sex trafficking ring, along with former President Barack Obama (who is really a Communist Muslim born in Kenya) and George Soros (a Jew who is really a Nazi). But those sick fantasies have already gone stale.

The freshest theory, brought to us by BuzzFeed News, is also the most refreshing: Q is merely a hoax, concocted by leftists to make the right look extra dumb. For anyone with a functioning brain, a spirit of decency and a sense of humor, that's the only conspiracy with any traction.

To find out more about Joe Conason and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com. COPYRIGHT 2018 CREATORS.COM


          Yes, Virginia, there is a deep state. And it’s at State      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
  Flopping Aces By DrJohn Over the last 18 months, democrats have been fond of saying that the walls are closing in on Donald Trump. So much so, that David Rutz of the Washington Free Beacon put together a hilarious montage of it: Well, the walls are closing in. On Bruce Ohr and the deep […]
          It's Not The Deep State That Hurts Trump — It's The Shallow State      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
President Trump and his supporters have often complained about the "deep state" - a supposedly shadowy cabal of opposition bureaucrats buried deep within the government. But perhaps the biggest impediment to the president isn't the deep state at all. It's the "shallow state" - which exists right below Donald Trump at the cabinet level. After all, there's a distinct pattern in the administration. The president makes a claim that seems to contradict longstanding policy. Shortly thereafter, a cabinet member or two will step up to a microphone and reiterate U.S. policy, contradicting the president. The most recent example are new sanctions the Trump administration plans to level against Russia for using a nerve agent in the attempted assassination of a former Russian agent in the United Kingdom. Shortly after the British government declared in March that Russia was behind the chemical weapons use, Trump sowed doubt on the findings. "As soon as we get the facts straight, if we agree with
          It's Not The Deep State That Hurts Trump — It's The Shallow State      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
President Trump and his supporters have often complained about the "deep state" - a supposedly shadowy cabal of opposition bureaucrats buried deep within the government. But perhaps the biggest impediment to the president isn't the deep state at all. It's the "shallow state" - which exists right below Donald Trump at the cabinet level. After all, there's a distinct pattern in the administration. The president makes a claim that seems to contradict longstanding policy. Shortly thereafter, a cabinet member or two will step up to a microphone and reiterate U.S. policy, contradicting the president. The most recent example are new sanctions the Trump administration plans to level against Russia for using a nerve agent in the attempted assassination of a former Russian agent in the United Kingdom. Shortly after the British government declared in March that Russia was behind the chemical weapons use, Trump sowed doubt on the findings. "As soon as we get the facts straight, if we agree with
          Rekhmire: The First Masonic Grand Master of the Deep State      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
Gnostic Warrior Many prominent Freemasonic historians such as Cagliostro, Thomas Paine, and Manly P. Hall trace the long history of the Craft back to Ancient Egypt well before the modern version of the History of Masonry was allegedly recreated in England back in the early 1700’s. Like these great historians, I have also found the […]
          It's Not The Deep State That Hurts Trump — It's The Shallow State       Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   

President Trump and his supporters have often complained about the "deep state" — a supposedly shadowy cabal of opposition bureaucrats buried deep within the government. But perhaps the biggest impediment to the president isn't the deep state at all. It's the "shallow state" — which exists right below Donald Trump at the Cabinet level.

After all, there's a distinct pattern in the administration. The president makes a claim that seems to contradict longstanding policy. Shortly thereafter, a Cabinet member or two will step up to a microphone and reiterate U.S. policy, contradicting the president.

The most recent example are new sanctions the Trump administration plans to level against Russia for using a nerve agent in the attempted assassination of a former Russian agent in the United Kingdom. Shortly after the British government declared in March that Russia was behind the chemical weapons use, Trump sowed doubt on the findings.

"As soon as we get the facts straight, if we agree with them, we will condemn Russia or whoever it may be," said Trump in March of conclusions drawn by the intelligence agencies of the United States' closest ally.

The administration quickly put out a stronger statement in Trump's name and this week's sanctions show that it's another of many disconnects between what the president has said (or tweets) and what his top officials and Cabinet secretaries do.

Elaine Kamarck, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a lecturer in public policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, says this dynamic is unusual for a president.

"Almost all presidents plan what they're going to say and plan how to have the government behind them when they go to implement what they say," she says.

For the Trump administration, that formula is turned on its head.

There was the time Trump said he'd forgive Puerto Rico's debt. His budget director stepped in and said, no, in fact, that wasn't going to happen.

There was the time when Trump went to the NATO headquarters and refused to say the U.S. was committed to NATO's mutual defense pact. His defense secretary and vice president rushed out to say, in effect, the president's words, or the absence of them, was not the official U.S. policy toward NATO.

Last week, the president continued his rhetoric on the special counsel's "witch hunt" and wrote what seemed like a request to his attorney general on Twitter.

Quickly, his administration sought to clarify that the president wasn't issuing any commands — just his opinion.

One of Trump's top lawyers, Rudy Giuliani, said the president has established a clear practice that he expresses his opinions on Twitter.

"He used the word 'should.' He didn't use the word 'must.' And there was no presidential directive that followed it," Giuliani said. "He didn't direct him to do it and he's not going to direct him to do it."

Press secretary Sarah Sanders echoed that sentiment during a briefing. "It's not an order," she reiterated. "It's the president's opinion."

That opinion, which the president repeatedly expresses, is that the Mueller probe is a rigged witch hunt, something that top administration officials, including the president's FBI director, Christopher Wray, deny.

Kamarck says Donald Trump increasingly operates as a party of one, untethered from his own administration.

"This president simply seems to wake up in the morning and say things with nothing behind them, no preparation, no theory of the case, and no coherency," she says. "And it's causing a lot of confusion in his White House because they're always scrambling after him."

Sometimes, that scrambling ties Cabinet secretaries in knots.

Take Iran, for example. During a press conference with the Italian prime minister, President Trump said he would be willing to meet with the leaders of Iran without any preconditions.

"No preconditions, no," he said in response to a reporter's question. "If they wanna meet, I'll meet."

Hours later on CNBC, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo seemed to backtrack that idea, sharing a long list of preconditions that Iran would have to meet before sitting down with the president — like reducing its malign behavior and agreeing that it's worthwhile to enter into a nuclear agreement that prevents proliferation.

The difference between what the president says and the policy of the United States is yet another question that tripped up the secretary of state during a Senate hearing on July 25.

Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., questioned Pompeo about U.S. policy versus a statement from the president regarding Russian interference in the 2016 election.

"I make lots of statements. They're not U.S. policy. The president says things, right?" Pompeo said. "The president makes comments in certain places. We have we have a National Security Council. We meet, we lay out strategies, we develop policies, right?"

Later on in the hearing, Pompeo asked for a redo on how to decipher policy from presidential messaging.

"I misspoke. It is the case that the president calls the ball," he said. "His statements are in fact policy."

Kamarck says these kind of back and forths between the administration and the president cause "confusion internationally among our allies [and] some glee among our adversaries."

She says it also causes confusion for leaders in Trump's own party.

"Just the other day, he said he was going to shut down the government because they they haven't appropriated money for the wall," she says. "It took hours, if not minutes, for Mitch McConnell to say, no we're not shutting down the government."

But on some level, she says, what the president of the United States says or doesn't say really might not matter.

"What's important to remember is we have never been a government of men.
We are a government of laws," she says. "So the laws of the land, the treaties that we have signed to, that's what is operative for the United States government, not what any president may say one morning."

Barbara Sprunt contributed to this report.

Copyright 2018 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/.

          Comment on Photos From The Trip by Kick      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
Balthasar 5 I know, right!? And today didn't get any better for them when Chris Collins... the original Trump MAGA... became the living embodiment of "My Ass Got Arrested." It looks like an airtight case too. He received an email, and they have him on camera... at the White House no less... informing his son the insider's information. Just when it looked like the "GOP Very Bad Day" was finally at its end, a tape was exposed by Rachel Maddow wherein Ignorant Tool Devin Nunes confirms he is indeed the ignorant tool and useful idiot of Trump and therefore Putin. It was nice of him to admit that it is, in fact, criminal to receive stolen emails. It's also illegal, as you and I have both pointed out repeatedly, to solicit them from foreign adversaries or do anything that aids and abets. Nunes is a lawyer and knows this, and that's why they're impeding the investigation at every turn, which is... in point of fact... obstruction of justice.
So therein lies, so it’s like your classic catch-22 situation, where we were at a — this puts us in such a tough spot. If Sessions won’t un-recuse and Mueller won’t clear the president, we’re the only ones — which is really the danger. That’s why I keep, and thank you for saying it by the way, I mean we have to keep all these seats. We do not keep the majority, all of this goes away. ~ Devin Nunes
That's why the Ignorant Tool and his ilk keep using the power of their positions in Congress to impede the investigation of the president. If the president and his campaign have done nothing wrong, why are the spineless GOP conspiring with the White House to impede an investigation of the Russians interfering in the 2016 election? Add to that, Nunes makes it clear they intend to impeach Rosenstein after the midterms in furtherance of their obstruction. I wouldn't altogether rule out an indictment in the future for the Ignorant Tool Nunes for his role in working with the Trump administration to impede the investigation of the president: (1) the ignorant "unmasking" BS, (2) the BS "Nunes memo," (3) the ridiculous framing of FBI Agent's personal opinions regarding Trump (opinions shared by many in the GOP) as some kind of nefarious "deep state" plot, (4) etc.
          Opinion: Why The Term 'Deep State' Speaks To Conspiracy Theorists      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
Linguist Geoff Nunberg says it's common for citizens of democracies to express concerns about the government. But the term "deep state" refers to something more nefarious — and conspiratorial.
          Opinion: Why The Term 'Deep State' Speaks To Conspiracy Theorists      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
Linguist Geoff Nunberg says it's common for citizens of democracies to express concerns about the government. But the term "deep state" refers to something more nefarious — and conspiratorial.
          ALWAYS BET ON THE dEEP sTATE:      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
Russia reels, cries foul after U.S. sanctions spiral escalates (Andrew Osborn, 8/09/18, Reuters) 

Russia condemned a new round of U.S. sanctions as draconian on Thursday after news of the measures sent the rouble tumbling to two-year lows and sparked a wider asset sell-off over fears that Moscow was locked in a spiral of never-ending sanctions.

          Opinion: Why The Term 'Deep State' Speaks To Conspiracy Theorists      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
The citizens of democracies have always been suspicious about concentrations of unelected power. In the late days of the Roman Republic, Cicero denounced the triumvirate who had usurped the role of the Senate as the imperium in imperio , or the government within the government. Nowadays, the alleged usurpers go by more pedestrian names: the invisible government, the hidden government, the shadow government. Those names often reflect plausible concerns, sometimes about the lobbyists and business interests who shape regulations and policies, sometimes about the career civil servants who seem to care mostly about protecting their bureaucratic turf . But the allegations can also tip over into the convoluted narratives of conspiracy theory, where people are covering bulletin boards with pins and string to show how everything's secretly connected to everything else. The "deep state" story conforms to the intricate grammar of those conspiracy narratives . The term was marginal in American
          It's Not The Deep State That Hurts Trump — It's The Shallow State      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
President Trump and his supporters have often complained about the "deep state" — a supposedly shadowy cabal of opposition bureaucrats buried deep within the government. But perhaps the biggest impediment to the president isn't the deep state at all. It's the "shallow state" — which exists right below Donald Trump at the Cabinet level. After all, there's a distinct pattern in the administration. The president makes a claim that seems to contradict longstanding policy. Shortly thereafter, a Cabinet member or two will step up to a microphone and reiterate U.S. policy, contradicting the president. The most recent example are new sanctions the Trump administration plans to level against Russia for using a nerve agent in the attempted assassination of a former Russian agent in the United Kingdom. Shortly after the British government declared in March that Russia was behind the chemical weapons use, Trump sowed doubt on the findings. "As soon as we get the facts straight, if we agree with
          Billionaire Punks Of Silicon Valley—-The New Handmaids Of The Deep State      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
This two-tiered system is responsible for the cartel-like conditions enjoyed by Facebook, Google, Twitter, and the rest of the Silicon Valley crowd. The vast wealth poured into this new technology by investors buoyed by historically low interest rates, plus the special government-granted advantages granted to them by their friends in Washington, has resulted in the […]
          It's Not The Deep State That Hurts Trump — It's The Shallow State      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
President Trump and his supporters have often complained about the "deep state" — a supposedly shadowy cabal of opposition bureaucrats buried deep within the government. But perhaps the biggest impediment to the president isn't the deep state at all. It's the "shallow state" — which exists right below Donald Trump at the Cabinet level. After all, there's a distinct pattern in the administration. The president makes a claim that seems to contradict longstanding policy. Shortly thereafter, a Cabinet member or two will step up to a microphone and reiterate U.S. policy, contradicting the president. The most recent example are new sanctions the Trump administration plans to level against Russia for using a nerve agent in the attempted assassination of a former Russian agent in the United Kingdom. Shortly after the British government declared in March that Russia was behind the chemical weapons use, Trump sowed doubt on the findings. "As soon as we get the facts straight, if we agree with
          Comment on World News (August 06, 2018 Edition): South African Ruling Party Calls All White People “Murderers” – China Launches Personal Attack At “Arrogant, Deceitful” Trump: “We Are Prepared To Fight To The End” – YouTube Bans Alex Jones After iTunes, Facebook Remove Content – Social media is making children regress to mentality of three-year-olds, says top brain scientist by squodgy      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
It really does seem the Deep State are getting very panicky over something in the wings to carry out all this prohibition on alternative views, and it really IS prohibition. And we all know what happens with prohibition. Interesting times. http://www.neonnettle.com/news/4725-twitter-shuts-down-ron-paul-institute-director-as-conservative-cull-continues
          THE NUNES TAPES SEEM LIKE A NOTHINGBURGER TO ME      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
Last night on her show, Rachel Maddow played tapes of Congressman Devin Nunes that were secretly recorded at a fundraiser for a House Republican colleague, Cathy McMorris Rodgers. I know the tapes were intended to make my pulse race, but I don't see what the big deal is.

The New Republic's Jeet Heer says it's because Nunes contradicted the president on the subject of collusion:
During private fundraiser, Devin Nunes admits collusion can be a crime. ... In the audio, Nunes makes some notable remarks about the ongoing Russia investigation. As NBC reports, “Nunes also appeared to say that if a campaign received and released stolen emails from a foreign government — he used a hypothetical example of McMorris Rodgers getting secret information from Portugal, where his ancestors are from — there would be a criminal element to that.” These comments go against the thrust of a frequent claim made by President Donald Trump, that “collusion is not a crime.” As Nunes concedes, collusion could rise to the level of being a conspiracy with a foreign power, which is criminal.
This is interesting, but it's not as if it can be used in a court of law -- Devin Nunes talking at a fundraiser isn't legal precedent. It could be brought up in impeachment hearings in the House or an impeachment trial in the Senate, but will any reluctant Republican say, "Well, I was planning to vote with the president, but Nunes's words convinced me Trump is guilty"? It's a nice gotcha, but it's nothing more.

The Washington Post's Aaron Blake seems agog at the partisanship:
First off, here’s [a] full quote, in context:
So therein lies what’s like your classic Catch-22 situation where we’re at a -- it puts us in such a tough spot. If Sessions won’t un-recuse and Mueller won’t clear the president, we’re the only ones, which is really the danger. That’s why I keep -- and thank you for saying it by the way -- I mean, we have to keep all these seats. We have to keep the majority. If we do not keep the majority, all of this goes away."
We don’t know quite what Nunes was responding to, regrettably. But what first strikes you is how quickly he pivots from talking about Trump’s fate in the Russia investigation to the GOP’s electoral fortunes -- as if the purpose of keeping Republicans in power is to shut the whole thing down.
Well, duh. The GOP myth right now -- it's almost QAnonish, even in respectable circles -- is that Trump will solve all of America's problems if he can only shake off the shackles placed on him by the Deep State, and that Republicans serve in Congress only in order to allow Trump to be unleashed.

Blake goes on to write:
... removing Trump from office would require a majority vote to impeach in the House and a two-thirds vote to remove in the Senate (which means plenty of Republicans going along). Nunes is leading the crowd to believe that this would happen. Perhaps that’s just overheated partisan rhetoric -- the kind of thing you say to fire up the base -- but the fact that the guy running the House intel committee’s Russia probe suggests it’s actually possible Trump could be removed from office based upon Mueller’s Russia probe seems significant.
It's not clear whether Nunes thinks the Deep State would get to more than a dozen of his GOP colleagues in the Senate or whether he just wants the donors to believe that. But the belief that their enemies are all-powerful is team-building for the GOP.

And there's this:
Hard-line conservative Republicans in the House recently hit a roadblock in their effort to impeach Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein when Speaker Paul Ryan opposed the move. But one of those conservatives, Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., gave a different explanation to donors recently when asked why the impeachment effort had stalled.

He said it's because an impeachment would delay the Senate's confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court....

"So if we actually vote to impeach, OK, what that does is that triggers the Senate then has to take it up," he said on the recording. "Well, and you have to decide what you want right now because the Senate only has so much time.”

He continued: "Do you want them to drop everything and not confirm the Supreme Court justice, the new Supreme Court justice?"
Does this mean they'll try to impeach after the election, assuming Kavanaugh's confirmation process is over? Sure -- is that a surprise? I can easily imagine them trying again in the lame-duck session even if they lose the House, just the way an earlier generation of House Republican ultras impeached Bill Clinton right after midterms in which Republicans were punished for anti-Clinton zealotry. It's not clear that an impeachment vote against Rosenstein would ever happen, or that it would succeed. In a Senate trial, there'll never be 67 votes to convict Rosenstein. So it's just an attempt to throw up a big stumbling block.

Or maybe it's just phony toughness on Nunes's part. The donors are probably rich guys who watch a lot of Fox News and are angry that the "witch hunt" hasn't been shut down. Nunes is apologizing to them for not getting the job done. But is it surprising that he (and the donors) still want to do this? Hardly. So nothing on the tapes strikes me as particularly significant.

          Chairman Nunes RIPS THE MASK Off Deep State RATS with ONE Demand on LIVE TV that’ll send’em RUNNING!      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
Cristina Laila for the Gateway Pundit reports, House Intel Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA) revealed bombshell after bombshell while on with FOX News’s Sean Hannity. Read More/Source/Credit/FairUse: www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018…
          Opinion: Why The Term 'Deep State' Speaks To Conspiracy Theorists      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
Linguist Geoff Nunberg says it's common for citizens of democracies to express concerns about the government. But the term "deep state" refers to something more nefarious — and conspiratorial.
          Right Side Patriots      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
Tomorrow, Friday August 10th on American Political Radio, Right Side Patriots Craig Andresen and Diane Sori present their Special; Report: Deep State's Global Agenda. This is one show you do NOT want to miss as not only will Deep State's true agenda be exposed but so will who or what Deep State actually is.



          Trump Lawyers' Chickenshit Game Over Robert Mueller Interview Enters Eighth Chickenshit Month      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   


You bored with the back and forth over whether Donald Trump will be allowed by his lawyers to sit in front of special counsel Robert Mueller's team and lie to their faces before they've even asked a question? YOU'RE NOT? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? IT'S ALL A BULLSHIT GAME OF CHICKEN, AND MUELLER ISN'T EVEN PLAYING!

Also, didn't we just do this a week ago? We did.

Anyway, feast your eyes on this mendacious horseshit from Maggie Haberman's latest hot scoop:


President Trump's lawyers rejected the special counsel's latest terms for an interview in the Russia investigation, countering on Wednesday with an offer that suggested a narrow path for answering questions, people familiar with the matter said. [...]

The president's lead lawyer in the case, Rudolph W. Giuliani, noted the documents that the White House has already provided and said, "We're restating what we have been saying for months: It is time for the Office of Special Counsel to conclude its inquiry without further delay."

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH FUCK YOU.

Eight months! This "negotiation" has been going on for eight months! And it's not even a real "negotiation"!

Oh hey look, Robert Mueller just sent Wonkette a selfie to express how he feels upon reading Rudy Giuliani's latest mash note:

LOL, our bad, that is not Robert Mueller. That is the literal devil incarnate, who runs the Deep State with her emails. In other words, that is Robert Mueller's boss.

HAHA JOKES.

Um, anyway, funny quote from the Mags Haberville scoop article:

By making another counterproposal after months of promises that they were just weeks away from deciding about an interview, Mr. Trump's lawyers run the risk that Mr. Mueller could conclude they are negotiating in bad faith to prolong the investigation.

YA THINK?

Trump's lawyers continue to say they don't want Trump answering questions about obstruction of justice, and their stated reason is that they subscribe to the Nixonian belief that the president is allowed to murder babies in the middle of 5th Avenue, because he is president. The real reason is that they know their client is a fool and a fucking pathological liar who's only partially tethered to reality, and we say "partially" because we're being generous. Mueller, of course, would like to ask Trump questions on all his crimes, including obstruction, conspiracy with the Russian government, and whatever else Mueller has uncovered that we don't yet know about.

But doggone it, Trump really wants to talk to Mueller! Because Trump has spent so many decades huffing his own farts, he literally thinks he is so smart he can go in front of Mueller and convince him that he's innocent, and moreover that this is all a witch hunt. He thinks he can just weasel out of it the way he used to weasel out of crimes in his business. He has no fucking clue what he's dealing with here.

Look, maybe Mueller actually needs an interview with Trump to determine his intent, and if that is the case, there will be a subpoena fight and it will go all the way to the Supreme Court. But we doubt that. Donald Trump manages to confess his crimes on Twitter fifty times a week, and Mueller has ALL THESE RECEIPTS and ALL THESE INTERVIEWS and ALL THESE DOCUMENTS. We have a feeling his case is fully formed, and any Trump interview will just add a whole bunch of perjury to all the rest of Trump's crimes, like icing on the most disgusting cake you've ever been forced to eat.

In other words, Mueller has Trump dead to rights, and these negotiations are just him showing that he plays ball. Maybe he'd like to trick Trump and his stable of stable genius lawyers into letting the president be interviewed. Hell, if Mueller does ultimately decide to subpoena Trump, it might just be for sport at this point!

Meanwhile, Trump's fuckmouth lawyers will continue engaging in these VERY LOUD NEGOTIATIONS, which are VERY LOUD BECAUSE RUDY GIULIANI WON'T STOP TALKING ABOUT THEM, so that they have deniability when they ultimately say, "Turns out we can't do it! We tried, but that Robert Mueller character is just too unreasonable! He even says the president can be held accountable for obvious crimes, like have you ever heard something so crazy?"

Then Giuliani went on Hannity and said this:

Nobody tell him how Watergate ends! Okay thank you goodbye.

Follow Evan Hurst on Twitter RIGHT NOW, DO IT RIGHT NOW!

Help Wonkette LIVE FOREVER! Seriously, if you can, please hit the tip jar below and make a donation of MONEY. Or click this link to become a monthly subscriber!

[New York Times]


          Comment on Alex Jones: Infowars has racked up 5.6 million new subscribers in the past 48 hours by Wrong Again      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
Why would I tell you? For all I know, you’re a deep state informant keeping tabs on MDN for the shadow government. All the information you need is out there, you just have to want it bad enough. Q will enlighten you.
          It's Not The Deep State That Hurts Trump — It's The Shallow State      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
President Trump and his supporters have often complained about the "deep state" — a supposedly shadowy cabal of opposition bureaucrats buried deep within the government. But perhaps the biggest impediment to the president isn't the deep state at all. It's the "shallow state" — which exists right below Donald Trump at the Cabinet level. After all, there's a distinct pattern in the administration. The president makes a claim that seems to contradict longstanding policy. Shortly thereafter, a Cabinet member or two will step up to a microphone and reiterate U.S. policy, contradicting the president. The most recent example are new sanctions the Trump administration plans to level against Russia for using a nerve agent in the attempted assassination of a former Russian agent in the United Kingdom. Shortly after the British government declared in March that Russia was behind the chemical weapons use, Trump sowed doubt on the findings. "As soon as we get the facts straight, if we agree with
          Opinion: Why The Term 'Deep State' Speaks To Conspiracy Theorists      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
The citizens of democracies have always been suspicious about concentrations of unelected power. In the late days of the Roman Republic, Cicero denounced the triumvirate who had usurped the role of the Senate as the imperium in imperio , or the government within the government. Nowadays, the alleged usurpers go by more pedestrian names: the invisible government, the hidden government, the shadow government. Those names often reflect plausible concerns, sometimes about the lobbyists and business interests who shape regulations and policies, sometimes about the career civil servants who seem to care mostly about protecting their bureaucratic turf . But the allegations can also tip over into the convoluted narratives of conspiracy theory, where people are covering bulletin boards with pins and string to show how everything's secretly connected to everything else. The "deep state" story conforms to the intricate grammar of those conspiracy narratives . The term was marginal in American
          Do You Feel It, The Deep State’s Last Ditch Effort Will Be To Unleash…      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   

McCain was involved in the Steele Dossier and the FBI is beginning to investigate. McCain has been missing since Dec 2017. Congress gets Bruce Ohr docs and shows how all these individuals colluded to push the FISA warrant and the Steele dossier. US senate intelligence

The post Do You Feel It, The Deep State’s Last Ditch Effort Will Be To Unleash… appeared first on Dprogram.net.


          Confused On What’s Happening With The Economy, Don’t Be This Is The Plan      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   

The economy is being brought to the edge. The entire plan is to make it seem as though the President allowed the economy to get back on track it is doing better than ever. The corporate media and deep state will not know how to

The post Confused On What’s Happening With The Economy, Don’t Be This Is The Plan appeared first on Dprogram.net.


          Opinion: Why The Term 'Deep State' Speaks To Conspiracy Theorists      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
The citizens of democracies have always been suspicious about concentrations of unelected power. In the late days of the Roman Republic, Cicero denounced the triumvirate who had usurped the role of the Senate as the imperium in imperio , or the government within the government. Nowadays, the alleged usurpers go by more pedestrian names: the invisible government, the hidden government, the shadow government. Those names often reflect plausible concerns, sometimes about the lobbyists and business interests who shape regulations and policies, sometimes about the career civil servants who seem to care mostly about protecting their bureaucratic turf . But the allegations can also tip over into the convoluted narratives of conspiracy theory, where people are covering bulletin boards with pins and string to show how everything's secretly connected to everything else. The "deep state" story conforms to the intricate grammar of those conspiracy narratives . The term was marginal in American
          Comment on Elite Closing Down Truth Tellers – Paul Craig Roberts by Frederick      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
Attacking Russia is insanity pure and simple Even without nuclear weapons in the equation did these idiots that call themselves neocons ie Bolton, MCCain, Bolt not learn from history You cannot win a war with Russia Nuclear or conventional Move Along deep state Get a hobby or something
          Comment on Psychologists Explain Why People Refuse to Question the Official Version of 9/11 by Tahau Taua      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
This is my comment on this issue, that I posted to ‘The Duran’ following two articles written by Adam Garrie and Alex Christophorou. I’ve decided to post it to Sputnik; to try and spread the readership on this very important issue. But more importantly, it’s about killing the US contrived “Saudi Connection”; dead in its tracks and remove it from the ‘psyche’ of a society that is continually being lied to. The rubbish that has been written and continues to be written, regarding the involvement of ‘Saudi Arabia’ and ‘aircraft’, is a disservice and an insult to the thousands of victims who died that day; and the subsequent millions who have perished since. If the engineering and scientific evidence is correct, that the attacks on the WTC buildings on September 11 2001 were in fact ‘Controlled Demolitions’; then we must use that and that alone, as a starting point to make sense of what happened 16 years ago. Too often, the narrative gets skewed back to the ‘Saudi Scenario’ as if; that were the natural default position. That suggests, if you say it often enough; people will take that as gospel, rather than the alternative, based on the more plausible scientific and engineering view. What we have here, is a double deflection taking place. First, the US-Deep State, who are almost certainly the authors of what happened on September 11 2001; concocted a ‘Saudi Link.’ This was the first deflection to throw the blame somewhere else. The second, the Saudis are now being forced by the US-Deep State; to blame Iran. This comes about because, the US Regimes recent push to encourage victims of families of 911 to take legal Class Actions against Saudi Arabia; have floundered because; many of the victims’ families, simply don’t buy the ‘official’ story. I’m not sure where author Adam Garrie, is going with this piece; but I’m sure that he’s chasing rainbows, because it still buys into the false narrative that’s been peddled by the US-Deep State for the last 16 years. After the US Regimes latest arse kicking in Syria following the recent successful liberation of Deir Ez-zor by the SAA and Russian Forces; the US has returned to its fall-back position of dreaming up more bullshit excuses for war against Iran. This time, the gutless and stupid House of Saud are prostituting themselves to the will of Uncle Sam once again.
          It's Not The Deep State That Hurts Trump — It's The Shallow State      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
President Trump and his supporters have often complained about the "deep state" — a supposedly shadowy cabal of opposition bureaucrats buried deep within the government. But perhaps the biggest impediment to the president isn't the deep state at all. It's the "shallow state" — which exists right below Donald Trump at the Cabinet level. After all, there's a distinct pattern in the administration. The president makes a claim that seems to contradict longstanding policy. Shortly thereafter, a Cabinet member or two will step up to a microphone and reiterate U.S. policy, contradicting the president. The most recent example are new sanctions the Trump administration plans to level against Russia for using a nerve agent in the attempted assassination of a former Russian agent in the United Kingdom. Shortly after the British government declared in March that Russia was behind the chemical weapons use, Trump sowed doubt on the findings. "As soon as we get the facts straight, if we agree with
          Opinion: Why The Term 'Deep State' Speaks To Conspiracy Theorists      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
The citizens of democracies have always been suspicious about concentrations of unelected power. In the late days of the Roman Republic, Cicero denounced the triumvirate who had usurped the role of the Senate as the imperium in imperio , or the government within the government. Nowadays, the alleged usurpers go by more pedestrian names: the invisible government, the hidden government, the shadow government. Those names often reflect plausible concerns, sometimes about the lobbyists and business interests who shape regulations and policies, sometimes about the career civil servants who seem to care mostly about protecting their bureaucratic turf . But the allegations can also tip over into the convoluted narratives of conspiracy theory, where people are covering bulletin boards with pins and string to show how everything's secretly connected to everything else. The "deep state" story conforms to the intricate grammar of those conspiracy narratives . The term was marginal in American
          Kommentar zu Propagandameldungen vom 09. August 2018 von Jens E      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
Politische Zensur auf Facebook hat wie erwartet durch das Atlantic Counsil begonnen , erst waren es die Rechten Anti Establishment Portale um Alex Jones, jetzt sind die Linken Anti Establishment Portale dran. Die USA haben ein tief verankertes Verständnis von Medienfreiheit und ich hoffe die Bürger wachen irgendwann auf, das ihr wahrer Feind im Deep State ist, Nicht Links oder Rechts. https://twitter.com/AbbyMartin/status/1027615814495526912
          US State Dept sanctions against Russia aimed at 'undercutting' Trump, analysts say      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   

US State Dept sanctions against Russia aimed at 'undercutting' Trump, analysts say | 09 Aug 2018 | The US State Department decision to blame Russia for the poisoning of Sergei Skripal without any evidence amounts to "flicking matches in a gasoline-filled room," former US diplomat Jim Jatras told RT. The announcement of sanctions on Wednesday came despite the fact that the US is entirely aware that Russia was not responsible for the poisoning of Sergei Skripal in Salisbury, UK in March, he said. "This is a political demand... this is designed to undercut the overtures from the Trump administration for President Trump directly and also Senator Rand Paul - now in Moscow - to warm relations with Russia." Former Pentagon official Michael Maloof echoed that sentiment, telling RT that "you have Donald Trump's foreign policy and you now have the Trump administration's foreign policy." He added that the sanctions are being orchestrated by the deep state to "make the president look bad and basically to corner him." [Exactly. Poisoning was likely executed by MI6 or CIA, to sabotage the US relationship with Russia at the behest of the Deep State.]


          Opinion: Why The Term 'Deep State' Speaks To Conspiracy Theorists      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
The citizens of democracies have always been suspicious about concentrations of unelected power. In the late days of the Roman Republic, Cicero denounced the triumvirate who had usurped the role of the Senate as the imperium in imperio , or the government within the government. Nowadays, the...

          Funniest Fox News Clip All Week: Giuliani Promises ‘Watergate Reforms’!      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
If ay weren’t so stupid, this would be terrifying. Rudy Guiliani was on Hannity’s show Wednesday night & promised that once “everything is revealed” about how mean a deep state is towards Trump, are will be massive reforms in government, like “after Watergate.” Hannity: “My sources tell me, that when a American people get to […]
          Comment on State Production on Terry FOIA Lawsuit Leaves Key Questions Unanswered by Patrol Agent      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
I have always questioned why Kevin O’Reilly got a pass from testifying before Rep. Issa committee? The White House rushed him off to Baghdad on some special mission and said he wasn’t available.My theory is that O’Reilly and others in the White House came up with the original plan to do Fast & Furious. O’Reilly had served in an overseas assignment with the former special agent in charge of the Phoenix ATF Office. He knew the guy was hungry for advancement, so they targeted him to spearhead the operation.They picked the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) , a major crime fighting component of the DoJ, to sanction and fund Fast and Furious.The OCDETF program had to directors spanning the beginning and end of the operation. I always was suspicious as to why Rep. Issa never had them come before his committee. Wouldn’t seem natural to have them testify to how F&F was approved, and produce the required written proposal for the operation.Unless Rep. Issa was being controlled by Deep State and they wanted to protect these two men. Both of them still live and work as attorneys in the Washington metropolitan area. One was the former Deputy U.S.Attorney for D.C. during Obama’s term.O’Reilly last I checked was the number two at the U.S Embassy in Panama.In addition to the required written proposal, the OCDETF Guidlines have a section on “sensitive issues,” among them is running an investigation that is international in scope. Certainly F&F would have considered sensitive, in that they intended to allow guns to be smuggled across an international border.So if Hillary was briefed on F&F before the DoJ approval, who made the decision to not tell her, and at what level of the Obama administration? Why didn’t we hear anything about Hillary being outraged at DoJ for going around her, if you believe she didn’t know before hand.Oh, and the OCDETF has nine member federal law enforcement agencies that should have each been briefed on F&F prior to the proposal going up to D.C. for a final review and approval? So how could former FBI Director Muller not have known about F&F?
          Opinion: Why The Term 'Deep State' Speaks To Conspiracy Theorists      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
The citizens of democracies have always been suspicious about concentrations of unelected power. In the late days of the Roman Republic, Cicero denounced the triumvirate who had usurped the role of the Senate as the imperium in imperio , or the government within the government. Nowadays, the alleged usurpers go by more pedestrian names: the invisible government, the hidden government, the shadow government. Those names often reflect plausible concerns, sometimes about the lobbyists and business interests who shape regulations and policies, sometimes about the career civil servants who seem to care mostly about protecting their bureaucratic turf . But the allegations can also tip over into the convoluted narratives of conspiracy theory, where people are covering bulletin boards with pins and string to show how everything's secretly connected to everything else. The "deep state" story conforms to the intricate grammar of those conspiracy narratives . The term was marginal in American
          Comment on Here’s Why 3D Printing Guns Are A Win For World Peace and a Potential Death Blow To Tyranny by WeAreYourGods ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
Never mind the deep state, think about a home invader or bath salts fiend breaking in at 4AM. A man in a former MA class I was in signed up because three addicts high on who knows what broke into his and his wife's house and started cutting up his his dog, waking him up. He took his handgun and confronted them, fired two rounds and struck one of them in the hip, they all ran. Two came back, but cops pulled up as they were trying to break back in. Without the gun, that would have ended very differently. He was not some Rambo type, he was a guy in his 60's scared to death.
          Highly Suspect – Corrupt Senate Intelligence Committee Wants To Interview Julian Assange Behind Closed Doors…      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
Conservative Tree House, by Sundance Posted By: Dr_Know- Thu, 09 35 2018 07:35:12 GMT The most corrupt part of congress is the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI). The SSCI is the center of the deepest part of the Deep State swamp. The SSCI never, ever, E.V.E.R… does anything that does not protect and advance the self'interest of the corrupt Washington DC professional political class. Apparently the SSCI wants to interview WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, in a closed session. WASHINGTON— The Senate Intelligence Committee wants to interview WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange as part of its investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
          Comment on A NATO-Funded Team is Advising Facebook On Flagging “Propaganda” by A Four Person NATO-Funded Team Advises Facebook On Flagging “Propaganda” – The Greanville Post      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
[…] BE SURE TO PASS THESE ARTICLES TO FRIENDS AND KIN. A LOT DEPENDS ON THIS. DO YOUR PART.DEEP STATE PRESSURE ON SOCIAL MEDIA. Life-sized cutouts depicting Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg wearing “Fix Fakebook” T-shirts are displayed by advocacy group, Avaaz (a Soros tentacle) on the South East Lawn of the Capitol on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, April 10, 2018, ahead of Zuckerberg’s appearance before a Senate Judiciary and Commerce Committees joint hearing. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)by Tyler Durden, ZERO HEDGE / a crOsspost with mintpress news […]
          Opinion: Why The Term 'Deep State' Speaks To Conspiracy Theorists      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
Linguist Geoff Nunberg says it's common for citizens of democracies to express concerns about the government. But the term "deep state" refers to something more nefarious — and conspiratorial.


Next Page: 10000

Site Map 2018_01_14
Site Map 2018_01_15
Site Map 2018_01_16
Site Map 2018_01_17
Site Map 2018_01_18
Site Map 2018_01_19
Site Map 2018_01_20
Site Map 2018_01_21
Site Map 2018_01_22
Site Map 2018_01_23
Site Map 2018_01_24
Site Map 2018_01_25
Site Map 2018_01_26
Site Map 2018_01_27
Site Map 2018_01_28
Site Map 2018_01_29
Site Map 2018_01_30
Site Map 2018_01_31
Site Map 2018_02_01
Site Map 2018_02_02
Site Map 2018_02_03
Site Map 2018_02_04
Site Map 2018_02_05
Site Map 2018_02_06
Site Map 2018_02_07
Site Map 2018_02_08
Site Map 2018_02_09
Site Map 2018_02_10
Site Map 2018_02_11
Site Map 2018_02_12
Site Map 2018_02_13
Site Map 2018_02_14
Site Map 2018_02_15
Site Map 2018_02_15
Site Map 2018_02_16
Site Map 2018_02_17
Site Map 2018_02_18
Site Map 2018_02_19
Site Map 2018_02_20
Site Map 2018_02_21
Site Map 2018_02_22
Site Map 2018_02_23
Site Map 2018_02_24
Site Map 2018_02_25
Site Map 2018_02_26
Site Map 2018_02_27
Site Map 2018_02_28
Site Map 2018_03_01
Site Map 2018_03_02
Site Map 2018_03_03
Site Map 2018_03_04
Site Map 2018_03_05
Site Map 2018_03_06
Site Map 2018_03_07
Site Map 2018_03_08
Site Map 2018_03_09
Site Map 2018_03_10
Site Map 2018_03_11
Site Map 2018_03_12
Site Map 2018_03_13
Site Map 2018_03_14
Site Map 2018_03_15
Site Map 2018_03_16
Site Map 2018_03_17
Site Map 2018_03_18
Site Map 2018_03_19
Site Map 2018_03_20
Site Map 2018_03_21
Site Map 2018_03_22
Site Map 2018_03_23
Site Map 2018_03_24
Site Map 2018_03_25
Site Map 2018_03_26
Site Map 2018_03_27
Site Map 2018_03_28
Site Map 2018_03_29
Site Map 2018_03_30
Site Map 2018_03_31
Site Map 2018_04_01
Site Map 2018_04_02
Site Map 2018_04_03
Site Map 2018_04_04
Site Map 2018_04_05
Site Map 2018_04_06
Site Map 2018_04_07
Site Map 2018_04_08
Site Map 2018_04_09
Site Map 2018_04_10
Site Map 2018_04_11
Site Map 2018_04_12
Site Map 2018_04_13
Site Map 2018_04_14
Site Map 2018_04_15
Site Map 2018_04_16
Site Map 2018_04_17
Site Map 2018_04_18
Site Map 2018_04_19
Site Map 2018_04_20
Site Map 2018_04_21
Site Map 2018_04_22
Site Map 2018_04_23
Site Map 2018_04_24
Site Map 2018_04_25
Site Map 2018_04_26
Site Map 2018_04_27
Site Map 2018_04_28
Site Map 2018_04_29
Site Map 2018_04_30
Site Map 2018_05_01
Site Map 2018_05_02
Site Map 2018_05_03
Site Map 2018_05_04
Site Map 2018_05_05
Site Map 2018_05_06
Site Map 2018_05_07
Site Map 2018_05_08
Site Map 2018_05_09
Site Map 2018_05_15
Site Map 2018_05_16
Site Map 2018_05_17
Site Map 2018_05_18
Site Map 2018_05_19
Site Map 2018_05_20
Site Map 2018_05_21
Site Map 2018_05_22
Site Map 2018_05_23
Site Map 2018_05_24
Site Map 2018_05_25
Site Map 2018_05_26
Site Map 2018_05_27
Site Map 2018_05_28
Site Map 2018_05_29
Site Map 2018_05_30
Site Map 2018_05_31
Site Map 2018_06_01
Site Map 2018_06_02
Site Map 2018_06_03
Site Map 2018_06_04
Site Map 2018_06_05
Site Map 2018_06_06
Site Map 2018_06_07
Site Map 2018_06_08
Site Map 2018_06_09
Site Map 2018_06_10
Site Map 2018_06_11
Site Map 2018_06_12
Site Map 2018_06_13
Site Map 2018_06_14
Site Map 2018_06_15
Site Map 2018_06_16
Site Map 2018_06_17
Site Map 2018_06_18
Site Map 2018_06_19
Site Map 2018_06_20
Site Map 2018_06_21
Site Map 2018_06_22
Site Map 2018_06_23
Site Map 2018_06_24
Site Map 2018_06_25
Site Map 2018_06_26
Site Map 2018_06_27
Site Map 2018_06_28
Site Map 2018_06_29
Site Map 2018_06_30
Site Map 2018_07_01
Site Map 2018_07_02
Site Map 2018_07_03
Site Map 2018_07_04
Site Map 2018_07_05
Site Map 2018_07_06
Site Map 2018_07_07
Site Map 2018_07_08
Site Map 2018_07_09
Site Map 2018_07_10
Site Map 2018_07_11
Site Map 2018_07_12
Site Map 2018_07_13
Site Map 2018_07_14
Site Map 2018_07_15
Site Map 2018_07_16
Site Map 2018_07_17
Site Map 2018_07_18
Site Map 2018_07_19
Site Map 2018_07_20
Site Map 2018_07_21
Site Map 2018_07_22
Site Map 2018_07_23
Site Map 2018_07_24
Site Map 2018_07_25
Site Map 2018_07_26
Site Map 2018_07_27
Site Map 2018_07_28
Site Map 2018_07_29
Site Map 2018_07_30
Site Map 2018_07_31
Site Map 2018_08_01
Site Map 2018_08_02
Site Map 2018_08_03
Site Map 2018_08_04
Site Map 2018_08_05
Site Map 2018_08_06
Site Map 2018_08_07
Site Map 2018_08_08
Site Map 2018_08_09