Doing Advance Work

News that doesn't receive the necessary attention.

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

Rex Tillerson, please stop lying about the CO2 fraud industry. "We" don't all agree this 3 decade long crime against America is "a challenging issue." On CBS News Tillerson suggests Trump still believes CO2 is a global poison as "we all" do---BBC...(Meaning US taxpayers must pay more reparations to the world in perpetuity. Tillerson and Trump certainly know-as everyone does-that even if alleged global CO2 danger exists it's controlled by Communist China)

9/17/17, "Paris climate deal: Trump open to staying in, Tillerson says," BBC

"Donald Trump is open to staying in the Paris accord on climate change, his secretary of state has said, just hours after the White House insisted there would be "no change" to US policy. Rex Tillerson said the US would stay in the agreement "if we can construct a set of terms that we believe is fair".

His comments come despite the White House earlier denying reports it was softening its stance on the accord....

Speaking to US network CBS, Mr Tillerson suggested the US might not leave at all.

Asked if there was a chance the US could stay in the accord, Mr Tillerson said: "I think, under the right conditions, the president has said he's open to finding those conditions where we can remain engaged with others, on what we all agree is still a challenging issue."

This backs up reports on Saturday suggesting Mr Trump had softened his attitude towards the agreement....

But later the same day, White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders said: "There has been no change in the United States' position on the Paris agreement.

"As the president has made abundantly clear, the United States is withdrawing unless we can re-enter on terms that are more favourable to our country.""...

Comment: "Unless?" This means Trump endorses the 3 decades long massive criminal racket of CO2 danger forced on this country by the US political class for the purpose of starving and punishing us in perpetuity. Only a monster would consider this for one second. No amount of money we give can ever be enough. Real problems, the poor and needy, are starved so climate profiteers can be enriched. We've paid billions every year for almost 30 years. In 2016 over $115 million tax dollars PER DAY were spent on "climate" from just 8 US agencies. The total would likely top $200 million a day when all agencies are tallied. Has one Republican even demanded this number be reduced to $10 million a day? Our genocide was begun by "new world order" Bush #1 in 1989-1990 with USGCRP. In 1992 the US Senate unanimously approved UNFCCC which blamed Americans for unequal use of the atmosphere and said as a result they must give money to everyone else in the world in perpetuity. That is, the US political class declared Americans permanent global slaves. This slow genocide has been kept alive every day for 30 years by the US political class. Trump suggesting he'd consider a "climate" agreement of any kind means he sees us in chains, that he actually believes in the CO2 industry--an imaginary industry which only exists because US taxpayers were forced to create it beginning in 1990 with "climate" spending based in the White House. Even a UN official, Ottmar Edenhofer, clearly states the "climate" issue has nothing to do with climate, is just redistributing the world's wealth, that the US has used more than its fair share of the atmosphere and must pay a penalty. Only a monster would suggest that Americans would agree with any part of this massive crime against Americans and all humanity. Edenhofer can make such a statement because he knows the US political class agrees with him.

Global slaves (US taxpayers) were forced to create the "global climate science" industry: Diverting US taxpayer dollars from the poor and needy, the US political class created "climate action," exploding in 1990 and continuing to the present.  (This chart, page 4, pdf, is an underestimate, doesn't include congressional appropriations):

"Note and Sources: The data shown here are funding disbursements by the White House U.S. Global Change Research Program and its predecessor, the National Climate Program, available at NCP 1988, 43; Climate Science Watch 2007; and Leggett, Lattanzio, and Bruner 2013. These data, however, do not represent congressional climate science funding appropriations to other government agencies. As we show later in a more detailed assessment of U.S. government climate science funding, the numbers here, especially those for more recent years, greatly underestimate the actual level of funding." pdf p. 4

Fall 2015, "Causes and Consequences of the Climate Science Boom,", Butos and McQuade

"Government policies and funding as well as the emergence of a scientific “Big Player” [UN IPCC] that has aggressively championed the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming (AGW)1, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), have together fomented a boom in climate science that began in the early 1990s and has grown markedly over the past decade."...

Image of Bush #1, "New World Order quotes" via You Tube........

Added: The "climate" issue means 3 things for the US. This list is due to decades of effort by the united US political class:

"constraining industry, sending money abroad, and strengthening the UN-

that are inflammatory on their own right,” Nigel Purvis, a State Department official under the Clinton and Bush administrations, said on the phone from Washington."...

Jan. 13, 2012, "US Republicans stir transatlantic tensions over climate change," EurActiv, Arthur Neslan 


Comment: A political class can commit genocide of its country with a generation, the schools, the media, and no opposition. It must be exhilarating to sell out an advanced civilization like the US.



Sunday, September 17, 2017

After lying to US Senate in 2013 and not breaking a sweat, James Clapper was given even more authority as head of Russia-Gate in 2016: "Fire James Clapper," 6/11/2013, Slate: "What else will he lie about?" Clapper blatantly lied to a US Senate hearing, had advance notice of crucial question about NSA spying on Americans, still chose to lie, declined chance to revise his answer

6/11/2013, "Fire James Clapper," Slate: Clapper had even been given advance notice of the crucial question: (Sen. Wyden): "So that he would be prepared to answer, I sent the question to Director Clapper’s office a day in advance. After the hearing was over my staff and I gave his office a chance to amend his answer."..."Clapper didn't take the offer." 

6/11/2013, "Fire James Clapper," Slate, "The Director of National Intelligence lied to Congress about NSA surveillance. What else will he lie about?" Slate, Fred Kaplan

"If President Obama really does welcome a debate about the scope of the U.S. surveillance program, a good first step would be to fire Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.

Back at an open congressional hearing on March 12, (2013) Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) asked Clapper, "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on hundreds of millions of Americans?" Clapper replied, “No sir … not wittingly.” As we all now know, he was lying.

We also now know that Clapper knew he was lying. In an interview with NBC’s Andrea Mitchell that aired this past Sunday (2013), Clapper was asked why he answered Wyden the way he did. He replied:

“I thought, though in retrospect, I was asked [a] ‘when are you going to … stop beating your wife’ kind of question, which is … not answerable necessarily by a simple yes or no. So I responded in what I thought was the most truthful, or least untruthful, manner by saying, ‘No.’

Let’s parse this passage. As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Wyden had been briefed on the top-secret-plus programs that we now all know about. That is, he knew that he was putting Clapper in a box; He knew that the true answer to his question was “Yes,” but he also knew that Clapper would have a hard time saying so without making headlines.

But the question was straightforward. It could be answered “yes” or “no, and Clapper had to know this when he sat there in the witness chair. (Notice that, in his response to Mitchell, Clapper said he came up with the wife-beating analogy only “in retrospect.”)  

There are many ways that he could have finessed the question, as administration witnesses have done in such settings for decades, but Clapper chose simply to lie. “Truthful” and “untruthful” are not relative terms; a statement either is or isn’t; there’s no such thing as speaking in a “most truthful” or “least untruthful” manner.

Nor was this a spontaneous lie or a lie he regretted making. Wyden revealed in a statement today that he'd given Clapper advance notice that he would ask the question and that, after the hearing, he offered Clapper a chance to revise his answer. Clapper didn’t take the offer.

Clapper’s deceptions don’t stop there. Rambling on in his rationalization to Mitchell, he focused on Wyden’s use of the word “collect,” as in “Did the NSA collect any type of data ... on millions of Americans?” Clapper told Mitchell that he envisioned a vast library of books containing vast amounts of data on every American. “To me,” he said, “collection of U.S. persons’ data would mean taking the book off the shelf and opening it up and reading it.”

If this were true, it would suggest that Clapper wasn’t quite lying when he told Wyden that the NSA doesn’t wittingly “collect” data on Americans. But of course, this is nonsense. Neither in everyday speech nor in tech-intelligence jargon does “collect” mean anything other than what it obviously means: to gather, to sweep up, to bring together. No one says, “I’m going to collect The Great Gatsby from my bookshelf and read it.” Nor does anyone say, “I’m going to collect this phone conversation from my archive and listen to it.”

It is irrelevant whether Clapper really believes his definition of “collect” or made it up on the spot. Either way, this is a man who cannot be trusted to hold an honest discussion about these issues. If he lied about what he thinks “collect” means, he will lie about lots of things. If he really thinks the English language is this flexible, it is unwise to assume that any statement he makes means what it appears to mean.

This is crucial. We as a nation are being asked to let the National Security Agency continue doing the intrusive things it’s been doing on the premise that congressional oversight will rein in abuses. But it’s hard to have meaningful oversight when an official in charge of the program lies so blatantly in one of the rare open hearings on the subject. (Wyden, who had been briefed on the program, knew that Clapper was lying, but he couldn’t say so without violating the terms of his own security clearance.)

And so, again, if President Obama really welcomes an open debate on this subject, James Clapper has disqualified himself from participation in it. He has to go."


Saturday, September 16, 2017

Convicted felon George Soros was received in Brussels 'with the pomp and ceremony usually only reserved for heads of state.' Hungary showed love and respect for its own people by building a wall and cut illegal immigration by 99%. 391,000 in 2015 to just 1184 in 2017-Breitbart

6/14/2006, "Soros’ Insider-Trading Conviction Upheld," NY Times Dealbook.

"France’s Court of Cassation ended its review of a March 2005 judgment that found that Mr. Soros knew that Societe Generale was a takeover target in 1988 when he purchased shares in the bank."... 

9/16/17, "Hungary Builds a Wall, Cuts Illegal Immigration by over 99%," Breitbart, Jack Montgomery 

"Hungary has slashed illegal immigration by over 99 per cent after rolling out a series of powerful border fences in response to the European migrant crisis, possibly providing a lesson as to the potential impact of constructing President Trump’s much-discussed southern wall in the U.S.  

Speaking on the second anniversary of the government’s move to seal Hungary’s border with Serbia — which is also an external border for the European Union — Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s Chief Security Advisor György Bakondi announced that the fences have caused illegal immigration to collapse from 391,000 in 2015, to 18,236 in 2016, to just 1,184 in 2017.

“The system of technical barriers is the key to the success of border security, and without it, it would be impossible to stop the mass arrival of immigrants”, the security chief explained.

Hungary had to respond rapidly to the migrant influx which burst upon Europe after Germany’s Angela Merkel announced there was “no limit” on the number of asylum seekers her own country would accept, so its frontiers are defended by twin fences peppered with watchtowers and patrolled by thousands of newly recruited border guards rather than a solid wall — which would have taken longer to construct.

Nevertheless, as it has been steadily reinforced illegal migration has slowed to a trickle drawing the ire of open borders activists like billionaire financier George Soros and globalist officials at the European Union and the United Nations.

For example, UN Refugee Agency chief Filippo Grandi visited the border and complained: “When I was standing at the border fence today, I felt the entire system is designed to keep people, many of whom are fleeing war and persecution, out of the country”.

Grandi also called on Hungary to get rid of the border-spanning transit zones it has established, which allow all asylum seekers entering the country to be detained while the validity of their claims are assessed.

The Hungarians introduced these zones after it was discovered that many of the Paris 2015 terrorists had passed through their territory--a step-change from other EU member-states, which leave migrants more or less at large, with sometimes deadly consequences, in obedience to EU law....

“People who attack the fence are taking a stand in favour of allowing large numbers of people to enter the country without any form of control.”"



7/26/17, "‘The Soros Plan’: Hungary Rejects Brussels Court Demand For Forced Mass Migration," Breitbart, Virginia Hale 

"Forcing mass migration on unwilling European peoples was conformity with open borders advocate and billionaire funder George Soros’ plan for the continent.

Dr Zoltán Kovács , lead spokesman for the office of Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán, told Breitbart London: “we consider trying to enforce a decision that clearly was trying to go around the normal way of decision-making not simply unlawful but also dangerous to the order and security of Europe”.

He added that, in the Hungarian government’s view, “it is unacceptable and untenable that the EU continues to follow a path that has already failed”.

Hungarian Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Péter Szijjártó also slammed the EU court’s advice, saying it “fully matches the process known as the Soros plan.

He said:
"Following George Soros’s reception in Brussels with the pomp and ceremony usually only reserved for heads of state, every European institution has interestingly placed even greater pressure on Hungary and the countries of Central Europe to allow in illegal immigrants. We do not want to accept illegal immigrants, we will wait for the Court’s’ decision. We continue to interpret the decision on the mandatory resettlement quota as a decision that contravenes European law; a decision of this nature cannot be used to remove any member state’s right to decide for itself to whom it will allow entry to its territory and to whom it will not. The European treaties clearly state that this right cannot be taken away. The decision also goes against common sense, because it only serves to further encourage illegal immigration in view of the fact that it is seen as an invitation by those who would like to set out for Europe in search of a better life, and also by people smugglers, who can use the fact to convince people that it is worthwhile setting off for Europe. The primary task, duty and responsibility of Hungary’s Government is to protect the security of the country and of the people of Hungary, and accordingly it will continue to do everything in its power to ensure that illegal immigrants cannot come here."  
The ECJ ruling is expected later this year. While the court is not obliged to follow the advice, most Luxembourg judges follow the recommendations of their Advocate General. 

Hungary, Slovakia, Romania and the Czech Republic voted against the measure in 2015 and have since been backed by Poland in their opposition to having Brussels force migrants from Africa and the Middle East on unwilling nations."...


Deep State triple play: Deep State Kelly tells US Rep. to speak to "intelligence community" about Assange info. Then, Kelly's confidential phone conversation with US Rep. was leaked. Then, WH official said Trump wasn't informed of Kelly-Rohrabacher conversation about Assange-Wall St. Journal, Wash. Examiner

9/15/17, "Rep. Dana Rohrabacher: Someone leaked 'very important' call with John Kelly concerning WikiLeaks," Washington Examiner, Steven Nelson

"Rep. Dana Rohrabacher said someone leaked information about his call this week with White House chief of staff John Kelly, possibly to undermine his ability to speak directly with President Trump about WikiLeaks. The Republican congressman from California spoke with Kelly on Wednesday regarding his recent meeting with WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange in London, the Wall Street Journal reported Friday evening, and broached a possible trade.

Rohrabacher reportedly used the word "deal" in his conversation with Kelly and said Assange would get a pardon or "something like that" in exchange for information files on a data-storage device showing that Russia did not hack Democratic emails that WikiLeaks published last year during the 2016 campaign.

"He would get nothing, obviously, if what he gave us was not proof," Rohrabacher told Kelly, according to the Journal. Rohrabacher said after his August meeting with Assange that WikiLeaks could disprove the conclusion of U.S. spy agencies that Russia was responsible for hacking Democratic emails, and that he (Rohrabacher) would seek a meeting with Trump to discuss the information. 

Rohrabacher told the Washington Examiner on Friday evening that he would not confirm quotes attributed to him, and said nobody in his office was responsible for disclosing the call. 

"I have honored the confidentially of a very important business-related call," he said, speculating that someone inside the White House or within U.S. intelligence agencies leaked the call. 

"I don't know who it is, all I know is I'm up against an array of very powerful forces, including the intelligence services and major newspapers that are basically allied with the liberal Left who have every reason to undermine communication on this issue," he told the Washington Examiner. 

"Look, there are very powerful forces at work," he added. "We've got the NSA, the FBI and the CIA, all of whom confirmed a major lie that was being used for political purposes and a lie that was repeated and repeated in order to undercut our new president." 

Rohrabacher said White House leaks to the press are particularly bad during Republican presidencies, as staffers attempt to ingratiate themselves with reporters, and he's not ruling that out as an explanation. 

"You've got people who are obviously just trying to cover their ass for mistakes they have made," he added, referring to the intelligence agency theory. "They will probably do their best to keep Trump from knowing about this and knowing about his options to expose this.""... 

[Ed. note: Per WSJ article, he was right. Pres. Trump was not informed of the Kelly-Rohrabacher telephone conversation. Further, per WSJ, Mr. Kelly told the congressman that the proposal “was best directed to the intelligence community.” The same "intelligence community" that enshrined the "Golden Showers" anti-Donald Trump dossier as a classified annex to the U.S. intelligence agencies’ report.] 

(continuing): "Rohrabacher has for years been skeptical of U.S. policy toward Russia, defending its annexation of Crimea while former President Barack Obama was in office before refusing to accept that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help Trump. 

The congressman is celebrated by some groups for his maverick approach to politics, such as his leadership role pushing for marijuana reform legislation, but also is known for making sometimes head-turning remarks.

Rohrabacher was quoted earlier this week as saying he believed Confederate war re-enactors had been tricked into rallying in Charlottesville, Va., last month. He said he stood by those remarks.

"I don't think I was misquoted, [but] there should be no implication that I believe Civil War re-enactors are stupid," he said. Rohrabacher said he can't recall the source of that information, but that he believes he heard it in a news report."


Added: WSJ article referenced above:

9/15/17, "GOP Congressman Sought Trump Deal on WikiLeaks, Russia," Wall St. Journal, by Byron Tau, Peter Nicholas and Siobhan Hughes, Washington



9/16/17, "Rohrabacher, White House Call on Assange Leaked to the Press," Disobedient Media, Elizabeth Vos

"Disobedient Media previously reported events surrounding Rep. Dana Rohrabacher in the wake of his meeting with Wikileaks founder Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London last month. Rohrabacher claimed that the Wikileaks editor in chief had assured him of the existence of proof against the Russian hacking narrative. Rohrabacher also stated that he felt Assange should be pardoned. This sequence of events has been churned into a misleading narrative casting Rohrabacher as a direct intermediary between Trump and Assange.

The interpretation of these events has largely been that Assange gave Rohrabacher concrete information which was then intended to be given to Trump as part of a “deal” for a pardon. However, the latest reports from the Wall Street Journal revealing a leaked phone call between Rep. Rohrabacher and Trump Chief of Staff John Kelly reveal that this is not the case. 

The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday on the content of the leaked conversation between Rep. Dana Rohrabacher and Whitehouse Chief of Staff John Kelly. The call was said to include a discussion regarding a physical storage device that holds evidence disproving Russian hacking allegations.

An important aspect of the Wall Street Journal’s coverage of the leaked conversation is the statement that: “Assange would probably present a computer drive or other data-storage device that Mr. Rohrabacher said would exonerate Russia in the long-running controversy about who was the source of hacked and stolen material aimed at embarrassing the Democratic Party during the 2016 election.”

This would strongly suggest that Assange is in possession of concrete evidence that would disprove the Russian hacking narrative. It also implies that such information has not yet left Assange’s custody. The content of the call logically suggests that Rohrabacher has not been given the evidence as an intermediary on Assange’s behalf, as whatever information Assange possesses is still with him.

The conversation also indicated that Rohrabacher is not in direct contact with Trump. The Wall Street Journal wrote: “A Trump administration official confirmed Friday that Mr. Rohrabacher spoke to Mr. Kelly about the plan involving Mr. Assange. Mr. Kelly told the congressman that the proposal “was best directed to the intelligence community,” the official said. Mr. Kelly didn’t make the president aware of Mr. Rohrabacher’s message, and Mr. Trump doesn’t know the details of the proposed deal, the official said.” 

The report further recounted Wikileaks’ statement that it has never at any time requested a pardon from Trump. The Wall Street Journal admitted in its report that Wikileaks stated: “Mr. Assange didn’t request a pardon at any time during his conversation with Mr. Rohrabacher.” This is a key point, as it totally invalidates the article’s implicit suggestion that Assange attempted to trade proof against Russian hacking in exchange for a pardon via Rohrabacher.
These important points illustrate that Rohrabacher has not been entrusted by Wikileaks to act as an intermediary on their behalf. This is significant because it would nullify any future efforts to dismiss evidence that might be published by Wikileaks via association with Rohrabacher and the assassination of his character.

The content of the conversation leaked by the Wall Street Journal corroborates the conclusion that Assange did not send information with Rohrabacher as a means of seeking a pardon. If the relevant information is held on a data storage device which has not left Assange’s possession and thus has not been given to Rohrabacher, then there can be no future dismissal of the contents of the data based on hazardous association with Rohrabacher. 

Any attempt to discount the evidence due to Rohrabacher’s connections or opinions will prove inherently empty, as the leaked phone call indicates clearly that Rohrabacher has never been in the ‘chain of custody’ of the material.

The Wall Street Journal report further indicated that Rohrabacher has never been in direct contact with Trump. This negates any future attempts to portray him as attempting to broker a pardon on behalf of Wikileaks. If he cannot speak to the President, it is hardly accurate to suggest he would be able to engage in negotiations with him.

This adds to previous tweets by Assange that explicitly state: “only unmediated statements coming directly from me can be considered authoritative.” That Rohrabacher does not represent Wikileaks and is not currently negotiating any ‘deal’ with President Trump on Assange’s behalf is further reinforced by Assange’s repeated statements to the effect that he does not speak through third parties.

The Washington Examiner reported that Rohrabacher claimed he was unaware of the source of the leak, but that: “I don’t know who it is, all I know is I’m up against an array of very powerful forces, including the intelligence services and major newspapers that are basically allied with the liberal Left who have every reason to undermine communication on this issue.” Rohrabacher appeared to imply that intelligence may have been involved with the leak of his phone call with Whitehouse Chief of Staff John Kelly.

Regardless of the origin of the leak, the palpable animosity from U.S. intelligence towards Wikileaks and its Editor in Chief needs no introduction. After Wikileaks’ publication of Vault 7 earlier this year, CIA Director Mike Pompeo has been on the warpath towards the publisher, stating that Wikileaks should be labeled a “non-state hostile intelligence service.”

The CIA’s hatred for whistleblowers manifested most recently when Pompeo canceled a speech he was scheduled to deliver at Harvard after it emerged that the Harvard planned to invite Chelsea Manning to become a visiting fellow. The Nation’s coverage of the debacle characterized Pompeo as having “bullied” Harvard into withdrawing its invitation to Manning. The scathing report called the CIA Director a:”Koch-brothers puppet who is using his position to bully a principled whistle-blower.”"

[Ed. note: Wasn't Morell, twice acting CIA director under Obama, a "bully" too? "Former acting CIA Director Michael Morell on Thursday resigned from Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs to protest the appointment of convicted leaker Chelsea Manning to a fellowship at the university’s Kennedy School." And: "Former CIA Director Michael Morell...resigned his Kennedy School fellowship yesterday (9/14)."]

(continuing): "Rohrabacher has been vocal in his opposition to allegations that Russia “hacked” the DNC last year. Disobedient Media previously reported on his statements to that effect, which cited a Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity memo suggesting that files published by Guccifer 2.0 were most likely locally copied as opposed to remotely hacked.

Rohrabacher does have a history of controversial policies and statements, including accusations that anti-fracking environmental groups were somehow linked to pro-Russian oil interests. He came under fire recently for stating that the events of Charlottesville were staged.

Rohrabacher’s statements create a ripe opportunity for opponents of Wikileaks to attempt to discredit the organization through the creation of a narrative which implies that Assange gave Rohrabacher proof to hand to Trump to trade for a pardon. Though The Wall Street Journal implies this situation, careful attention to detail in the leaked call suggests otherwise.

It appears in light of the leaked call that Assange still has the relevant evidence against Russian hacking in his possession. Further, the call suggests that Rep. Rohrabacher is not in direct communication with Trump.

Effectively, this supports the conclusion that both any attempt to dismiss proof against Russian hacking that may be provided by Wikileaks in future – based on association with Rohrabacher – would be easily and factually discredited.

Despite all this, it seems likely that character attacks against Rohrabacher will be used as fuel to attempt to dismiss any evidence Wikileaks might publish regarding the origin of the DNC leak. It is important that independent media recognize this narrative arc as it forms, and focus on the evidence which is not otherwise emphasized in the legacy media’s report of the situation.

The leaked call serves as the latest in a string of events on multiple fronts that have increasingly called the Russian hacking narrative into serious question. Disobedient Media has been on the forefront of coverage on this issue. We have reported extensively on the important work of both Adam Carter and The Forensicator in analyzing the Guccifer 2.0 persona and its allegation that it was responsible for hacking of the DNC last year. It has become increasingly apparent over the course of the last few months that it is highly unlikely that the DNC emails published by Wikileaks were obtained via a “hack.”

Despite these ongoing elements of the overall questions surrounding the Russian hacking narrative, it should be emphasized that the analysis of the Forensicator, Adam Carter and VIPS are all distinct and completely separate from any evidence Assange may possess.

This is an important ongoing story and Disobedient Media will continue to provide coverage as it develops."


Is Skepticism about Russia-gate Treason? Until such time as hard evidence is presented, skepticism, not blind faith in government assertions, is what is required-James Carden, The Nation, 1/3/17

"Until such time as hard evidence is presented, skepticism, not blind faith in assertions of fact from the government, is what is required." 

1/3/17, "Is Skepticism Treason?" The Nation, by James Carden

"Despite the scores of media pieces which assert that Russia’s interference in the election is “case closed,” some cyber experts say skepticism is still in order." 

"The final days of 2016 were filled with more developments—some real, some not—in the ongoing story of Russia’s alleged interference in the US presidential election. On December 29, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security released a joint report that  provided “technical details regarding the tools and infrastructure used by the Russian civilian and military intelligence Services (RIS) to compromise and exploit networks and endpoints associated with the U.S. election.”

In retaliation, the Obama administration announced that it was expelling 35 Russian diplomats, closing 2 diplomatic compounds in Maryland and New York, and applying sanctions on Russia’s intelligence service. A day later, December 30, The Washington Post reported that an electrical utility in Vermont had been infiltrated by the same Russian malware that used to hack the DNC.

Taken together, these events set off a wave of media condemnation not just of the Russian government, but of President-elect Donald J. Trump for what is widely believed to be his overly accommodative posture toward Russian President Vladimir Putin. 

Yet despite the scores of breathless media pieces that assert that Russia’s interference in the election is “case closed,” might some skepticism be in order? Some cyber experts say “yes.” 

As was quickly pointed out by the Burlington Free Press, The Washington Post’s story on the Vermont power grid was inaccurate. The malware was detected on a laptop that belonged to the utility but was not connected to the power plant. “The grid is not in danger,” said a spokesman for the Burlington utility. The Post has since amended its story with an editor’s note (as it did when its November 24 story on Russian “fake news” by reporter Craig Timberg was widely refuted) dialing back its original claims of Russian infiltration. 

Meanwhile, the joint DHS/FBI report has come under scrutiny. Leonid Bershidsky, an outspoken critic of Vladimir Putin, believes that the U.S. intelligence community is making a spectacle of itself under political pressure from the outgoing administration and some Congress hawks. It ought to stop doing so.”
Cyber-security experts have also weighed in. The security editor at Ars Technica observed that “Instead of providing smoking guns that the Russian government was behind specific hacks,” the government report “largely restates previous private sector claims without providing any support for their validity.” Robert M. Lee of the cyber-security company Dragos noted that the report reads like a poorly done vendor intelligence report stringing together various aspects of attribution without evidence.” Cybersecurity consultant Jeffrey Carr noted that the report “merely listed every threat group ever reported on by a commercial cybersecurity company that is suspected of being Russian-made and lumped them under the heading of Russian Intelligence Services (RIS) without providing any supporting evidence that such a connection exists.” 

In this respect, it is worth noting that one of the commercial cybersecurity companies the government has relied on is Crowdstrike, which was one of the companies initially brought in by the DNC to investigate the alleged hacks. 

In late December, Crowdstrike released a largely debunked report claiming that the same Russian malware that was used to hack the DNC has been used by Russian intelligence to target Ukrainian artillery positions. Crowdstrike’s co-founder and chief technology officer, Dmitri Alperovitch, told PBS,  “Ukraine’s artillery men were targeted by the same hackersthat targeted DNC, but this time they were targeting cellphones [belonging to the Ukrainian artillery men] to try to understand their location so that the Russian artillery forces can actually target them in the open battle.”

Dmitri Alperovitch is also a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council. The connection between Alperovitch and the Atlantic Council has gone largely unremarked upon, but it is relevant given that the Atlantic Council—which is funded in part by the US State Department, NATO, the governments of Latvia and Lithuania, the Ukrainian World Congress, and the Ukrainian oligarch Victor Pinchuk—has been among the loudest voices calling for a new Cold War with Russia. As I pointed out in the pages of The Nation in November, the Atlantic Council has spent the past several years producing some of the most virulent specimens of the new Cold War propaganda. 

It would seem then that a healthy amount of skepticism toward a government report that relied, in part, on the findings of private-sector cyber security companies like CrowdStrike might be in order. And yet skeptics have found themselves in the unenviable position of being accused of being Kremlin apologists, or worse.

When the progressive Internet juggernaut “The Young Turks” questioned the Obama administration’s move to impose new sanctions on Russia in the absence of any clear evidence of its involvement in the DNC hacks, Eric Boehlert of Media Matters for America took to Twitter to denounce the program, as well as Daily News columnist Shaun King—who had nothing to do with the ‘Turks’ segment—as “Kremlin cheerleaders.” 

King replied in a Facebook post that Demanding evidence does not make anybody a cheerleader. And working for a company where a journalist said he wanted to see the evidence for himself damn sure doesn’t make me a Kremlin cheerleader any more than EVERY journalist at CNN is responsible for what EVERY person who ever worked at CNN says.” 

When Florida Congressman Ted Yoho seemed insufficiently impressed with the new DHS/FBI report, CNN’s national-security correspondent Jim Scuitto replied that Yoho’s argument was an odd point to make for an American. it seems you’re making a point that Vladimir Putin, frankly, has made.” 

Meanwhile President-elect Donald J. Trump’s skeptical stance toward the flood of accusations against Russia has also aroused the ire of the pundit class. The Washington Monthly’s David Atkins said Trump’s “bizarre strategy of denying and minimizing” Russia’s interference in the election was “treason.” ABC news political analyst and former George W. Bush adviser Matthew Dowd declared that “U aren’t an American patriot and don’t respect Constitution if u believe Putin more than our President and intelligent services. 

Former CIA operative Nada Bakos tweeted, “As a CIA officer, if I had a colleague talking like Trump is about Putin, I would think he was turned.” The Atlantic’s editor in chief Jeffrey Goldberg echoed Bakos’s sentiments almost exactly, accusing Trump of aligning “himself with the president of Russia and against the current American president.” 

Given all of this, it would seem the rhetoric of blame is far outpacing the facts: All we have at the moment are assertions (which is different from evidence) and expressions of “confidence” (which is different from certainty)

Alas, this puts skeptics on “the side” of Putin’s Russia. But it may be useful to recall the novelist and journalist Arthur Koestler’s admonition that “the fear of finding oneself in bad company is not an expression of political purity, it is an expression of a lack of self-confidence.” 

And until such time as hard evidence is presented, skepticism, not blind faith in assertions of fact from the government, is what is required."


Friday, September 15, 2017

Trump's push to arm Ukraine puts already exposed and vulnerable civilian population at risk, could spark wider war. Kiev, not Moscow, is widely seen responsible for latest fighting in eastern Ukraine-James Carden, The Nation...(With Trump, convicted felon Soros gets the answer to his dreams: forcing US taxpayers to weaponize Ukraine, incite war with Russia, and generally increase human misery)

6/14/2006, "Soros’ Insider-Trading Conviction Upheld," NY Times Dealbook.

"France’s Court of Cassation ended its review of a March 2005 judgment that found that Mr. Soros knew that Societe Generale was a takeover target in 1988 when he purchased shares in the bank."... 

Added: 12/30/2008, "Soros blamed for demise of Ukrainian hryvnia," Kyiv Post, wire reports

9/13/17, "The Latest Push to Arm Ukraine," The Nation, by James Carden

"Arming Kiev could hinder diplomatic efforts to end the war."

"In recent weeks, reports have emerged that the Pentagon and the State Department have drawn up plans to send what are invariably (and misleadingly) referred to as “defensive” weapons to Ukraine.

President Trump’s newly appointed special representative for Ukraine, Ambassador Kurt Volker, said the administration is considering sending anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles to front-line Ukrainian forces in the Donbass [eastern Ukraine] to enable our ally to “defend itself if Russia were to take further steps against Ukrainian territory.”

The National Security Task Force of the Friends of Ukraine Network, a bipartisan coalition of former government officials, including former NATO supreme allied commanders Philip Breedlove and Wesley Clark, have called for the Trump administration to send tanks and drones to Ukraine, in order to, in the words of one member, “increase the pressure on Russia to negotiate seriously on implementing the Minsk agreements.” 

The renewed calls to send weapons to Ukraine recall the early months of 2015 when there was a concerted push to arm Ukraine from the foreign-policy establishment, including President Obama’s own appointees at the Pentagon and State Departmentin conjunction with scholars from the Brookings Institution, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, and the Atlantic Councilin order to both undermine the second round of the Minsk cease-fire agreement (which was being negotiated at that time) and to stave off what became a military debacle for Kiev at Debaltseve.

Yet, in one of his rare departures from what he derisively called the US foreign-policy establishment “blob,” President Obama resolutely refused to send “defensive” weapons to Kiev, though he did sign on to the creation of multinational military training base in western Ukraine at Yaroviv. (In this context it is worth noting that the 2015 Brookings-Atlantic Council plan to arm Ukraine was opposed by, among others, Brookings Russia scholar Fiona Hill, who now serves as Trump’s lead Russia adviser on the NSC.) 

Then as now, arguments for arming Ukraine are based on disingenuous interpretations of past agreements and an equally reckless disregard for the present circumstances. 

There is a real danger that the introduction of US arms could be the end of the Minsk II cease-fire agreement and could derail the latest push by Moscow to introduce UN peacekeepers to the region

Of last week’s proposal by Russia to send UN peacekeepers to patrol the front line, German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel said that “this offer of a UN mission in eastern Ukraine shows that Russia has effected a change in its policies that we should not gamble away.”

Yet sending arms might incentivize escalation on the part of both parties to the conflict. Last week, at the BRICS summit in China, Russia’s Vladimir Putin warned that “The delivery of weapons to a conflict zone doesn’t help peacekeeping efforts, but only worsens the situation.” 

And for its part, it was Kiev, not Moscow, that was widely seen to be responsible for the latest round of fighting in eastern Ukraine. 

But Trump’s envoy Volker dismissed such concerns in an interview with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty in July, saying, “I hear these arguments that it’s somehow provocative to Russia or that it’s going to embolden Ukraine to attack. These are just flat-out wrong.” 

We also might pause to recall what happened in Syria, where the weapons provided to the anti-Assad rebels by the CIA and Pentagon ended up in the hands of radical jihadis. 

In the case of Ukraine, the weapons could quite conceivably fall into the hands of armed militias like the far-right Azov battalion. 

“The historic mission of our nation in this critical moment,” the head of the battalion Andriy Biletsky has written, “is to lead the White Races of the world in a final crusade for their survival.” It is, said Biletsky, “a crusade against the Semite-led Untermenschen.” One Azov battalion member told Sky News that “To become an Azov fighter you have to be a proper white man.” 

Nevertheless, in recent months Azov has been the subject of fawning documentaries by news outlets such as Vice, Newsweek, and the The New York Times, which have downplayed its neo-Nazi ideology. 

That aside, the enthusiasm for sending weapons remains undiminished in some quarters. Former US ambassador to Ukraine John Herbst has dismissed the concerns of those whom he dismisses as “armchair strategists” who argue against sending weapons because “Moscow has a greater interest in Ukraine than Washington [does], and Ukraine’s government is corrupt and undeserving of such support.” According to Herbst, “The most cost-efficient way to counter the Kremlin’s revisionist policies is to increase the cost of its aggression in Ukraine.” 

Herbst also argues that “United States made a commitment to guarantee Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity when it gave up its nuclear weapons in 1994. Providing defensive weapons to Ukraine will honor that commitment and raise the cost of the war for Moscow.” 

Not everyone agrees. Former State Department officials Jeremy Shapiro and Samuel Charap have written that, actually, “There is no such obligation in the Budapest Memorandum.” They point out that “Strobe Talbott who led the negotiations on the memorandum, said at the time: ‘This [memorandum] does not mean the U.S. is willing to come to the defense of Ukraine if it is attacked militarily’ (Agence France Presse, November 18, 1994). Any side offer of such a commitment made to the Ukrainians by U.S. diplomats and not notified to Congress has no standing.” 

An American humanitarian-aid worker in Donbass recently asked, “[I]f this move instead triggers escalation and subjects Donbass civilians to a new round of death and misery, will proponents still be paying attention?” In the end, sending weapons would be a destabilizing move that would further jeopardize Minsk II, put an already exposed and vulnerable civilian population at risk, and could spark a wider war. As such, Trump would in this instance be wise to follow the example set by his predecessor."


Donald Trump is the biggest con man in history-Commenter to The Hill article reporting Trump tweets, 9/14/17...(The Forgotten Man remains Forgotten and gets a slap down from Trump that could easily have been delivered by George Soros)

30% increase in crime by Dreamers: 8/29/17, "Feds: 30% surge in illegals losing DACA freedom for crimes, gang violence," Washington Examiner, Paul Bedard 

"Federal immigration authorities are revealing a surge in those losing their freedom "due to criminality or gang affiliation concerns." Officials told Secrets that the number has surged 30 percent this year."

9/14/17, "Trump on DACA recipients: Does anyone really want to 'throw out' good, educated young people?" The Hill ^ | Rebecca Savransky 

""Does anybody really want to throw out good, educated and accomplished young people who have jobs, some serving in the military?" Trump asked on Twitter. 

"Really!...They have been in our country for many years through no fault of their own - brought in by parents at young age. Plus BIG border security.""

3 among comments at Free Republic to above article:


"Ridiculous strawman argument. We have laws, we have rules, we have a process in place.

Children of illegals do not get automatic U.S. citizenship. The 14th Amendment does not cover the children of illegals. My compromise - and ONLY compromise (and this is after the border is shut-down, anchor babies are abolished, the wall is built, no freebies or benefits for illegals, the existing illegals are deported, etc.) is that children of illegals should return to their parent's country of origin, have a 3-year waiting period, and then re-apply for citizenship, which would be merit-based (English and strong work skills, no criminal record) and on a case-by-case basis. And NO chain migration.
11 posted on 9/15/2017, 12:53:19 AM by Extremely Extreme Extremist"


"Donald Trump is the biggest con man in history. Period.

12 posted on 9/15/2017, 12:53:39 AM by SmokingJoe"


"Why in this world does the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA have to make a damned "deal" to get a secure border?!?!?!? I am effing sick and tired of living in a country that does NOT HAVE A SECURE BORDER!!!! Screw every politician that did this, every stinking one of them. 

10 posted on 9/15/2017, 12:53:14 AM by advance_copy"

Added: Trump blatantly lied in his inauguration speech: "This American carnage stops right here and stops right now....From this moment on, it's going to be America First." A massive lie. Now he's lecturing and scolding us just like the Bush crowd and Romney do. 

Trump: 'This American carnage stops right here and stops right now.' Trump promised his supporters he would not betray them. The implication is obvious: previous Presidents have all betrayed them. And they have. Four of them were standing behind him when he said it-Gary North

"The Forgotten Man," Jon McNaughton painting

Jon McNaughton on Feb. 3, 2012 about this painting:

"Against the background of a darkening sky, all of the past Presidents of the United States gather before the White House, as if to commemorate some great event. In the left hand corner of the painting sits a man. That man, with his head bowed appears distraught and hopeless as he contemplates his future. Some of the past Presidents try to console him while looking in the direction of the modern Presidents as if to say, "What have you done?" Many of these modern Presidents, seemingly oblivious to anything other than themselves, appear to be congratulating each other on their great accomplishments. In front of the man, paper trash is blowing in the wind. Crumpled dollar bills, legislative documents, and, like a whisper—the U.S. Constitution beneath the foot of Barack Obama. The Forgotten Man. Go to"

1/20/17, "Trump's Inaugural Address Was Like No Other in History," Gary

"I don't know which phrase will get quoted in the future. But I'll tell you one that grabbed my attention: "This American carnage stops right here and stops right now." American carnage. He has it, exactly.

But this is more likely to stick: "From this moment on, it's going to be America First." 

He is not the polished speaker that John Kennedy was. He does not have the hearts of the people in the way that Franklin Roosevelt did in the midst of the Great Depression. He is not the rhetorical master that Abraham Lincoln was. But more than any President I have ever heard or read at an inaugural, he laid out his agenda, showed how that agenda is a fundamental break from the political past, and promised his supporters that he would not betray them. The implication is obvious: previous Presidents have all betrayed them. And they have. Four of them were standing behind him when he said it. This was a breach of etiquette. I loved it.

No matter what happens in terms of the details of his administration, and no matter what happens to the economy as a result of central bank profligacy, Donald Trump delivered an inaugural address that is going to go down in history. His enemies will try to bury him in his own words. But that plays into his hands. They will have to use his own words to bury him. It's Catch-22 for the establishment. Let the battle begin!"

Added: From Ann Coulter: If he fails on immigration, "Donald Trump will go down in history as the man who killed America."

9/13/17, "NO AMNESTY IS A GOOD AMNESTY," Ann Coulter

My comment: I hope Donald Trump rots in hell and I hope he's impeached. There should be no discussion whatsoever about The Wall. None. He was elected because of the Wall.

This is what it's like living in the United States today: As soon as politicians are elected to office by the American people, their heart immediately goes out to everyone in the world except the American people who elected them. If the politician is a Republican, he soon begins lecturing and scolding the people who elected him.
P.S. I never want to hear another world about Ivanka or her ridiculous husband.



Blog Archive

About Me

My photo
I'm the daughter of an Eagle Scout (fan of the Brooklyn Dodgers and Mets) and a Beauty Queen.