ThereAreNoSunglasses

American Resistance To Empire

Iranian Press Pushing Govt. To Strike Israel At Haifa Port Over Scientist Assassination

 

Kayhan: Hit Haifa

kayhan.ir

In a note written by Saadullah Zarei, the Kayhan newspaper today suggested that Iran attack the port of Haifa in the occupied territories in response to the martyrdom of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh.

Fararo – Today, Kayhan newspaper, in a note written by Sadollah Zarei, suggested that Iran attack the port of Haifa in the occupied territories in response to the martyrdom of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh. 

Kayhan wrote in the memo: “If the role of the Israeli regime in the assassination of the great martyr Fakhrizadeh is proven to the Supreme National Security Council of Iran, and of course all the evidence shows this, we must necessarily strike such a blow to this regime that the issue of attacking forces or “Iranian centers, wherever they are – from Absard to Caracas – will be off the agenda of any enemy forever.”

Sadullah Zarei continued his note in Kayhan: “We have stated several times in the face of Israel that we will strike Haifa if Israel makes a mistake. Now that we can prove the role of the Zionist regime in this great martyrdom, we can operationalize this threat, but not in the sense that we will be satisfied with an operation the size of a missile we had against the Ain al-Assad military base, and not in the sense of that operation, but in the sense that “In fact, we are attacking the important port city of Haifa in such a way that, in addition to destroying the facilities, it is accompanied by heavy human casualties, so that our deterrence reaches a” safe point “.”

According to the author of Kayhan, “Iran’s reactionary action, if implemented intelligently and accurately, will definitely lead to deterrence, because the United States and the Israeli regime and its agents are by no means ready to take part in a war and military confrontation, and this is literally a war case.” “And terrorism is coming to an end in our region.”

Young man: Do not run away from under the gutters for fear of rain

But along with the analysis of the universe and the demand for a sharp reaction to the martyrdom of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, the young newspaper affiliated with the IRGC also believes in the reaction, but with a more moderate view. “The enemy’s calculations in the assassination are that Iran is not in a position to react, and ironically this is the best time for assassination,” Abdullah Ganji, the young managing director, wrote in a note in the newspaper, criticizing Hassan Rouhani’s analysis of Fakhrizadeh’s assassination. Unfortunately, we could not change this calculation of the enemy and we changed it ourselves. Our main analysis is that the Zionists are seeking to undermine the strategic honor of “fighting in Syria rather than fighting in Hamedan and Kermanshah,” seeking security for which we have fought abroad and pushed back their infantry in the form of “insecurity.” “They should bring them inside the country and make people aware that we fought in Syria and neglected the security of our country.”

However, he believes: “One should not make a decision with hasty feelings or social pressure. We should not go in a direction that took the repentants of Karbala to the same level and wasted without a military estimate.”

According to Ganji: “On the other hand, we should not be Sultan Hussein Safavid, who placed the crown on the head of a 26-year-old man and said,” My son, God has decreed this, and we do not oppose God’s command. ” If Sultan Hussein had fought outside the fortress of Isfahan and been torn to pieces, he would now be one of the heroes of Iran and Shiism, but the amnesty caused him to surrender the government and behead all the Safavid princes in one day, two years after the handover of Mahmud Afghan government. “The king was also watching.” 

“In response to the Zionist action, we have a lot of capacity to use,” the young newspaper said. “Any analysis that silences us has broken the pride of the great and ancient nation of Iran. The pride of the Iranians is so much that it is sometimes called the ‘Empire Syndrome.’ This pride must not be broken. The condition for maintaining this pride is that “Do not run away under the gutters for fear of rain.”

State of War Between Iran and Israel

A Scorched Earth Strategy on Iran–The assassination of a top nuclear scientist isn’t about stopping a bomb — it’s about preventing diplomacy.

Iran’s Mohsen Fakhrizadeh killed by 62-person hit squad, reports say

The killers — who Iranian officials have insisted were sent by Israel — included a team of 50 giving “logistical support” to the dirty dozen who carried out the actual ambush Friday, sources told leading Iranian journalist Mohamad Ahwaze.

All involved had “entered special training courses, as well as security and intelligence services abroad,” Ahwaze tweeted, as translated by ELINT News.

“The team knew exactly the date and course of the movement of the Fakhrizadeh protection convoy in the smallest details,” Ahwaze’s sources told him, allowing them to cut the scientist off as he went to his private villa in Absard.

Shortly before Fakhrizadeh drove through their ambush site, the team “cut off the electricity completely from this area” to slow reports of their assassination and any calls for help, the reporter said.

Fakhrizadeh was traveling in the middle of three bulletproof cars, with the killers striking after the first car entered a roundabout, the report said.

A booby-trapped Nissan was then detonated to block the car behind Fakhrizadeh — as 12 gunmen pounced on him, arriving in a Hyundai Santa Fe and four motorbikes, Ahwaze tweeted.

“After the car bomb was detonated, 12 operatives opened fire towards Fakhrizadeh’s car and the first protection vehicle,” his thread said.

“According to Iranian leaks, the leader of the assassination team took Fakhrizadeh out of his car and shot him and made sure he was killed.”

None of the hit squad were wounded or arrested during the gunbattle with the Iranian’s bodyguards, Ahwaze said.

Friday’s hit has dramatically escalated tensions between Iran and Israel, which was quickly accused of ordering the hit.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei vowed “definitive punishment of the perpetrators and those who ordered it.”

He called Fakhrizadeh “the country’s prominent and distinguished nuclear and defensive scientist,” and analysts have compared him to being on a par with Robert Oppenheimer, the scientist who led the U.S.′ Manhattan Project in World War II that created the atom bomb.

Left-Wing “Woke” Zealots Urge You To Disrupt Thanksgiving Dinner, By Attacking Your Family’s Beliefs

[The cancel culture hates you, your family, your God and your country…and they call themselves morally superior.]

UVA student newspaper opinion writer: ‘Stand up’ to ‘racist family’ at Thanksgiving

Article imageBenjamin Zeisloft | Pennsylvania Senior Campus Correspondent

An opinion writer for the University of Virginia student newspaper encouraged her readers to “stand up” against “racist family.”

She argues that “hateful rhetoric, conspiratorial thinking and virulent racism, xenophobia and sexism” endure in broader American society.

One student commented on the opinion article, stating that by playing along with the “policing of white progressives, we grant them a position of superiority and false sense of accomplishment.”

Emma Camp, who writes a regular opinion column for the Cavalier Daily, asserted that “white progressives must privilege their principles over personal comfort” in conversations with family during the holiday season. In order to fulfill this mandate, they “need to stand up to their racist loved ones.”

Though Trump, who Camp defines as a “proto-fascist,” who has “been defeated,” she argues that “the hateful rhetoric, conspiratorial thinking and virulent racism, xenophobia and sexism he espoused during his tenure remain deeply entrenched in American political discourse.”

“When we sit silent over our uncle’s QAnon rants or our high school friends’ xenophobic comments,” she continues, “it shows that we value our own comfort over what we know to be our ethical duty.”

She again admonishes readers to prove that their “moral principles” are more important than their “relationship with racists.”

“No matter the outcome, standing up for your principles disrupts the presumption of agreement so often assumed by bigots,” concludes Camp. “Hateful beliefs may continue — but at the very least you can make it clear that they are not welcome to at least one person at the dinner table.”

University of Virginia undergraduate Deven Upadhyay told Campus Reform that “calling white progressives to action at Thanksgiving turns social activism into a game, eliciting frivolous accusations and burning bridges with loved ones.”

“Today’s progressives have developed a savior complex that has become so sensitive, diluting the severity of real instances of xenophobia, sexism, and racism,” he added. “As this piece pins this task on white people, it seems that people of color need to be ‘saved’ by our white friends.”

Upadhyay, who is Indian-American, says that he does not “need to be saved or pandered to. By playing along with the policing of white progressives, we grant them a position of superiority and false sense of accomplishment.”

“If the purpose of activism is to make change, telling your uncle Steve he’s a white supremacist surely won’t win you a Nobel prize,” he added.

Campus Reform reached out to Camp for comment and will update this article accordingly.

Trump Working Feverishly To Scuttle Biden’s Iran Peace Overtures

Israel strikes widely in Syria, sending signal of aggressive post-Trump posture

Trump ‘asked for options on strike on Iran nuclear site’

Scoop: Israeli military prepares for possibility Trump will strike Iran

While Trump considered bombing Iran, Biden ponders a new deal with it

US President-elect Joe Biden.
US President-elect Joe Biden.

By John Solomou

Nicosia [Cyprus], November 23 (ANI): The New York Times reported that on November 12, US President Donald Trump asked his senior advisers to examine options for airstrikes against Iran’s main nuclear facility at Natanz. Trump convened the meeting just one day after the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors reported a significant increase in Iran’s nuclear material.

Fortunately, Trump’s advisers persuaded him that the risks of military action against Iran are very high. Had a strike against Iran actually taken place, apart from the fact that would be a clear violation of international law, it would also have scuttled any new deal with Iran, President-elect Joe Biden is pondering.

The nuclear deal, known as Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), signed in 2015 with the United States, Germany, France, Britain, China and Russia, allows Iran to keep a stockpile of 202.8 kilograms. Inspectors reported that the stockpile increased to 2,442 kilograms, while Iran continues to enrich uranium to a purity of up to 4.5 per cent, higher than the 3.67 per cent allowed under the deal. It should be noted that low enriched uranium between 3 and 5 per cent can be used for nuclear power, but for nuclear weapons 90 per cent purity is required.

According to New York Times, Trump had to be persuaded not to order the attack by Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Mark Milley. They pointed out that a military strike would have no basis on international law, while the UN Security Council in all probability would not approve a military action against Iran.

Iranian Government Spokesman Ali Rabiei, responding to the NY Times’ report, said that any US attack on Iran would face a “crushing” response.

Meanwhile, the US Administration announced fresh sanctions on numerous Iranian individuals, including the Intelligence Chief and a charitable foundation linked to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Trump had withdrawn from JCPOA in May 2018 and imposed sanctions, which according to US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo cut vital and lucrative Iranian exports by some 75 per cent, denying the regime of USD 70 billion in oil. Iran continued to comply with the provisions of JCPOA until July 2019, and then started violating parts of the deal, but last January following the assassination by the US of Major General Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad, it ended all compliance with JCPOA.

As Trump was mulling over an attack on Iran, the Israelis carried out strikes in Syria on Iranian-backed militias. On 18 November, the Israeli Air Force hit targets of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards’ Quds Force and the Syrian Army in the Golan Heights and Damascus International Airport, as retaliation for the planting of explosives near an Israeli military position in the Golan Heights.

Undoubtedly, if a military attack on Iran took place during Trump’s final days in office, it would have certainly derailed Joe Biden’s stated election promise to handle Iran “the smart way” and to give the Iranian regime “a credible path back to diplomacy”.

Karim Sadjapour, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, says that as both a Senator and a Vice President Biden’s views on Iran was always realistic. “He has no illusions about the nature of the Iranian regime and the challenges it poses to US interests, but he’s also been a consistent advocate of direct dialogue with Iran…. If Tehran shows a willingness to return to the status quo ante, no questions asked, it would strengthen the argument of those in Washington who favour an immediate return to the JCPOA. But if Tehran insists on being compensated for the sanctions imposed on Iran during the Trump era, or if Iranian leaders attempt to expand their nuclear program or carry out regional provocations in an attempt to expand their nuclear programme, or carry out regional provocations in an attempt to strengthen their bargaining position or signal that they are not weak, it will have the opposite effect.”

Paul Adams, BBC diplomatic correspondent points out that Iran, which “has weathered the Trump storm, has its own demands. Officials say the removal of sanctions won’t be enough. Iran expects to be compensated for two-and-a-half years of crippling economic damage….. The JCPOA was never a bilateral affair. Its other international sponsors – Russia, China, France, the UK and Germany, plus the European Union – are all, in one way or another, invested in its future. The European sponsors, in particular, are anxious to see Washington once more committed to the deal’s success. The UK, France and Germany (the “E3″) have tried to keep the deal alive during the Trump years and could now play a role in negotiating the terms of Washington’s return. But in London, Paris and Berlin, there’s a recognition that the world has moved on and that a simple return to the original deal is unlikely.”

A deal between Biden and the Tehran government is possible but could be much more difficult if Tehran insists on demanding compensation for US withdrawal from the deal, or if Biden raises the issues of the Iranian ballistic missiles or the Tehran supported militias in the region. (ANI)

Salonpas Pain Patch–Medical/Advertising Fraud for Doctors Too Afraid To Help Their Patients

Salonpas Pain Patch

Brand Name: Absorbine Jr., Analgesic Balm Greaseless, Arthricare Cream, BENGAY Ultra, Boroleum, Castiva Cooling, Eucalyptamint, Exocaine Plus, Flex-All 454 Maximum Strength, Gordogesic, Icy Hot, Mentholatum Deep Heating, Rhuli Gel, Salonpas Pain Patch, Satogesic, Thera-Gesic–DRUGS.COM

“NONE ARE PROVEN STRONGER OR MORE EFFECTIVE”

Jewish Editor and Jewish Filmaker Brand Criticism Of Soros As “Anti-Semitism”

By Edward A. Gargan

See the article in its original context from
September 22, 1997, Section A, Page 6Buy Reprints
TimesMachine is an exclusive benefit for home delivery and digital subscribers.

It was high noon in Hong Kong this weekend.

Like gunfighters on a dust-blown street, one of Asia’s most outspoken leaders, Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad of Malaysia, faced off against one of the world’s most formidable currency speculators, George Soros. In their holsters were weapons of oratory, currency and clout.

At stake was nothing less than Malaysia’s national prestige, the future of Southeast Asian economies and, by some accounts, the very shape of the global financial system.

Even more, the standoff pitted two worlds against one another, an Asia of growing economic might and a West convinced that free-wheeling trade — in ideas, capital and goods — is the best recipe for development.

The forum was the usually somber gathering of finance ministers, bankers and economists at the annual meeting of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. On successive evenings, Mr. Mahathir and Mr. Soros squared off, denouncing each other in vitriolic language seldom heard in such settings.

Yet Malaysia’s economy is in crisis, its currency has collapsed and blame had to be fixed.

Lashing out at currency traders like Mr. Soros as ”morons,” Mr. Mahathir castigated them on Saturday as ”a group of ultra-rich people.”

”For them wealth must come from impoverishing others,” Mr. Mahathir said, ”from taking what others have in order to enrich themselves. Their weapon is their wealth against the poverty of others.”

While not mentioning Mr. Soros by name — although in previous comments to newspapers in Malaysia, Mr. Mahathir specifically blamed Mr. Soros for orchestrating Malaysia’s economic crisis — he told the assembled bankers and economists that Mr. Soros’s ilk had to be stopped.

”I am saying that currency trading is unnecessary, unproductive and totally immoral,” Mr. Mahathir declared. ”It should be stopped. It should be made illegal. We don’t need currency trading.”

Then tonight, before a standing-room-only crowd, Mr. Soros fired back at the Malaysian leader.

”Dr. Mahathir’s suggestion yesterday to ban currency trading is so inappropriate that it does not deserve serious consideration,” Mr. Soros said.

”Interfering with the convertibility of capital at a moment like this is a recipe for disaster. Dr. Mahathir is a menace to his own country.”

Since July, in the churning wake of the collapse of Thailand’s currency and banking system, Malaysia has foundered. Its currency, the ringgit, has plunged 20 percent against the dollar. On the heels of the tumbling ringgit, the Malaysian stock market crashed and the country’s banking system began to creak. Foreign investors fled.

For Mr. Mahathir, who has seen his country’s annual per-capita output soar from $350 to $5,000 in four decades, the assault on the ringgit smacked of a conspiracy wrought by international currency traders.

For a man who has built the world’s tallest buildings and Southeast Asia’s largest airport and who harbors visions of a glittering new capital, a high-tech corridor intended to rival Silicon Valley and immense hydroelectric dams, the economic train wreck has been an affront, to him personally and to Asia.

”We like to think big,” Mr. Mahathir said. ”But we are not going to be allowed to do this, because you don’t like us to have big ideas. It is not proper. It is impudent for us to try, or even to say we are going to do it. If we even say that when we have the money we will carry on with our big projects, you will make sure we won’t have the money by forcing the devaluation of the currency.

”If the countries of Europe and of North America can be almost uniformly prosperous, we don’t see why we cannot be allowed to be a little prosperous.”

Then tonight, 24 hours after Mr. Mahathir’s broadside against Mr. Soros, currency traders and the international financial system, Mr. Soros stood behind the same lectern and declared that the problem with Malaysia was not the world, but Mr. Mahathir himself.

”He is using me as a scapegoat to cover up his own failure,” Mr. Soros said. ”He is playing to a domestic audience, and he couldn’t get away with it if he and his ideas were subject to the discipline of an independent media inside Malaysia.”

Later, at a news conference, Mr. Soros elaborated on his comments. ”I want to express my sympathy for poor Malaysians who were hurt” by the collapse of the country’s currency and stock market, ”but not for Dr. Mahathir, because he’s responsible.”

The war of words reverberated through the cavernous conference halls, startling government officials and private bankers used to more measured language.

An Indonesian Government economist, who spoke on condition of anonymity, was angered by Mr. Mahathir’s pronouncements.

”It’s very unfortunate that we are neighbors,” the economist said. ”I know we shouldn’t interfere in other countries’ policies. But all I can say is that it was very interesting. As an economist there are things that I disagree with. But because of our good neighbor policy, I can’t really comment on his speech.”

A Malaysian banker, who also insisted that he not be quoted by name, suggested that the Prime Minister was out of touch with reality.

”There are not two ways of doing these things,” the banker said. ”We have to get our own house in order. He really hasn’t thought these things out. He’s just spouting off.”

Israeli Forces Bomb Iranians In Syria, Trump Asks For Strike Options On Iranian Nuke Sites

Trump ‘asked for options on strike on Iran nuclear site’

Israel strikes widely in Syria, sending signal of aggressive post-Trump posture

 

Israel said it was retaliating for what it called an Iranian-sponsored operation in which Syrians planted explosives near an Israeli military base.

 

Image: Israeli soldiers on top of a Merkava Mark IV tank that deployed along the border with Syria, in Golan Heights, Israel.

Israeli soldiers on top of a Merkava Mark IV tank that deployed along the border with Syria, in Golan Heights, Israel, in 2018.picture alliance via Getty Images file

JERUSALEM/AMMAN — Israel launched air raids against what it called a wide range of Syrian and Iranian targets in Syria on Wednesday, sending a signal that it will pursue its policy of striking across the border despite U.S. President Donald Trump’s election defeat.

Israel said it was retaliating for what it called an Iranian-sponsored operation in which Syrians planted explosives near an Israeli military base in the occupied Golan Heights.

Israel has frequently attacked what it says are Iranian-linked targets in Syria in recent years, and stepped up such attacks over the past year in what Western intelligence sources describe as a shadow war to reduce Iran’s influence.

But Wednesday’s attacks struck a far wider range of targets than usual, and the Israeli military was more forthcoming about the details than it has been in the past, suggesting a clear intention to send a public message.

Image: People inspecting damaged buildings following a reportedly Israeli air strike on the Syrian village of Beit Saber, southwest of the capital Damascus
People inspecting damaged buildings following a reportedly Israeli air strike on the Syrian village of Beit Saber, southwest of the capital Damascus on 2019.SANA / AFP via Getty Images file

Trump, who lost his re-election bid on Nov. 3, has been a strong backer of Israeli military intervention against Iranian forces in Syria. President-elect Joe Biden has said he will try to revive a nuclear agreement with Iran that Trump abandoned.

The Syrian state news agency reported that three military personnel were killed and one wounded in “Israeli aggression”.

Lieutenant-Colonel Jonathan Conricus, an Israeli military spokesman, said eight targets were hit, belonging to the Syrian army or Iran’s Quds Force, in areas stretching from the Syrian-controlled side of the Golan Heights to the Damascus periphery.

They included an Iranian headquarters at Damascus international airport, a “secret military site” that hosted Iranian military delegations, and the 7th Division of the Syrian armed forces, he said. Syrian surface-to-air defenses were hit after firing at Israeli planes and missiles, Conricus said.

A former Syrian military commander told Reuters the attacks also targeted a base of the Iranian-backed Lebanese Shi’ite group Hezbollah in Syria close to the Lebanese border, alongside bases in the southern Damascus area and outposts in the Syrian-controlled Golan Heights where Hezbollah has a presence.

Conricus made no mention of Hezbollah targets.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a war monitor, said at least ten people were killed including five Iranians from the elite Quds Force, as well as at least two Shi’ite militiamen who may have been Lebanese or Iraqi. A commander in an alliance of regional forces backing Damascus denied there were Iranians or Lebanese among the casualties.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government has never publicly acknowledged that there are Iranian forces operating on his behalf in Syria’s civil war, saying Tehran only has military advisors on the ground.

Western intelligence sources say Israeli strikes this year have undermined Iran’s extensive military power in Syria without triggering a major increase in hostilities.

Trump’s New Sec/Def Aims To End Perpetual War, Biden Sec/Def Speaks of War On Russia

Michele Flournoy, Biden Sec/Def Nominee–(SEE: The Looming US War on Russia )

Christopher C. Miller has been named acting secretary of defense.
National Counterterrorism Center Director Christopher Miller testifies before a House Committee on Homeland Security hearing on ‘worldwide threats to the homeland’ on Sept. 17, 2020. President Trump named him acting secretary of defense on Nov. 9, 2020. (Chip Somodevilla/Pool via AP)
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s new defense secretary signaled to the military in a late Friday message that he may be there to carry out one of the president’s early campaign promises, an overseas drawdown of forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“This is the critical phase in which we transition our efforts from a leadership to supporting role,” acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller said in a memo obtained by McClatchy. “We are not a people of perpetual war — it is the antithesis of everything for which we stand and for which our ancestors fought. All wars must end.”

Trump in a tweet Monday had announced Miller as the replacement for fired Defense Secretary Mark Esper.

In the memo to the Defense Department workforce, Miller described at length the respect he has for the institution and the sacrifices made by thousands of men and women who have deployed to the Middle East since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. He said,

“ending wars requires compromise and partnership. We met the challenge; we gave it our all. Now, it’s time to come home.”

It was the first indication of what direction the Pentagon may take in Trump’s final weeks in office, the uncertainty of which has raised concerns among career defense officials and the incoming Biden administration about what the changes mean — whether he is rewarding loyalists or trying to force through policies the department has resisted over the last four years.

Top Biden transition officials said that postelection upheaval at the Defense Department, Trump’s firing of Esper and the resignations of top defense policy and intelligence chiefs that followed, amount to a final push to politicize the military.

The firings and resignations come amid Trump’s refusal to acknowledge his electoral defeat and authorize the federal government to begin preparing for a transition of power to President-elect Joe Biden. The defense officials and Biden’s team said that gap could increase security risks for the country.

“In the 9-11 Commission report, one of the things they talked about was the impact of the delay of the transition period on our national security,” Jen Psaki, a spokeswoman for the Biden transition team, told reporters on a call Friday.

“Of course it’s of concern to see the upheaval. It should be of concern to anybody because there shouldn’t be a politicization of the military,” said Psaki, who previously served in the Obama administration.

The firing and quick replacement of Esper had worried longtime defense civilian staffers, who wondered if there are major policy changes — such as a rapid withdrawal from Afghanistan or new counterterrorism action in the Middle East or the Sahel, or even a potential use of military forces on U.S. soil to contest the election results — on the horizon before the president departs.

“I don’t know what the end game is,” said one current defense official who worked with policy staff members at the Office of the Secretary of Defense during Trump’s time in office. “For me that’s probably the most difficult thing to try and figure out. The instability and uncertainty complicates things.”

“They aren’t letting us talk about transition,” another current defense official said.

A White House spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment on the changes.

“It’s helpful to decapitate the senior civilian leadership at the Pentagon in preparation of some aggressive use of the military to bolster the president’s claims that he has won this election,” said one former defense official who has stayed close to the Pentagon’s current uniformed senior leadership. “That is probably the most worrisome, most extreme reason they could be making these decisions,” the official said.

“Then the other extreme — which is also possible, in fact some people think it’s the most likely, which is that this is just about score settling,” the official said.

“Once you got rid of Esper the decks were cleared to get rid of these other people that didn’t pass the loyalty test, and replace them with people that could use the experience over the next 70 days to pad their resume.”

In the last four years, the Pentagon has pushed back on decisions that senior military leaders hoped they could counsel the president to amend, such as the creation of the Space Force, withdrawal from Afghanistan and Syria and the use of military force to quell protests.

Each pushback has come at a cost.

Now-retired Air Force Gen. David Goldfein’s public resistance to creating a Space Force, over cost and bureaucracy concerns, is widely believed to be one of the reasons Trump did not select him to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Former Defense Secretary James Mattis irked Trump by convincing him not to withdraw troops from Afghanistan in 2017, and ultimately resigned over Trump’s announcement that U.S. forces in Syria would depart in late 2018.

Esper fell out of favor with Trump when he pushed back on the use of active duty forces to counter nationwide protests following the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis police custody.

“I don’t see what the legal order would be for the military to get involved in something that had to do with the elections,” said retired Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Arnold Punaro, who has assisted new administrations with Senate confirmations since the late 1990s.

Withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Afghanistan or Germany, where the U.S. military has thousands of troops based, is much more likely to be the reason for the recent changes, Punaro said.

“There are certain things the president can do without the Congress. One is to deploy troops, two he can bring troops home,” Punaro said. “Troop levels in various locations is the most logical thing he could change with most recent changes in personnel.”

Punaro, like the former defense official, also said it was more likely some of these last-minute replacements were about rewarding staff that have remained in Trump’s favor.

“It really depends on the billet or the person,” Punaro said. “Allowing people a chance to have a significant position, for example they are bringing in some people in the chief management officer’s office, a new deputy chief management officer.”

“There’s some other people coming in,” Punaro said. “These aren’t related to bring(ing) the troops home from Afghanistan or (to) settle scores. These are really positions that have been vacant where they are giving people opportunities to serve perhaps only 70 days.”

After Esper was replaced by Miller, the following changes were also made at the Defense Department:

James Anderson, acting under secretary of defense for policy, was replaced by Anthony Tata, who Trump previously sought for the position. Tata, at that time, was unable to get Senate confirmation due to inflammatory remarks he has made about Muslims and former President Barack Obama. Tata will serve as “performing the duties of” the under secretary role, which will result in some limits to his authorities.

Retired Navy Vice Adm. Joseph Kernan, under secretary of defense for intelligence and security, was replaced by Ezra Cohen-Watnick, an early administration hire by former national security adviser retired Air Force Gen. Michael Flynn, before Flynn was replaced by retired Army Gen. H.R. McMaster.

Esper’s chief of staff, Jen Stewart, was replaced with Kash Patel, who previously worked for Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., on the Senate Intelligence Committee and assisted the Republican efforts on the committee to question the credibility of FBI agents investigating Russian election interference.

This article is written by Tara Copp and Michael Wilner from Special to McClatchy Washington Bureau and was legally licensed via the Tribune Content Agency through the Industry Dive publisher network. Please direct all licensing questions to legal@industrydive.com.

Celebrity Elites vs “basket of deplorables”

The Biden Family: Corruption and media suppression that will fuel a civil war

President Trump, declassify everything, expose the swamp’s dual justice system and bureaucratic terrorists

 

60 million Americans have lost faith in their electoral process and their trust in government. The majority of Americans are disgusted by politicians, the government and the media telling them what to think while force-feeding them a steady diet of propaganda, lies, and excuses.

New York: The US Justice Department (DOJ) is responsible for ensuring the integrity of federal elections. Accordingly, A.G. Barr has launched a probe into “substantial allegations” of election fraud. Barr’s memorandum for US attorneys stated: “The DOJ must ensure federal elections are conducted in such a way that the American people can have full confidence in their electoral process and government.”

This memo lacks credibility, it is another paper tiger. 60 million Americans have lost faith in their electoral process and their trust in government. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. The US government is rife with systemic fraud and corruption. The majority of Americans are disgusted by politicians, the government and the media telling them what to think while force-feeding them a steady diet of propaganda, lies, and excuses. Citizens need to believe in the integrity of America’s elections and equal application of the rule of law.

Many view Barr’s recent memo as another time-wasting, paper-shuffling “fake investigation” similar to the investigations into Crooked Hillary or the USA’s corrupt FBI. A FISA judge recently determined that FBI agents falsified and lied to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court to obtain FISA warrants to illegally and “secretly spy” on the 2016 Trump campaign and American citizens. Additionally, recently declassified documents prove that Hillary Clinton funded the fraudulent “Steele dossier,” which was the FBI’s basis for obtaining the FISA warrants and would lead to the seditious Mueller investigation.

Mueller’s hoax was part of the FBI’s “insurance policy” to remove a democratically elected President and was one of many failed coup d’états to remove Trump initiated by the Democratic Party. The head of the FBI, James Comey, signed off on many of the FISA applications, attesting to their accuracy. Comey lied about the content in warrants and lied under oath, but Comey was never prosecuted. In 2016, Comey exonerated Hillary Clinton even though there was clear evidence proving that Clinton lied about illegally moving classified documents onto a non-secure unauthorized server in the basement of Clinton’s Chappaqua, NY home. Clinton’s above the law status illustrates to Americans that the dual justice system is real—one rule for Republicans and another for the political elites in the Democratic Party.

Inspector General Horowitz, of the United States Department of Justice, launched an investigation into the FISA abuses and the Russia probe. Horowitz’s 476-page report, which took years, determined that: “Malfeasance and misfeasance detailed in the Inspector General’s report reflects a clear abuse of the FISA process by FBI officials.” It was discovered that the FBI failed “to include exculpatory evidence in its four successful applications for surveillance warrants” and had relied heavily on 17 “significant inaccuracies and omissions.”

In other words, the FBI lied to get FISA warrants that “unlawfully authorized” the FBI to conduct “electronic surveillance and physical searches.” Horowitz’s report was a “slow-roll cover-up” that resulted in nothing except the eroding of the public’s trust in government.

For nearly two years, John Durham, the United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, has been investigating the origin of the specious Russia collusion hoax that marred the Trump presidency and split the country apart. Laws were broken, but nothing was done and Durham just sat on his investigation into the investigators. Sorry, A.G. Barr, the Durham investigation is viewed by many Americans as yet another in a long series of paper shuffles by Washington’s swamp to protect the status quo and Obama’s legacy. Barack Obama, the most divisive President in US history, never departed Washington. Obama was the first US President to champion a “resistance movement” undermining a smooth transition of power to the Trump administration. It appears that Obama is the marionettist behind Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. Obama campaigning in Georgia, on behalf of the Democratic Party Senate candidates, between now and the January runoff elections will further confirm Obama’s involvement to permanently change Americas norms and values.

During the 2020 elections, voting irregularities, software “glitches” or “mistakes” all benefited the Democratic Party enough so that the vote was likely shifted to ensure a Biden victory. All of these anomalies together are a statistical impossibility. The issues below need to be addressed before all the legal votes are counted and the results are codified:

1. As Joe Biden surrogates, the oligarchs of Silicon Valley spent billions of dollars on censorship and vote suppression campaigns that influenced the election’s outcome. Google, Facebook and Twitter censored the fact that Hunter Biden received millions from Moscow, Ukraine, and China and the fact that witnesses testified about influence peddling and that Joe Biden knew about Hunter’s activities. Big tech worked with the media to censor President Trump and to not report on systemic election fraud. Silicon Valley and the media continue to tyrannically censor evidence and facts that illustrate voter fraud or anyone that dares question the “rigged” electoral process. Big tech censorship is the greatest existential threat to free speech, liberty, and democratic principals in our lifetime. Silicon Valley amplified the voter suppression that played a critical role in the 2020 election results.

2. The pollsters and media suppressed the electoral vote, raised money for Democratic candidates and manipulated the outcome. The media ran 95% anti-Trump messaging, which seemed to justify that fraud was acceptable if it would remove “Orange Man Bad” from the White House.

3. Media hysteria over Covid-19 including Dr Fauci and the experts spewing “a science” mantra, massively boosted Biden’s election chances. It is now clear that the media used Covid-19 as a tool to instil fear in the masses. The case numbers were grossly overinflated, as were the projected number of deaths.

4. It is a fact that dead people not only registered to vote but also voted. The New York Times falsely declared in bold headline in all caps: ELECTION OFFICALS NATIONWIDE FIND NO FRAUD. Translation: Shut-up and obey! This lie illustrates why the media has lost the trust of the people.

5. Many votes were cast illegally—a fact the Democratic Georgia Secretary of State openly admitted after the election.

6. In Michigan, a “too close to call” swing state, a clerk found that software used in 47 counties moved 6,000 Republican votes to the Democrats. This software was used across the country and may have changed the election result.

7. Democratic political operatives in the Pennsylvania usurped the US Constitution by illegally changing election laws, to favour the Democratic Party, by fiat instead of by a legitimate, lawful and transparent legislative process.

8. Without due process or an investigation, a heavily biased media anointed Joe Biden President-elect. Joe Biden was trotted out, making spurious claims that American voters had “delivered us a clear victory, a convincing victory”. Biden’s “victory” was prematurely trumpeted by a shrill, corrupt and dishonest media when many questions need to be answered before any of the results are certified.

Election 2020 did not demonstrate free and fair elections. More than 70% of Republicans do not trust that US elections were free and fair, with 78% saying mail-in voting led to fraud. Mail-in ballot fraud, lack of voter identification, or signature matching are red flags that indicate malfeasance. This is how the NSA and CIA conducted electoral manipulation to install the USA’s leader of choice in “banana republics.”

While Joe Biden pretends the Democratic Party seeks unity, many of his party members, such as New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), begun “archiving” an extensive communist-style blacklist of “Trump sycophants” who shall be held responsible for their “complicity”. A “cancel culture” will hold you responsible! Executions? Cancelled from any employment and sent to re-education camps, modelled after China’s Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, for having a differing view from AOC’s utopian democratic socialism? Indeed, “Owned by China” Joe Biden will turn a blind eye. Bill Clinton’s former Labour Secretary Robert Reich, who is now the chancellor of Public Policy Berkeley, stated: “When Trump nightmare is over, we need a Truth and Reconciliation Commission.” Naming everyone “whose greed and cowardice enabled this catastrophe”. Reich and AOC’s incendiary rhetoric stands against every American norm, value, and the rule of law. These tyrannical ideas lay out precisely the agenda of the Democratic Party: re-write the US Constitution and rule for life, which will end in a very bloody civil war. Jack Dorsey’s Twitter proudly displays many threats to democratic principles like the examples above.

“The world should be horrified that Congress, Democratic Party members, and media have called for a blacklist and to purge polite society of all political opposition—this is fascism.’

To reiterate and conclude: A.G. Barr’s memo talks about the DOJ’s obligation to ensure that people can have full confidence in their government. That’s gone; that ship has sailed. The US electoral process has lost its integrity. The Obama and Clinton orchestrated “resistance” comparing Trump to Hitler, rogue intelligence operatives initiating smear campaigns on everything Trump and a concerted campaign of dirty tricks from Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer’s Democrats for over four years have polarized and irreparably damaged the country. The Democrats even failed to denounce the murders, looting, arson and shootings committed by the “defund-the-police” BLM and Antifa mob-rule thugs because they knew this chaos would instil fear in Americans and help influence the outcome of the election. Over 75 million Americans sharply rebuked the race, gender and sexual orientation-based identity politics branded by the far-left “Democratic Socialists”, who are Marxist revolutionary insurgents self-identifying as “progressives” wishing to turn the US into Wokistan.

President Trump has the legal authority to immediately declassify all the documents exposing the bureaucratic terrorists who have infested our government and institutions. Hillary Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” will no longer sit back and accept these lies. This week, massive boycotts have been threatened, and truck drivers across the nation will walk out. While Washington controls the swamp and the media live in a coastal echo chamber with Hollywood’s preachy shill actors, the country’s “basket of deplorables” has full control over its supply chains and logistics—food, toilet paper, etc.

This is how civil wars begin; we all should fear for the Republic—unfortunately, it may be lost.

Mitchell Feierstein is CEO Glacier Environmental Fund.

Not An Election, But A “Democratic” Coup d’Etat

The Biden Family: Corruption and media suppression that will fuel a civil war

Image credit: Mitch FeiErstein

The majority of Americans believe in the US Constitution, family values, and the rule of law. Unfortunately, forty years of neoliberal politics and academic indoctrination have spawned a movement of entitled, spoiled, social justice warriors (SJWs) claiming to be diverse, tolerant, accepting and inclusive. Once someone disagrees with these SJWs’ ideological viewpoints, the SJWs become violent, intolerant fascists.

In the epic 2020 presidential election, expect the unexpected. Expect Herculean internet content manipulation by Google, Facebook and Twitter to censor and suppress information in order to shape a favourable opinion of a heavily compromised Joe Biden. The Democratic Party, the media, rogue intelligence operatives, Wall Street, Hollywood, Ivy League neoliberal academics and the Silicon Valley aristocracy all loathe Trump. They will stop at nothing to ensure a Biden victory.

MEDIA LIES AND MALPRACTICE: DEMOCRACY DIES IN DARKNESS

The US Senate has verified that the Biden corruption scandal is not Russian disinformation; it is real. Biden insider-turned-whistleblower, Tony Bobulinski, submitted thousands of pages into evidence that included direct testimony, financial records, text messages, emails, documents and audio recordings. The Senate has confirmed Bobulinski’s evidence as genuine. Bobulinski’s evidence makes it crystal clear that Joe Biden had direct knowledge of the Biden family’s ongoing, decades-long, worldwide influence-peddling scheme, which Biden lied to America about.

Washington Post columnist Thomas Rid published a heads-up for all media: “We must treat the Hunter Biden leaks as if they were a foreign intelligence operation—even if they probably aren’t.” Rid shows how the liberal media have irreparably breached public trust. The ongoing media cover-up of the Biden scandal and their failure to report evidence-based disclosures confirmed by the US Senate is unbelievable. Not a single liberal media outlet has covered the biggest political scandal during our lifetime. Journalistic objectivity has become politically motivated, biased and deceitful propaganda churned out by political activists.

Many of the documents and emails entered into evidence, with metadata, were written by Hunter and Jim Biden and prove how and where the Biden family was selling influence to many countries. Twitter, Facebook and Google have also censored the news pertaining to the Bidens. In recent testimony before Congress, Twitter boss Jack Dorsey supported news censorship by mob-rule. He stated, “We rely on people calling it out.” These companies are censoring news and lying to the American people to protect a compromised presidential candidate. Can the public ever trust the media or government agencies again? No.

These media “activists” are involved in the corruption rather than reporting on it or presenting facts that allow the people to draw their own conclusions. These political activists and social media companies are deciding what the people can see, what will be censored and finally, under the guidance of intelligence operatives, what they can think. Stanford communications professor emeritus Ted Glasser even advocates journalists embrace “social justice” activism over objectivity. Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, et al, have become nothing more than “woke” censors and wholesale merchants in propaganda that perfectly replicate China’s social credit system.

PROGRESSIVE THOUGHT: SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIORS

The majority of Americans believe in the US Constitution, family values, and the rule of law. Unfortunately, forty years of neoliberal politics and academic indoctrination have spawned a movement of entitled, spoiled, social justice warriors (SJWs) claiming to be diverse, tolerant, accepting and inclusive.

Once someone disagrees with these SJWs’ ideological viewpoints, the SJWs become violent, intolerant fascists. These historically ignorant, entitled, indoctrinated children are demanding, by violence if necessary, a “regressive” and discriminatory new world order that prioritizes the characteristics of race, gender and class above a life history of achievement, merit and excellence.

Joe Biden-supporting, Black Lives Matter (BLM) and Anti-Fascists (ANTIFA) members have sparked a violent crime wave across America for the past eight months. These thugs murdered innocent people; looted and destroyed businesses; and burnt buildings, vehicles and police stations to the ground—anarchy that was hidden from the public view and covered up by a complicit media. As the CNN film rolled and buildings burned in the background, the CNN talking head described the ongoing murders, arson and looting as “peaceful protests”.

DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM AND NEW WORLD ORDER

For the first time in history, presidential candidates have refused to disclose the platform they are running to lead America.

Here are the main points of the Joe Biden/Kamala Harris platform:

  • End the filibuster rule in the US Senate.
  • Grant DC and Puerto Rico statehood in order to appoint four liberal US Senators.
  • Abolish the Electoral College.
  • Pack the Supreme Court and the federal courts with “radicals in robes”.
  • Allow minors and illegal aliens the right to vote.

The five bullet points above will destroy the balance of power the US founders created within the US Constitution. The US Constitution was designed to limit government powers to protect the people from partisan politics when the government is controlled by one political party. As outlined in the US Constitution, the federal government has a mechanism of checks and balances that includes three branches of government: the Judiciary, the Legislature and the Executive.

The Democratic Party’s platform will destroy this balance and install a permanent oligarchy. The Democratic Party wants to delegitimize all existing systems, customs and norms. They believe that the US Constitution needs to be shredded because old white men wrote it. In the past year, well-funded movements, such as BLM, have sprung up to help realize this goal. BLM is run by Marxists demanding an end to the nuclear family and that the police be defunded or entirely abolished. Kamala Harris, Joe Biden and the radical Democrats continuously repeat the mantra that America’s police and law enforcement need to be “re-imagined”, but they refuse to elaborate on what this actually means.

Mob-rule demands acceptance, submission and obedience to BLM. If total compliance is not immediate, you are deemed a racist and preyed upon by the mob. Mob-rule, intimidation, violence and fear are tools Biden-supporting ANTIFA members deploy to pressure and coerce the public into submission.

RED VS BLUE: PARLOUR ROOM POLARIZATION

Amy Coney Barrett, one of the most qualified jurists for a seat on the Supreme Court in decades, was formally sworn in as the Supreme Court’s ninth justice this week after the Senate confirmed her appointment by a vote of 48-52. The Democratic Party was apoplectic over Justice Barrett’s appointment even though Justice Barrett’s extensive vetting by the US Senate was 100% compliant with the privileges and rights guaranteed a sitting US President under the US Constitution.

Although Barrett was qualified for the vacant seat, every Democratic Party member voted against Barrett. Why? The Democratic Party places politics and power over the interests of the people and democracy.

Democratic Senator Cory Booker decried the process as delegitimate and a sham. Booker is an example of the contempt the Democrats in the US Senate have for the US Constitution. The Democrats’ lies, propaganda and material misrepresentations are intended to build a foundation for delegitimizing the US Constitution should Biden be elected. Democratic Senator Ed Markey called the “judicial originalism” espoused by Barrett “racist, sexist, homophobic and a fancy word for discrimination”. In other words, Markey is inferring the US Constitution is racist. Markey should be censured and forced to apologise for his repugnant comments.

Markey, Booker, and the Democrats believe the courts should be a super-legislature that rubber stamp their “social justice” ideological framework into flexible laws. This is pure demagoguery. The Democratic Party wants to tear up the US Constitution, do away with any system of checks and balances, tear down all historical statues, end traditional family values and norms, and burn down the judicial system. If Biden and the Bolshevik left seize power, the protections provided under the US Constitution and the rule of law will fade away, and the Bolsheviks will rule “Biden’s banana republic”.

This ideological war has fomented a genuine and irreparable distrust of our government agencies’ ability to protect, serve and represent the people who elected them. Never has the western media colluded to perpetrate an endless series of lies on this magnitude to cover up rampant political corruption; it is the most significant political corruption scandal and cover-up ever. These are crimes against democracy.

If you are not frightened by all of this, you should be.

ELECTION 2020 PREDICTIONS

On election day, Trump will melt the snowflakes on his way to 270+ Electoral College votes; I predict that Trump wins enough of the following states: Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, to provide him enough of a boost, 125 votes, to launch him above 270 votes and a victory. Bear in mind, a Washington DC coup d’état cabal has been conducting, with impunity, a seditious conspiracy to overthrow the United States government for the past four years. It’s a safe bet this same cabal will invent ballots, lie, cheat, steal and do “whatever it takes” to dispute or overturn a legitimate Trump victory.

 

Mitchell Feierstein is CEO Glacier Environmental Fund.

Trump’s Syrian Envoy Admits Sabotaging President’s Directive In Syrian Occupation

Outgoing Syria Envoy Admits Hiding US Troop Numbers; Praises Trump’s Mideast Record

‘We were always playing shell games,’ says Amb. Jim Jeffrey, who also gives advice to President-elect Biden.

Amb. James Jeffrey, special representative for Syria Engagement and special envoy to the Global Coalition to Defeat Islamic State, speaks during a news conference at the State Department in Washington, Thursday, Nov. 14, 2019.

Amb. James Jeffrey, special representative for Syria Engagement and special envoy to the Global Coalition to Defeat Islamic State, speaks during a news conference at the State Department in Washington, Thursday, Nov. 14, 2019. AP PHOTO/SUSAN WALSH

Four years after signing the now-infamous “Never Trump” letter condemning then-presidential candidate Donald Trump as a danger to America, retiring diplomat Jim Jeffrey is recommending that the incoming Biden administration stick with Trump’s foreign policy in the Middle East.

But even as he praises the president’s support of what he describes as a successful “realpolitik” approach to the region, he acknowledges that his team routinely misled senior leaders about troop levels in Syria.

“We were always playing shell games to not make clear to our leadership how many troops we had there,” Jeffrey said in an interview. The actual number of troops in northeast Syria is “a lot more than” the roughly two hundred troops Trump initially agreed to leave there in 2019.

Trump’s abruptly-announced withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria remains perhaps the single-most controversial foreign policy move during his first years in office, and for Jeffrey, “the most controversial thing in my fifty years in government.” The order, first handed down in December 2018, led to the resignation of former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. It catapulted Jeffrey, then Trump’s special envoy for Syria, into the role of special envoy in the counter-ISIS fight when it sparked the protest resignation of his predecessor, Brett McGurk.

For Jeffrey, the incident was far less cut-and-dry — but it is ultimately a success story that ended with U.S. troops still operating in Syria, denying Russian and Syrian territorial gains and preventing ISIS remnants from reconstituting.

In 2018 and again in October of 2019, when Trump repeated the withdrawal order, the president boasted that ISIS was “defeated.” But each time, the president was convinced to leave a residual force in Syria and the fight continued.

“What Syria withdrawal? There was never a Syria withdrawal,” Jeffrey said. “When the situation in northeast Syria had been fairly stable after we defeated ISIS, [Trump] was inclined to pull out. In each case, we then decided to come up with five better arguments for why we needed to stay. And we succeeded both times. That’s the story.”

Officially, Trump last year agreed to keep several hundred U.S. troops — somewhere between 200 and 400, according to varying reports at the time — stationed in northeast Syria to “secure” oil fields held by the United States’ Kurdish allies in the fight against ISIS. It is generally accepted that the actual number is now higher than that — anonymous officials put the number at about 900 today — but the precise figure is classified and remains unknown even, it appears, to members of Trump’s administration keen to end the so-called “forever wars.”

As he exits public service again, Jeffrey is hardly derisive of the divisive president.

The career ambassador’s 2018 decision to serve in the Trump administration despite his political opposition to the president — and to champion his policies on the way out the door — is on-brand for an official described by colleagues as the consummate apolitical public servant. Jeffrey offers no polemics on the president’s character, even as he says he stands by his decision to sign the 2016 open letter that said Trump was “erratic” and “acts impetuously.”

“I know what I did in 2016, I do not disagree with that,” said Jeffrey, a former U.S. ambassador to Iraq. “I was following closely the situation with Iran, Iraq and Syria, and I was appalled that we didn’t have a more coherent policy. This wasn’t a political decision.”

Jeffrey now says that Trump’s “modest” and transactional approach to the Middle East has yielded a more stable region than either of his predecessors’ more transformational policies. President George W. Bush’s 2003 State of the Union speech heralding the seismic U.S. intervention into Iraq and President Barack Obama’s 2009 speech in Cairo proclaiming a “new beginning” with the Muslim world represent an approach to the Middle East that “made things worse” and “weakened us,” Jeffrey said. Trump’s administration, he said, has looked at the Middle East through a geostrategic lens and kept its focus on Iran, Russia, and China, while keeping the metastatic “disease” of Islamist terror in check.

Jeffrey believes Trump has achieved a kind of political and military “stalemate” in a number of different cold and hot conflicts, producing a situation that is about the best any administration could hope for in such a messy, volatile region.

In much of Syria, the remaining U.S. troops maintain a fragile stability. Although U.S. diplomats are still painstakingly working to resettle thousands of ISIS families and relocate foreign fighters still held by the Kurdish-led SDF, Jeffrey said the humanitarian situation is slowly improving and he has no concerns that the remaining detained ISIS fighters will escape.

In Iraq, Jeffrey credits the Trump administration with maintaining relations with the central government and constraining Iranian influence in Baghdad.

“Stalemale and blocking advances and containing is not a bad thing,” Jeffrey said. “That’s what powerful countries — France, Britain, the United States — failed to do in the 1930s, and then they discovered they had to fight for their lives in really important places like Paris and the South China Sea and North Africa.”

“That’s the nature of realpolitik and great power foreign policy.”

Jeffrey’s is an unorthodox view of Trump’s foreign policy, to be sure. It comes at a moment when most mainstream national security professionals of both parties — including some former members of Trump’s own administration — are openly condemning the president’s handling of America’s military and diplomatic affairs. In particular, critics say the 45th president has damaged American alliances, perhaps irreversibly, with his combative Twitter account and occasionally punitive foreign policy. In one key example, Trump announced a troop withdrawal from Germany because Berlin wasn’t meeting defense spending benchmarks.

Jeffrey said there’s no question that Trump has demanded a lot of U.S. allies, both in Europe and the Middle East. But he rolls his eyes at the notion that U.S. alliances will crumble under the pressure from the United States to do things like pay more for their own national defense or do more to push back on Iran.

Far from undermining Middle East allies, Jeffrey said, Trump has sought “to build up our alliance system and basically stop nagging at them, show that Washington has their back including their domestic situations — they can do pretty much what they want, but they’re going to have to step up and do things.”

In the Middle East, he said, that approach has won him friends, not enemies. He points to the historic political tightening between Israel and some of the Gulf monarchies.

“Nobody really wants to see President Trump go, among all our allies [in the Middle East],” he said. “The truth is President Trump and his policies are quite popular among all of our popular states in the region. Name me one that’s not happy.”

In Iraq, he said, relations with Baghdad have remained healthy, even as he confirmed the State Department threat to shutter the embassy if Iraq didn’t do more to curtail Iranian militia activity.

“That’s an ongoing issue,” he said. “It was not a bogus threat, it’s very serious.”

The Syria withdrawal announcement was roundly condemned even by members of Trump’s own administration as an abandonment of the SDF, which did the bulk of the on-the-ground fighting against ISIS. It is often held up by critics as the ultimate object lesson of the chaos — and even cruelty — of the Trump administration.

Jeffrey disputes the charge that the United States “abandoned” its Kurdish allies to a Turkish onslaught. Although the United States gave the Kurds a military guarantee against Russian mercenaries operating in Syria, the Syrian government and ISIS, “nobody in Washington ever gave the Kurds a military guarantee against Turkey,” Jeffrey said. “I cannot put my finger on it, [but] every Kurdish leader I know thinks that he or she was given such a guarantee by people in the field, and that had an impact on how they behaved including how they behaved vis-a-vis the Turks. So it was a very complicated political mess.”

Jeffrey doesn’t dispute that there was some chaos to the decision-making process. But he compared it to troop level fluctuations in Iraq under Bush, or Obama’s surge into and simultaneous withdrawal deadline in Afghanistan.

“Look, there’s a surface chaos to every administration,” he said. “I’m not defending this gang, I’m just saying chaos is what I’ve experienced.”

If Jeffrey is complimentary of the Trump administration’s overall approach to the Middle East, he is equally sanguine about the incoming Biden administration.

“If [U.S. allies in the Middle East] had to pick somebody else to come, it would be Joe Biden,” Jeffrey said. “I can’t predict how Joe Biden would act [but] of all of his decisions that I was involved in, and there were many, he is more of a transactional guy by his nature.

“I can’t see him giving either the Bush speech or the Cairo speech. And that’s a good thing.”

Asked how he would advise the Biden administration when it takes over his portfolio, Jeffrey said he would urge the President-elect to stay the course laid out by Trump’s team. Some things the Biden team may want to undo — like the dismantling of the Iran nuclear deal — he suggests may now be impossible. But above all, don’t attempt “transformation.” Don’t try to “turn Syria into Denmark.” Stalemate is stability.

“I think the stalemate we’ve put together is a step forward and I would advocate it,” Jeffrey said.

“I’m just telling you the reality as I saw it. I’m not trying to do favors to anybody. Because it’s very important when the new team comes in, they don’t say, if it was made by Trump it has to be bad.”

Trump Led A Voting Bloc of 70 Million Anti-Elitists

[The following article from Spiked really nails this past election and its true meaning.  It has not really been a contest between right and left, Dem. and Repub., or even Pro-Trump vs Anti-Trump…it has been a contest between America’s two classes, the hard-working lower classes (of all skin colors) against the ruling class elites and their fawning celebrity forces.  If Trump had not come along when he did there would have been someone else to lead the anti-politically correct Americans.  Hillary called us the “Deplorables”, members of a vast right-wing conspiracy, but that was just her snobbery speaking.  The following article tears into the elitists and their technocracy, speaking with power of a reenergized movement of over 70 million anti-elitist voters, the second-highest vote total of any bloc in American history.  The fact that at least 70 million of us still reject the non-stop brainwashing that has convinced many of our own friends and family that Trump was Hitler and we are the new Hitler’s army.  
This is dead wrong.  The Deplorables have risen-up from their own power to say NO to the cancel culture in their mob rule and their war against history otherwise known as political correctness.]

The real resistance

The 70million people who voted for Trump are revolting against the new elites.

BRENDAN O’NEILL
EDITOR

So Joe Biden has won the highest popular vote in the history of the US. At the time of writing, more than 73million people have voted for him. He has beaten the record set by Barack Obama who was swept to power on that famous wave of ‘HOPE’ and 69.5million votes in 2008. But here’s the thing: so has Donald Trump. Trump might be trailing Biden in the popular vote of 2020, but he, too, has beaten Obama’s 2008 record. Trump, at the time of writing, has 69.7million votes. So he has won the second-highest popular vote in the history of the American republic. That is remarkable. Far more remarkable than Biden’s very impressive count.

Why? For one simple reason. Trump is the man we’re all meant to hate. He has been raged against ceaselessly by the cultural elites for the past four years. Hardly any of the American media backed him in 2020. Globalist institutions loathe him. Academia, the media elites, the social-media oligarchies, the celebrity set and other hugely influential sectors have branded him a 21st-century Hitler and insisted that only a ‘white supremacist’ could countenance voting for him. He’s the butt of every sniffy East Coast joke and the target of every fiery street protest. He’s the worst thing to happen to Western politics in decades, we’re told, by clever people, constantly.

And yet around 70million Americans voted for him. The second-highest electoral bloc in the history of the US put their cross next to the name of a man who over the past four years has been turned by the political clerisy into the embodiment of evil.

That is what makes the vote for Trump so striking, and so important. Because what it speaks to is the existence of vast numbers of people who are outside of the purview of the cultural elites. People who have developed some kind of immunity to the cultural supremacy of the ‘woke’ worldview so intensely mainstreamed by the political and media sets in recent years. People who are more than content to defy the diktats of the supposedly right-thinking elites and cast their ballots in a way that they think best tallies with their political, social and class interests. People who, no doubt to varying degrees, are at least sceptical towards the narratives of identitarianism, racial doom-mongering, climate-change hysteria and all the pronouns nonsense that have become dominant among political and cultural influencers, and which are essentially the new ideology of the ruling class.

Hillary Clinton infamously referred to many Trump supporters as ‘the deplorables’. But a far better word for them would be ‘the unconquerables’. These are minds and hearts uncolonised by the new orthodoxies. Seventy million people in a peaceful state of revolt against the new establishment and its eccentric, authoritarian ideologies. This is the most important story of the US election and it deserves serious attention.

The fury of the elites in the wake of the US election is palpable, and at times visceral. Even though their man is highly likely to have won, they are incandescent. Already there is rage against the innate racism and ‘white supremacy’ of the throng. Already there is neo-racist disgust with the Latinos and black people who, in larger numbers than 2016, voted for Trump. ‘We are surrounded by racists’, said New York Times columnist Charles M Blow, capturing the sense of siege felt by the woke clerisy. This rage of the elites against the masses, despite the victory of the elites’ preferred candidate, suggests they instinctively recognise their failure to bring significant sections of the masses to heel. They splutter out terms like ‘racist’ and ‘white supremacist’ as reprimands against the millions who refuse to take the knee to their politics of fear, politics of identity, and politics of cancellation and control.

The elites, despite probably getting their way with a Biden presidency, have been thrown by this election. First, because they called it so wrongly. Their predictions of a ‘blue wave’ did not materialise. Their polls and punditry insisting that Trumpism would be resoundingly defeated turned out to be catastrophically incorrect. The stories of a 10-point swing to Biden evaporated upon contact with reality. So far, Trump has increased his vote by seven million.

The elite’s wrongness about this election is itself a crushing confirmation of their failure to ideologically domesticate large numbers of Americans. Many Americans have clearly chosen not to communicate their beliefs to pollsters, a key part of the new political clerisy, because they are aware that the political elites hold them in contempt. As one election analyst said, because of the ‘degree of hate’ directed to Trump supporters ‘by nearly all the media’, we have a situation where ‘people didn’t necessarily want to admit to pollsters who they were supporting’. Not only do many Americans refuse to embrace the new orthodoxies of the uniformly anti-Trump cultural elites, but they also refuse to engage honestly with the cultural elites. They know it’s a waste of time. That is the size of the moral and political chasm that now exists between the guardians of correct-thought and millions of ordinary people.

The real resistance

The second reason this election has rattled the seeming victors – the pro-Biden establishment – is because of who voted for Trump. Exit polls suggest there were significant shifts of black and Latino voters to Trump. It is reported that 18 per cent of black men voted for Trump, up from the five per cent who voted for John McCain in 2008 and the 11 per cent who voted for Mitt Romney in 2012. A shift of this kind towards a politician relentlessly described as a ‘white supremacist’ is very significant. According to the AP VoteCast, 35 per cent of Latinos seem to have voted for Trump. And a whopping 59 per cent of Native Hawaiians and 52 per cent of Native Americans and Alaska Natives opted for Trump. Seemingly these First Nation peoples didn’t get the NYTSNL, DNC message that Trump is a racist who hates all non-white people.

As we should expect from the neo-racialists of the identitarian elites, there is already fierce denunciation of minority groups who voted for Trump. They have sold out to ‘white supremacy’, woke academics and columnists claim. Blow writes in the NYT that the Latino and black shift towards Trump is proof of the ‘power of the white patriarchy’ and the influence it has even over oppressed racial groups: ‘Some people who have been historically oppressed will stand with their oppressors.’ That’s a lot of words to say ‘Uncle Tom’. The anger with Latinos and blacks who voted for Trump is motivated by a view of these people as racial deviants, as traitors to their race. In the rigid worldview of the identitarian elites, people are not individuals or members of an economic class – they are mere manifestations of race and ethnicity and they must conform to that role. That many voters have clearly bristled at such racial fatalism is a very positive development. Identity politics was dealt a blow in this election, and the elites know it.

More striking still is the educational divide in terms of who voted for Biden and Trump. A majority of people whose educational level is high school or less voted for Trump, while a majority of college graduates voted for Biden. Among white voters, the educational divide is even more stark. Majorities of white men voted for Trump, but among white men who didn’t go to college 64 per cent voted for Trump, while among white men who did go to college it was only 52 per cent. Meanwhile, 60 per cent of white women who didn’t go to college voted for Trump, whereas 59 per cent of white women who did go to college voted for Biden.

The educational divide is telling. Naturally, some observers claim it is proof that clever people primarily vote for Biden while dumb people prefer Trump. In truth, this split is primarily reflective of the key role universities now play as communicators of the new orthodoxies. In recent years, universities in the Anglosphere have gone from being citadels of intellectual consideration and experimentation to being factories of woke indoctrination. From critical race theory to genderfluidity, from the view of American history as one crime after another to the myopic policing of speech – including conversational speech in the form of ‘microaggressions’ – universities have become important transmitters of the ideologies of the new elites. As a consequence, one of the great ironies of our time is that it is those who have not attended a university who seem better able to think independently and to resist the coercions of elite-decreed correct-thought.

The ideas that hold on a university campus – that men can become women, that offensive people must be ‘cancelled’, that complimenting a woman on her hair is a racial microaggression, that describing America as a ‘melting pot’ is a denial of people’s ‘racial essence’, as UCLA has claimed – hold no sway whatsoever in the factories, delivery centres, mess rooms or bars of vast swathes of America. That university-educated and non-university-educated people now think so differently is testament, not to uneducated people’s stupidity, but to the transformation of universities into machines for socialising young adults into the ways and creeds of the removed new elites.

Indeed, the split of Biden and Trump voters on issues is striking, too. Of the voters who think the economy and jobs is the most important issue, the vast majority are Trump supporters: 81 per cent compared with just 16 per cent of Biden supporters. Of the voters who think racism is the most important issue, 78 per cent were Biden supporters and just 19 per cent were Trump supporters. And of the voters who think climate change is the most important issue, 86 per cent were Biden supporters and just 11 per cent were Trump supporters. On Covid, 83 per cent of Biden supporters said it is ‘not under control at all’, while just 15 per cent of Trump voters said the same thing.

This is incredibly revealing. On issues that are central to the clerisy’s worldview – the idea that racism in America is as bad as ever, that the climate is heating uncontrollably, that Covid poses an existential challenge to the future of the nation – Trump voters deviate consistently from the elite narrative. That isn’t to say that they don’t think climate change or racism are problems we must address – I’m sure majorities of them do. But they clearly reject the fatalism and dominance of these issues in the body politic. They clearly balk at the ceaseless discussions of America’s inescapable racism and the idea that if Americans do not radically alter their lifestyles then they will fry in the heat-death of climate catastrophe. They push back, in their thoughts and their votes, against the identitarianism and apocalypticism of the new elites. And they do so even on issues for which you can be cancelled for disagreeing. Try going on to a campus and saying that racism and climate change are not major issues for the US. You would be finished. But not in other parts of America. There, free discussion, or at least free thought, appears still to reign.

One study, published in the Journal of Social and Political Psychology after the 2016 election, described the widespread support for Trump among working-class or less-educated communities in particular as a form of ‘cultural deviance’. The study used over-psychologised language to describe people’s voting behaviour, but it hit on an important point: the evidence suggests that Trump-voting for many people was a form of ‘cultural deviance… [from] the salience of restrictive communication norms’. In short, the Trump phenomenon represents a revolt against the cultural supremacy of political correctness and its cancellation of any views or beliefs that are judged to be problematic. Trump became a vehicle for those who don’t agree that America is broken or racist, or that climate change will kill us all, or that identitarian correctness is more important than the economy and jobs, or that Trump is Hitler – things it is increasingly difficult to say in a polite society so feverishly policed by the new elites.

The real resistance

Perhaps the most important act of ‘cultural deviance’ carried out by the millions who chose Trump over Biden is their attempt to re-elevate class over identity. This is why the shift of working-class blacks and Latinos towards Trump is so important. It is also why Trump voters’ overwhelming belief that the economy and jobs is the most important issue in the US right now – in contrast with very small numbers of Biden voters who think the same thing – is so relevant. What we have witnessed in the US is a reassertion of the importance of class over identity, of the shared social and economic interests of a significant section of society over the narrow cultural obsessions of the new elites and their supporters in the new knowledge industries. The emerging populist coalition of working-class blacks, Latinos and non-university whites is a quiet revolt against the stranglehold that the upper middle-class elites have over the political narrative, and against the elites’ self-conscious promotion of the neoliberal myopia of identity and their diminution of the importance of class.

This is another reason why the elites are so furious in the wake of their own predicted election victory. It’s the key reason, in fact. Because they instinctively recognise that the economic concerns, and, more importantly, the economic consciousness, of substantial sections of society pose a threat to their ideological dominance. Witness the sneer, the naked contempt, with which the phrase ‘economic populism’ has been uttered by Biden-backing observers in recent days. ‘Economic populism’ is a cover for racism, our moral superiors insist. They dread nothing more than the re-emergence of a more class-based politics because they know it would run entirely counter, politically, morally and economically, to the divide-and-rule identitarianism they have cultivated in recent decades.

Corporations, academia, the education system, the Democratic establishment, the media elites and the social-media oligarchies are heavily invested in the cult of identity because it is a means through which they can renew their economic dominance over society and exercise moral authority over the masses. Identitarianism has provided spiritual renewal for the capitalist elites, new means of rebuking and censuring the workforce in corporations, and a sense of purpose for a political class utterly adrift from the working masses it might once have sought to appeal to. And they are not about to let some uppity blacks and Latinos and uneducated whites disrupt this new ruling-class ideology with their vulgar concerns about the economy and jobs.

Trump has lost. But so has the anti-Trump establishment. In some ways, the establishment’s loss is far more significant. These elites see in the 70million people who disobediently, flagrantly voted for ‘evil’, and who question the doom and divisiveness and censure of the new elites, a genuine mass threat to their right to rule and their self-serving ideologies. And they are right to. For these unconquerables, these teeming millions who have not been captured by the new orthodoxies, are proof that populism will survive Trump’s fall and that the self-protecting narratives of the new elites are not accepted by huge numbers of ordinary people.

This is the real resistance. Not the upper-middle-class TikTok revolutionaries and antifa fantasists whose every view – on trans issues, Black Lives Matter, the wickedness of Trump – corresponds precisely with the outlook of Google and Nike and the New York Times. No, the resistance is these working people. These defiant Hispanics. Those black men who did what black men are not supposed to do. Those non-college whites who think college ideologies are crazy. These people are the ones who have the balls and the independence of mind to force a serious rethink and realignment of the political sphere in the 21st-century West. More power to them.

 

Brendan O’Neill is editor of spiked and host of the spiked podcast, The Brendan O’Neill Show. Subscribe to the podcast here. And find Brendan on Instagram: @burntoakboy

Pictures by: Getty.

Biden and His Hindu VP Give Nod For Covid Task Force To Anti-Redneck Hindu Doctor

[SEE: Obama Finds the Man Most Eager To Initiate Govt. Behavioral Control and Makes Him Surgeon Gen.]

Members of President-elect Biden’s coronavirus task force

–Source: Joe Biden-Kamala Harris transition team. —

FILE – In this Feb. 4, 2014, photo, then U.S. Surgeon General appointee Dr. Vivek Murthy appears on Capitol Hill in Washington. Murthy has been named as co-chair by President-elect Joe Biden to his COVID-19 advisory board. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak, File)

President-elect Joe Biden on Monday named the members of a team of public health and science experts to develop a blueprint for fighting the coronavirus.

A look at the members:

Dr. David Kessler, co-chair. Professor of pediatrics and epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco, U.S. Food and Drug Administration commissioner from 1990 to 1997.

Dr. Vivek Murthy, co-chair. U.S. surgeon general from 2014-17, who commanded public health force that dealt with Ebola, Zika and Flint water crisis.

Dr. Marcella Nunez-Smith, co-chair. Associate professor of internal medicine, public health and management at Yale University and associate dean for health equity research at Yale’s medical school specializing in health care for marginalized populations.

Dr. Rick Bright. Immunologist, virologist. Ousted as head of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority after criticizing the federal government’s response to the coronavirus under President Donald Trump. Bright filed a whistleblower complaint alleging he was reassigned to a lesser job because he resisted political pressure to allow widespread use of hydroxychloroquine, a malaria drug Trump pushed as a COVID-19 treatment.

Dr. Luciana Borio. Vice president of technical staff at the In-Q-Tel strategic investment firm who until last year was a biodefense specialist on the National Security Council.

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel. Oncologist and chair of the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania who since 1997 has served as chair of the Department of Bioethics at The Clinical Center of the National Institutes of Health.

Dr. Atul Gawande. Professor of surgery at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and at Harvard Medical School who served as a senior adviser in the Department of Health and Human Services in the Clinton administration.

Dr. Celine Gounder. Clinical assistant professor at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine who served as assistant commissioner and director of the Bureau of Tuberculosis Control at New York City’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.

Dr. Julie Morita. Executive vice president of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation who helped lead Chicago’s Department of Public Health for nearly 20 years.

Michael Osterholm. Director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, former science envoy for health security for the State Department.

Ms. Loyce Pace. Executive director and president of the Global Health Council, who previously served in leadership positions at the American Cancer Society.

Dr. Robert Rodriguez. Professor of emergency medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine.

Dr. Eric Goosby. Infectious disease expert and professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine who during the Clinton administration was the founding director of the largest federally funded HIV/AIDS program.

Biden Won Because He Wasn’t Trump…no other reason

[Both the Democrats and their subservient media set out to sabotage every Trump move since before his first day in office. Obama and Hillary dedicated a team of State Dept. lawyers to investigate the new president and begin impeachment proceedings against him before the Dems left office. The majority of Biden supporters DID NOT vote for him because of anything he proposed, they merely voted for Biden because he wasn’t Trump. They voted for Creepy Joe because he wasn’t Trump…period.]

Buttigieg: Republican Senate would ‘defy the American people’ by opposing Biden agenda

Control of the Senate is on the line in two runoff races in Georgia, with two other Senate races undecided

In an appearance on “Fox News Sunday,” Buttigieg admitted that the federal government has – “for better or for worse” – a system of checks and balances where Senate leadership could “disagree with a majority of the American people.” He said that if a Republican Senate used their power to place a check on a Democratic White House, they would be holding back what the people want.

ALL EYES ON CRUCIAL GEORGIA SENATE RACES, WITH POWER IN DC AT STAKE

“At the end of the day the thing we have going for us is the American people are with us,” Buttigieg said, claiming that the Senate would be run by “minority rule” if Republicans block Democrat initiatives such as tax hikes and a public health care option.” He said it’s up to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

“Mitch McConnell’s going to have a decision to make. Is his purpose in Washington to defy the American people who, along with the president and the House of Representatives, will believe in expanding and not taking away health care,” Buttigieg said, “whether he wants to help move this country forward and influence progress or whether he wants to stop progress.”

In terms of the immediate future, Buttigieg touted Biden’s desire to hit the ground running in tackling the coronavirus pandemic. Biden is expected to announce his task force on Monday. Whether or not Biden takes any additional action before Inauguration Day remains to be seen.

HOW THE REPUBLICANS MAY HAVE SAVED THEIR SENATE MAJORITY

“Well, he’ll decide on the best course of action,” Buttigieg said. He added that Biden will also “have to make a decision” regarding whether or not to get involved in negotiations with Congress over coronavirus relief legislation that has stalled for months.

“I think we all hope that that logjam in Washington comes to an end,” Buttigieg said.

The former South Bend, Ind., mayor was ultimately optimistic about a Biden administration, claiming that despite political differences, Biden shares common goals with people on both sides of the aisle.

“What Joe Biden wants for the country is what most Americans believe is right for the country,” he said.

Sec/State Pompous Legitimizes Another Terrorist Jihadi Group

[Trump has just de-designated another Islamist terrorist group, the Turkistan Islamic Party (TIP). This is just the latest terror group to be white-washed by Washington before being enlisted to be used to commit terrorism for us. It seems that it isn’t a group’s violent attacks upon civilians that makes it a “terrorist organization”, but whether the attacks upon civilians are done for us or to us.  You see, it was never really a “war against terrorism”, but a war to secretly use terrorism against America’s adversaries.  Other former de-designated terrorist outfits, now serving the American Empire in political or non-violent ways, are the KLA (SEE: “KOSOVO LIBERATION ARMY” Freedom Fighters or… ) and the MEK (Mujahedin-e Khalq) . ]

US’ seal of approval for jihadist terrorist group is designed to cause chaos and unrest in China

US’ seal of approval for jihadist terrorist group is designed to cause chaos and unrest in China
Mike Pompeo has decided that after 18 years, the violent East Turkistan Islamic Movement should no longer be considered a terrorist group – a move calculated to bring trouble to China’s Xinjiang Autonomous Region.
Whilst the world is distracted by the ongoing drama of the US presidential election, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was at work on Thursday making a very subtle, yet significant move.
He quietly announced to the United States Federal Register that the US had de-designated the East Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM) as a terrorist organization.

 

ETIM is a Uyghur jihadist group which advocates independence for China’s Xinjiang Autonomous Region. It was listed as a terrorist organization by the US for 18 years, as well as having been blacklisted by the United Nations Security Council for links to Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS).

And it has been linked with numerous terrorist attacks within Xinjiang itself, as well as providing members who participated alongside Islamists in the Syrian Civil War.

The move by Pompeo is subtle, but significant and inherently political. It follows a long-established pattern of US foreign policymakers defining what constitutes a ‘terrorist’ – and what does not – in accordance with geopolitical preferences. Now, as it looks like Pompeo might end up leaving office, he’s seeking to leave a legacy which makes life difficult for China. The long-term goal? To potentially transform Xinjiang into ‘China’s Afghanistan’ and purposefully incite unrest in the region.

ALSO ON RT.COMQuadruple trouble for China? Why Washington’s hopes of creating an anti-Beijing NATO-style bloc in the region is a pipe dream

Xinjiang has been an increasing focus of Pompeo and US foreign policy as of late. America has sought to push a broader narrative that China is imprisoning over one million Uyghurs, a Muslim minority group, in a re-education system that has been likened to concentration camps. It has accused China of severe human rights abuses and oppression.

While Beijing admits to the existence of these facilities, it argues their purpose is to facilitate counter-terrorism in the region and calls them ‘vocational training centers’, a claim which has drawn plenty of skepticism. Either way, it is quite obvious that the issue is being weaponized in order to manufacture consent for a US-led confrontation of China.

And herein lies the subjective debate as to what constitutes ‘terrorism’ and what does not. As the saying goes “one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist,” and never has that been more true than with the US, which happily interchanges the label as it wishes to push its political agenda.

For example, the Mujahideen fighters the US pitted against the USSR in Afghanistan were called ‘freedom fighters’, until of course they turned against America itself and played an instrumental role in the horror of 9/11, at which point they became terrorists.

North Korea is listed as a state sponsor of terrorism despite the fact it has no involvement with terrorism at all. Sudan was listed too, until it agreed to recognize Israel and then suddenly it wasn’t.

Likewise, Pompeo goes around the world demanding groups funded by Iran, such as Hezbollah, be described as terrorist organizations. But ETIM is apparently now acceptable, despite its UN blacklisting and association with a number of other groups the US considers to be terrorists.

ALSO ON RT.COMAs bodies mount up in terrorist attacks, Europe must realise Islam itself is not the problem but how & why people get radicalised

The change in terminology for geopolitical motivations could not be more obvious and will now clearly be used to China’s detriment. And the implications are as follows: the US will no longer place sanctions on the group, crack down on its members (who have previously been detained in Guantanamo Bay) or blacklist it from the financial system. This will allow ETIM to have an effective ‘safe haven’ in the US where its members can seek political refuge, pool resources and evade Beijing’s influence.

The US hopes the long-term strategic goal to potentially encourage unrest and insurrection in Xinjiang itself will ultimately promote opposition to the Chinese Communist Party, which Pompeo frames as a cause for freedom and liberation.

It’s a reversal of nearly two decades of American foreign policy and a perfect example of what constitutes ‘terrorism’ shifting for strategic ends. After all, this is a region that is a geographic cornerstone of China’s Belt and Road initiative and the country’s main route into greater Eurasia, connecting it to the south with the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor into the Indian Ocean and to the north with Russia and Kazakhstan.

Why would Pompeo stifle a group whose primary focus is China itself? As the clock ticks on his own term in office, he’s just made a decision that could have long-term and far-reaching consequences.

The Democrats’ Favorite KLA Terrorist Leader Thaci Indicted For US-Supported War Crimes In Serbia

[SEE: “KOSOVO LIBERATION ARMY”
Freedom Fighters or…
]

[Former KLA terrorist leader Thaci thrilling US Sec/State Albright to a state of ecstasy.–(SEE: Secretary of State’s Love Affair with Kosovo Liberation Army )]

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with former leader of the KLA and “Prime Minister” of Kosovo

US Vice-President Jo Biden looks deeply into former KLA terrorist leader Thaci’s eyes.

 

“The 1999 NATO bombing campaign against Yugoslavia had the dubious distinction of being the first time NATO aligned itself with a terrorist organization fighting an insurgency
against a sovereign state. Defying the UN Security Council, the United States and its allies bombed the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia for 78 days, providing vital air support for the Kosovo Liberation Army. The result of this open for support for the KLA has helped to encourage ethnic Albanian separatists to use terrorism to start insurgencies in Serbia’s Presevo Valley and neighboring Macedonia. Furthermore, separatist terror groups in the Chechnya and Turkey have been emboldened to continue their respective campaigns as a result of Western support for Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence in February, 2008. To discourage the Kosovo precedent from continuing, it is crucial that NATO member states do not repeat the mistakes made in Kosovo and never again support terrorist insurgencies.”NATO and the KLA: How the West Encouraged Terrorism

Photo: BIRN.

The Special Prosecution Office in the Hague have announced that a ten-count indictment has been filed against Kosovo President Hashim Thaci and PDK leader Kadri Veseli, accusing them of criminal responsibility for nearly 100 murders.

On Wednesday, the Special Prosecution Office, SPO, in the Hague announced its intention to indict Kosovo President Hashim Thaci and former Speaker of the Assembly, Kadri Veseli, alongside other unnamed individuals, with ten counts of crimes against humanity and war crimes.

The SPO stated that it filed an indictment to be reviewed by the Pretrial Chamber of the Court on April 24, charging Thaci and Veseli with “crimes against humanity and war crimes, including murder, enforced disappearance of persons, persecution, and torture.”

According to a press release issued by Kosovo Specialist Chambers, KCS, on Wednesday, the allegations contained in the indictment would hold Thaci and Veseli criminally responsible for nearly 100 murders. “The crimes alleged in the indictment involve hundreds of known victims of Kosovo Albanian, Serb, Roma, and other ethnicities and include political opponents,” it states.

While the charges are yet to be approved by the Pretrial Chamber, the Special Prosecutor “deemed it necessary” to publicise the suspects of the indictment as a result of “repeated efforts by Hashim Thaci and Kadri Veseli to obstruct and undermine the work of the KSC.”

According to the press release issued on Wednesday, the Court believes that the president and the former speaker have been involved in a “secret campaign” attempting to obstruct the work of the court to ensure that they do not face justice.

“By taking these actions, Mr Thaci and Mr Veseli have put their personal interests ahead of the victims of their crimes, the rule of law, and all people of Kosovo,” the press release states.

Is Social Media Leading Us to Civil War?

Is Social Media Leading Us to Civil War?

Civil war. That’s what one tech industry executive said he fears most, if we don’t curtail our social media habit. This was in the documentary “Social Dilemma” available on Netflix.

As of last year, 72% of U.S. adults used social media regularly. Facebook is the most popular, and 74% of its users log on daily. From civil war down to a lack of tolerance, the movie concludes social media has set us on a bad path.

I agree.

The scariest part of the film “Social Dilemma” was the explanation of the algorithms designed to keep you coming back.

Essentially, the system can tell what posts you engage the most with…. reading or watching the longest. And it feeds you more of that and less of other things.

This is all done without human oversight.

What gets you amped up on social media? Often it’s something just a little more inflammatory, a little more over the top, than, say, a measured news article that lists pros and cons on both sides. You read those “more exciting” things and you get more of them fed to you.

Another good tidbit from the film was the answer to the question, “How do those people believe all that silly stuff?”

Whether about Donald Trump or Hilary Clinton or Pizza gate or the WhatsApp scandals that led to murders of innocent people, fake news comes to those who consume it, and crowds out anything less exciting, i.e. more reality-based.

Social media trails only our local newspaper, The Signal, as being cited as a source of information in professional surveys done locally. Can you imagine what happens in areas that do not have local news coverage? That is how “those people” believe “all that silly stuff.”

One-sided information is all the vast majority of people see. That is not good for our world.

Government action and overall progress requires cooperation from many different interest groups for anything to succeed.

Gov. Gavin Newsom recently announced his goal of ending the sale of fossil-fuel-powered cars in California by 2035. In the face of climate change, stretch goals like this are important.

However, to have a hope of success, goals need to have buy-in from other people. Within days of the announcement, a Latino group took out a full-page ad in the Los Angeles Times saying the measure would adversely affect low-income and agricultural workers.

There’s talk of electrifying our home appliances, too. More costs for people barely making it. Our power grid and power supply seem to be right on the edge now, and curtailments like we saw in the last heat wave are expected to happen more often.

That, too, has to be fixed if we need to rely even more on electricity. These are discussion points that need to be resolved, yet the battles of social media leave out anything but black and white.

The question really isn’t “do you believe in climate change?”

The bigger question is, can we work together to fix things?

What is equally important is recognizing that China produces double the greenhouse gases that the United States does, and their air pollution even reaches the West Coast of the U.S. India is just behind the U.S.

On a per-capita basis, countries such as Kuwait, Belize, Australia, Libya and even Luxembourg produced more greenhouse gas than the United States as of 2013 (more updated accounting is supposed to start in 2024). I certainly hope sharing and funding efficiencies in other countries is on the table as well.

As much as we like to start at home, tackling the big problems on a worldwide scale is going to help us more than making a farm worker change out their natural gas clothes dryer. This is but one action item in a sea of many that our leaders need to tackle. The solutions are not binary nor are they simple.

Social media essentially makes us decide, with our attention, what is important and what is correct. It does this by feeding us biased information, all day long. This lessens our ability and our understanding of how complex problems are, making us intolerant and cranky when it seems nothing is improving.

In reality, many smart people are working every day to make things better. I’d like to hear more about that and less about fighting over every topic. The real world isn’t social media, but we seem to forget that a little too much lately, at our peril.

Maria Gutzeit is a chemical engineer, business owner, elected official, and mom living in Santa Clarita. “Democratic Voices” appears Tuesdays and rotates among local Democrats.

Is This Another Episode of Pre-Positioning Anarchist Supplies Before Nov. 3?

[SEE: Antifa Logistics Proven By Pallets of Conveniently Pre-Positioned Bricks In Riot Areas ]

Philadelphia police discover van loaded with explosives amid unrest over fatal shooting of Black man

N’dea Yancey-Bragg, Anthony V. Coppola

PHILADELPHIA  — Philadelphia remains on high alert after police reportedly found explosives inside a van following multiple nights of protest over the shooting death of a Black man with a history of mental health problems.

Police recovered propane tanks, torches and possible dynamite sticks from the van Wednesday and it is unclear if anyone has been arrested in connection with the vehicle, WPVI reported. The Philadelphia Police Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment from USA TODAY.

The city fell mostly silent Wednesday after officials instituted a citywide curfew following several nights of unrest over the police killing of Walter Wallace Jr.

While scattered reports of looting were still popping up throughout the city Wednesday night, the protests and confrontations that marred Philadelphia since Monday had all but dissipated. Police showed a heavy presence in the neighborhood near where Wallace died Wednesday in anticipation of a third night of discord, but that never materialized.

By 7:30 p.m., just 15 people had gathered for a “Justice for Walter Wallace Jr” protest in Center City. The group slowly disbanded and went its separate ways not long after.

Police Commissioner Danielle Outlaw said at a news conference Wednesday she plans to release 911 tapes and police body camera footage of the shooting once the department shares it with Wallace’s family.

Mayor Jim Kenney said the Pennsylvania National Guard would also be deployed to help protect property and assist the police. The first troops were expected Friday and Saturday.

Wallace, a 27-year-old aspiring rapper and father of nine, was shot Monday as officers responded to a report of a person with a weapon, police spokesperson Tanya Little said. Officers ordered Wallace to drop the knife, but he instead “advanced towards”  them. Both officers then fired “several times,” Little said.

From Wednesday:Philadelphia prepares for another night of protests over Walter Wallace killing after second night turns violent

Video of the shooting was taken by a bystander and shared on social media which sparked protests in Philadelphia, the Brooklyn borough of New York City and Portland.

Protesters have also gathered in Washington, D.C. multiple nights this week following the death of 20 year-old Karon Hylton-Brown. Police say he died after officers attempted to make a traffic stop and Hylton-Brown’s moped collided with a passenger vehicle, but Hylton-Brown’s family told local media police are responsible for the crash.

The scene in Philadelphia on Wednesday was a stark contrast from what unfolded the nights before during which more than 170 people have been arrested and more than 50 police officers injured in clashes with protesters and vandals. Police said more than 1,000 people were looting businesses in the Port Richmond section of the city, breaking windows and stealing merchandise Tuesday night.

A lawyer representing the family told reporters Tuesday that Wallace had mental illness and had been taking lithium. Police officers responded twice to the Wallace residence Monday before returning a third time. Wallace’s brother reportedly called 911 looking for an ambulance.

‘Stop this violence’:Philadelphia police report large crowd of looters as Wallace’s father calls for peace

Outlaw said her department lacks a mental health unit or consistent way to coordinate police calls with specialists.

“We don’t have a behavioral health unit, which is sorely needed,” Outlaw said. “There’s clearly a disconnect on our end in terms of knowing what’s out there “ at the scene.

Both Kenney and Outlaw pledged to address the lack of coordinated mental health services.

“We have limited resources and we have a large number of people with problems,” Kenney said. “We need to do a better job.”

Police shootings amid mental health crisis:Police have shot people experiencing a mental health crisis. Who should you call instead?

Contributing: The Associated Press

Russian Oil Tanker, Named After Azeri General, Explodes Near Kerch Straits, In Sea of Azov

“Azerbaijani servicemen pay tribute to Major General Hazi Aslanov,twice Hero of the Soviet Union, Major General of Tank Troops Hazi Aslanov in Beylagan district.”

[Ten miles from Kerch Straits, scene of last tanker explosion in Sea of Azov.  Was the Russian ship attacked by Turkish forces?  Or, should we ask whether the Russian ship, named after a famous Azeri general, was attacked by Armenians”]

source

Russian oil tanker suffers explosion, fire in Sea of Azov

Officials say a Russian oil tanker experienced an explosion in the Sea of Azov and an operation to rescue three of its crew members is underway

MOSCOW — A Russian oil tanker experienced an explosion in the Sea of Azov and an operation to rescue three of its crew members was underway Saturday, officials said.

The Russian Emergencies Ministry said the explosion on the General Azi Aslanov took place as the tanker was traveling from the port of Kavkaz to the city of Rostov-on-Don. Authorities said 10 members of the tanker’s 13-person crew havebeen rescued, while the remaining three were believed to be in the water.

The tanker has tilted and efforts to stabilize the ship were underway.

Maritime officials said the tanker wasn’t loaded explosion may have been triggered by flammable vapors left behind from the vessel’s previous cargo.

Sudanese Protesters Rally to Condemn Normalization with Israel

Sudanese Protesters Rally to Condemn Normalization with Israel

Sudanese people have taken to the streets of the country’s capital to condemn the c junta’s decision to normalize relations with Israeli regime.

They rallied in Khartoum Friday evening, calling on Sudan’s Sovereign Council chief General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan to reject the normalization deal.

“No to negotiations, peace … and reconciliation with the [Israeli] regime,” they chanted. “We will neither surrender, nor will we relinquish … We are standing with Palestine,” they cried as they set the Israeli flag on fire.

Numerous Sudanese political parties also lined up to declare their outright rejection of the normalization agreement between their country and Israel, stressing they are going to form a front to oppose the move.

Sudanese Ba’ath Party, the Sudanese Communist Party, National Consensus Forces (NCF) – a coalition of political parties – the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), the Forces of Freedom and Change (FFC) alliance, the Popular Congress Party as well as Sudan Change Now political movement stated that they are fiercely against any relationship between Khartoum and Tel Aviv.

“A few days ago, we embarked on intense political contacts with distinguished artists as well as cultural and literary figures to form a front against normalization,” spokesman for the Sudanese Baath Party Muhammad Wadaa said.

“There are a number of parties within the FFC that have warned to withdraw support for the government upon normalization, and other parties have announced similar positions.”

Wadaa highlighted that there are consultations and meetings on how to stand against the normalization.

“Normalization with Israel is an unacceptable step… The government is not authorized to take such a measure with a usurping and racist regime, which practices religious discrimination,” he said.

Wadaa lashed out at the Sudanese government over making normalization with Israel a condition for resolving economic woes.

“The government must not have invoked to sell the country and Sudan’s history on the pretext of economic difficulties,” he said.

“The government must resign and cede power to the people if it is unable to overcome difficulties by itself.”

US President Donald Trump announced on Friday at the White House that Sudan and Israel had agreed to normalize relations.

Trump sealed the agreement in a phone call with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Sudanese prime minister Abdalla Hamdok and Burhan, senior US officials said.

Sudan’s acting foreign minister Omar Gamareldin, however, said on Friday the accord will depend on approval from its yet-to-be formed legislative council. It is unclear when the assembly will be formed under a power-sharing deal between the country’s military officers and civilians.

One of My Cousins Just Died From Covid, the “Fake Virus”

For anyone who cares, my uncle Paul’s family in Naples, Florida became infected by  Covid-19, the “Fake Virus” at a nearly deserted local bowling alley.  After a week in intensive care on ventilators (still on ventilators), both my uncle and his  wife were pronounced cured and released…their son stayed in the hospital until he passed away.  He was a diabetic.  He did NOT die from the flu!

Trouble-Making UAE Sends Guantanamo Terrorists To Reinforce Al-Qaida In Yemen

Guantanamo and The Saudi Rehabilitation Program Behind AQAP–(Intentional, or Major Fowl-UP?)

Saudi Terrorist Indoctrination Program Hidden Within Bin Naif Rehabilitation Program

Al-Qaeda In Arabian Peninsula Formed By Saudi Guantanamo/”Rehabilitation” Graduates

Yemen al-Qaeda link to Guantanamo Bay prison

1 of 2
This combination of photos obtained by WikiLeaks shows 16 of the 18 Yemeni prisoners who were detained in Guantanamo Bay for more than a decade and were transferred years ago by the United States to the UAE with promises that they would be integrated into society. Instead, the UAE held the men in indefinite detention, according to families and lawyers. Most recently, UAE is allegedly forcing the men to return to Yemen, a country torn among rival factions, each running networks of secret prisons. (WikiLeaks via AP)
The Guantanamo detainees were promised they were being sent to a Muslim country for rehabilitation that would help integrate them into society, opening the way to jobs, money, and marriage, according to their lawyers and families.
It was a lie [SEE: Yemen–al-Munasaha , Saudi Re-Education].

Instead, the detainees — 18 Yemenis and one Russian, swept up from Afghanistan and Pakistan after the Sept. 11 attacks — have languished in custody in the United Arab Emirates for as long as five years, their families and lawyers tell The Associated Press.

In short, sporadic phone calls from undisclosed locations in the UAE — including a notorious prison rife with torture — several whispered to their families that as bad as life in Guantanamo was, they wish they could return there.

When one complained of “pressures” three years ago, the call was cut off; he has not been heard from since. When the Russian staged a hunger strike, he was dumped in solitary confinement and roughed up.

Now there are plans to send them to Yemen, where their families fear their treatment will be even worse.

A senior Yemeni government official confirmed the plans, pending security arrangements; a State Department official indicated the U.S. government was aware that it was happening. Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the press. The UAE didn’t respond to AP questions.

Youtube video thumbnail

United Nations rights experts described the men’s upcoming repatriation as a “forced return,” warning that it violates international laws.

Their destination is a poor Arab country wracked by a grinding civil war for the past six years. Torture and arbitrary detention are widespread in networks of secret and formal prisons run by various factions controlling different parts of the country.

“Here the legitimate government itself is not safe. Who will be in charge of them?” said Hussien, a brother of Bir, one of the detainees.

The family of a second detainee, Salem, said: “We fear they will be gunned down or rounded up as soon as they put a foot in Yemen.”

And if they survive, they may be prime recruits for terrorists in Yemen. Ibrahim al-Qosi, is a former Guantanamo detainee who was transferred to Sudan in 2012 before surfacing as an al-Qaida group leader in Yemen two years later.

The lingering confinement of these men violates promises made by U.S. officials when they were sent to the UAE in 2015-17. It underscores flaws in the transfer program and the failure of President Donald Trump’s administration to ensure their humane treatment.

President Barack Obama pressed to close the Guantanamo facility amid opposition from Congress. The plan was to prosecute some detainees and to continue to hold others without charges while their cases were evaluated by review boards Those no longer deemed dangerous were to be transferred to their homelands or third countries.

Trump had other plans. Before taking office, he declared on Twitter that there would be “no further releases from GITMO.” His administration dismantled an entire office tasked with closing the Guantanamo facility, overseeing transfers, and following up on the resettled detainees.

Terms of the agreements the U.S. struck with the UAE and dozens of other countries that received Guantanamo detainees weren’t made public. But Ian Moss, a former chief of staff for the State Department’s Guantanamo envoy, insisted that, “We wanted these individuals after they were released to have a fresh start in life. It wasn’t part of the deal that they be incarcerated. That was never part of the deal.”

Moss blamed the current administration for lack of engagement, saying that “the Emiratis knew that the Trump administration didn’t care about what they did with these people or how they treated them. This is disgraceful.”

Lee Wolosky was the special envoy for Guantanamo closure from 2015 to 2017, the period when the Yemenis were transferred to the UAE. “I can categorically deny that there was a plan to keep the men in detention following their transfer from U.S. custody,” he said in an email.

Under Trump, only one prisoner, a Saudi, was transferred to Saudi Arabia to serve the remainder of his sentence after he agreed to a plea bargain.

Under Obama, a total of 197 were transferred to other countries, while 500 were transferred by George W. Bush. The U.S. base now has 40 detainees; most are being held without charges and a third are Yemenis.

Katie Taylor is deputy director of the United Kingdom-based group Reprieve and coordinator of the group’s Life After Guantanamo project. She told the AP that after documenting the lives of nearly 60 former detainees in 25 countries, “I have to say that the situation facing the men resettled in the UAE is among the worst and most troubling.”

It is not clear whether there are now 17 or 18 detainees in UAE hands; unconfirmed reports suggest one Yemeni left prison because of medical complications.

One detainee is represented by lawyer Patricia Bronte. (His name and the full names of all the Yemeni detainees are being withheld for fear that they might face retribution.) She recalled that State Department officials had told her and the detainees that they would be held from six to 12 months in a rehabilitation facility, and then they would be allowed to reunite with their families in the UAE.

“From early on, the assurances I have been given weren’t lived up to,” she said.

She has had no contact with her client since his arrival in the UAE in 2016. Families of the detainees say their communication with their loved ones has been infrequent, and troubling:

—Abdo, 41, told his brother that he spent 70 days in solitary confinement — blindfolded, handcuffed, and with hands and feet chained to the ground — upon his arrival. There was no rehabilitation or “de-radicalization sessions,” his brother Ahmed told the AP. Abdo and other detainees moved to a “filthy and dark prison” for 16 months.

“It was just terrible there,” the brother quoted Abdo as saying. He was later moved to al-Razin prison, located nearly 200 kilometers (125 miles) from Dubai, where human rights groups have documented abuses and torture.

In the spring of 2019, Abdo was brought back to the “filthy” prison, where he remains.

The brother quoted Abdo as saying, “It’s not what I thought. I wish I return to Guantanamo … it’s 1,000 times worse here.” Then the phone call was cut off.

—Bir, a 41-year-old nurse, was identified by Guantanamo’s Periodic Review Board in 2015 as a “low-level Yemeni militant” who was arrested in Pakistani raids in Sept 2002 and transferred to Guantanamo.

His brother, Hussein, told the AP that despite earlier promises of a new life, his brother ended up in “mysterious conditions. We know nothing.”

“He continues to live behind bars with other Yemeni detainees, they are facing the most brutal injustice in the history,” Hussein said. In phone calls every 10 days, he said, “He says nothing except for, ‘How are you?’ He can’t speak. They are banned.”

—Ravil Mingazov, a former ballet dancer and an ex-member of the military, was the only Russian left in Guantanamo when he was sent to the UAE. He was accused of fighting with the Taliban. A Pentagon profile also alleged he had links to an Islamic group in Uzbekistan with ties to al-Qaida, and said he was captured in Pakistan at a safe house associated with Abu Zubaydah, a “facilitator” for the terrorist organization.

He has never physically met his 19-year-old son Yusuf, who lives in London. But they have talked: Yusuf said his father complained that he had been humiliated by his captors and had been deprived of food and medicine.

Mingazov’s mother, Zoria Valiullina, said her son wanted to return to Guantanamo. “It’s better there.”

—The family of Abdel-Rab, 44, said he disappeared three years ago after two phone calls during which he complained about conditions, and nervously said, “I am under pressure … Guantanamo was much better. One billion times.”

The call was cut off; he never called again. His family members said they have no clue if he is alive.

According to records, Abdel-Rab had told interrogators that he worked as a house painter in Yemen before he left for Afghanistan in 2000 to study and teach Quran. He was captured in a crackdown on those suspected of links to al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden and landed in Guantanamo in 2002.

In June, a man pretending to be Abdel-Rab called the family. “It wasn’t his voice. He wasn’t the same,” said his brother.

Hamidullah, another detainee, lived to tell about the conditions of his imprisonment in the UAE, though only barely. He spent 3½ years in UAE prisons before he was returned to Afghanistan in December.

Hamidullah’s private counsel wrote that his client was a “model detainee” a “peaceful man” who had never been a member of the Taliban, and “in fact, he was imprisoned by the Taliban in late 1990s.”

Surviving a decade in Guantanamo, pictures in official documents showed a cheerful man with salt-and-pepper, curly hair.

He and the other Afghani detainees were sent to the UAE in 2015. His son Ahmed recalled in labored English the first time he visited his father there, how he was “brought with chains in hands and feet, covered eyes with black cloth, and was also tighten with chains in the seat.”

After his return to Afghanistan, Hamidullah shared more details of his imprisonment. Guards forced him to strip naked every time he went to the bathroom. They would harshly clutch his shoulders and put his head down while leading him out of the cell.

“It was mental torture,” he said.

Hamidullah died in May, having enjoyed just four months of freedom after nearly 20 years in detention. His family believes that the conditions he endured in UAE prisons contributed to his death.

The Stupid French Answer To Recent Beheading of Teacher Is Massive Nationwide Provocation of Radical Islamists

French newspaper faces threats after republishing Prophet Mohammed cartoon

French newspaper faces threats after republishing Prophet Mohammed cartoon

La Nouvelle Republique newspaper was attacked on social media after it published a caricature of the Prophet Mohammed on its front page on Sunday, in an editorial response to last week’s brutal killing of teacher Samuel Paty.

Editorial director of La Nouvelle Republique, Christophe Herigault, told BFM TV on Wednesday that, despite the mostly positive response that their front page got on October 18, they received “four or five threats, notably on Facebook, which has led us to lodge a judicial complaint.”

Herigault defended the publication’s decision to publish the cartoon despite the threats, stating that “there was absolutely no desire to provoke” but it was done to express the paper’s anger over the teacher’s killing.

The police in France have not yet commented on the recent threats. However, French President Emmanuel Macron promised on Tuesday to take “concrete actions” against “the evil that is radical Islam” and announced that the Cheikh Yassine Collective, a Muslim group linked to Hamas that was “directly implicated” in the recent murder, would be broken up.

Interior Minister Gerald Darmanin also called for two Islamic NGOs to be dissolved, after they were accused of taking part in a social media campaign against Paty that led to his death.

ALSO ON RT.COMFrance will dissolve pro-Hamas Muslim group, as Islamist crackdown continues – Macron

Paty’s brutal killing has provoked deep emotions across France, which has a long history of combating violent acts of extremism, and sparked rallies to pay tribute to him and pledge support for free speech throughout the nation.

Less than a month before Paty’s murder, four people were wounded outside the old headquarters of Charlie Hebdo in retaliation for the magazine republishing a 2015 front page that featured a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed. The act was to mark the start of the trial of three men accused of aiding a terrorist attack carried out against Charlie Hebdo in January 2015. Twelve people were killed at the magazine’s office by gunmen angered by Charlie Hebdo’s publication of caricatures of the Islamic prophet.

The Criminal Politics of Former French Pres. Sarkozy Still Reverberating In Return of “Karachi Affair” Investigation

[SEE: Karachi affair ]

Libya campaign funding: Nicolas Sarkozy is back in court

Army chief orders immediate inquiry into ‘Karachi incident’: ISPR

Army Chief Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa has taken notice of the Karachi incident. — 
AFP/File
Army Chief Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa has taken notice of the Karachi incident. — AFP/File

Army Chief Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa has taken notice of and ordered an immediate inquiry into the “Karachi incident”, the military’s media wing said on Tuesday.

He has directed the Karachi Corps Commander to “immediately inquire into the circumstances to determine the facts and report back as soon as possible”, according to the statement issued by the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR).

While the ISPR did not specify which incident it was referring to, the statement came minutes after PPP Chairperson Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari called on Gen Bajwa and Director General Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Lt Gen Faiz Hameed to investigate the circumstances surrounding the arrest of PML-N leader retired Capt Mohammad Safdar in Karachi a day earlier.

In a tweet from its official account, the PPP said Gen Bajwa also called Bilawal “over the telephone to discuss the Karachi incident this evening”.

“The Chairman PPP expressed his appreciation to the COAS for taking prompt notice of the Karachi incident and his assurance of conducting a transparent inquiry on the incident,” it added.

Safdar and his wife, PML-N Vice President Maryam Nawaz, were in the city to attend a rally of the opposition’s Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM) when he was arrested from their hotel early on Monday morning. He was subsequently released on bail.

Addressing a press conference in Karachi, Bilawal said all top officers of Sindh Police were wondering “who were the people who surrounded” the Sindh police chief’s house in the early hours of Monday and took him to an unspecified location before Safdar was arrested.

He also demanded to know the identities of “the two people who went inside the IG’s house” and where they allegedly took the police chief at around 4am.

“I demand of DG ISI Faiz Hameed and Chief of Army Staff Gen Bajwa to investigate your institution [and] how it is operating in this province,” the PPP leader said, adding that the provincial government will carry out its own inquiry.

He said the advice to carry out Safdar’s arrest in that manner was “wrong” and could damage the armed forces’ “institutional integrity”.

Following Safdar’s arrest, a purported voice message by PML-N leader and former Sindh governor Muhammad Zubair was shared by a journalist in which Zubair alleged that the inspector general of police was kidnapped and forced to register the first information report against Maryam, her husband Safdar and 200 others for violating the sanctity of Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s mausoleum.

In the audio clip circulating on Twitter, Zubair purportedly said that Chief Minister Murad Ali Shah confirmed to him that police was pressured into making the arrest. “When they (police) refused to do that, Rangers kidnapped [the IGP],” Zubair said.

Maryam had also alleged that the Sindh police chief was forcibly “taken to the sector commander’s office and asked to sign on the arrest orders”. She claimed that when the IGP showed reluctance, he was told that the arrest would be carried out by the Rangers. “After his signatures were forcibly taken on the arrest orders, he was told police would carry out the arrest.”

The allegation was denied by Maritime Affairs Minister Ali Zaidi as “nonsense narrative”.

I am ashamed: Bilawal

Terming the manner in which Safdar was arrested as “shameful”, Bilawal said he could not condemn it enough.

“I am ashamed [and] unable to show my face over what has taken place in my province,” he added.

He said there was a furore over the political slogans raised by Safdar at the Quaid’s mausoleum, but asked why no action was taken when PTI workers “did similar sloganeering” during Imran Khan’s visit to the tomb and when “banned outfits” raised their own slogans there.

“Harassing them (Maryam and Safdar) early in the morning and arresting Safdar is an insult to the people of Sindh who had invited Maryam sahiba and the N-league delegation to attend the PDM jalsa,” the PPP leader said.

He said the numbers in which the people of Sindh had attended the rally was “an open referendum against Imran Khan and his facilitators”.

Vowing that the Sindh government will fully pursue the investigation into the episode involving Safdar’s arrest, Bilawal said a number of top Sindh Police officers were “resigning or going on leave” because the incident had become a “question of their honour”.

He said the Sindh government did not want any political interference in the police “but this does not mean we will tolerate interference from somewhere else”.

“How does it make sense that the IG is holding a meeting at 4am about some slogans that were raised at the Quaid’s mausoleum?” he said, adding that there were many other issues to discuss in meetings.

“The job of the offices of such an important institution in this province should be [regarding] national security [and] to maintain peace in the province.

“If there is no respect left for my police, how will they do their jobs? This is unacceptable,” Bilawal stressed.

He said “there should be some red lines which are not to be crossed” and, “I think many red lines were crossed in this incident which should not become a precedent.”

Bilawal was asked by a journalist whether it was through a strategy that Chief Minister Shah had not issued the hard-hitting statements that he (Bilawal) did during his press conference earlier in the day. According to the journalist, police officers were “disappointed” that Shah had “not once” taken the IG’s name during his presser.

In response, Bilawal said the police officers were going on leave because they were disrespected “not by the chief minister, but from somewhere else”. He said the entire PPP and Sindh government stood with the police department.

‘Pakistan has changed’

Maryam on Twitter lauded Sindh Police officers for stepping back from their duties over the incident. “I salute the Sindh Police!,” she wrote, including a quote by the Quaid-i-Azam advising public servants “not [to] fall victim to any pressure”.

She said it was “heartening to see civilians breaking shackles of fear, standing up for supremacy of constitution & reclaiming their long lost rights. The conspiracy & conspirators stand badly exposed.”

She also thanked Bilawal for his “support and clear stance”, saying “Pakistan has changed.”

Meanwhile, PML-N supremo Nawaz Sharif said the events that unfolded in Karachi were “clear proof of our narrative that there is ‘a state above the state'”.

Without naming anyone, he said: “You made a mockery of the elected provincial government’s powers” and “brought a bad name to the Pakistan Army”.

‘Cruel joke’

Reacting to Bilawal’s statements, Minister Ali Zaidi said: “Sindh government and its inept governance are proving to be a cruel joke as IG & Additional IG go on long leave in the aftermath of Capt Safdar’s arrest.”

“Who is really in charge of this government which is being run worst than a zoo?” he asked.

Zaidi alleged that even “simple enforcement of the law in Sindh has become laughable due to the politicisation of police by PPP for 12+ years”.

“How can they even think of publicly claiming that the IG was kidnapped in the middle of the night! Who are they trying to fool?”

The radical war on America

The radical war on America

  PA.

Now that burning down America has “suddenly” become unpopular in the secret in-house DNC polls, the Democratic candidates are no longer calling arson “peaceful protesting,” rioting “freedom of expression,” the sacking of department stores “mothers in search of bread for their hungry children,” and the beating of people wearing MAGA hats “public discussion.” Therefore the Democrats need to rebrand its cheered-on destruction of American cities. The solution is the usual one. Trump did it! And the media leash-dogs of the DNC instantly start barking out lead stories. “Trump burned down America’s cities!” “Trump did nothing to stop the carnage!” Of course, nothing is said of Trump’s endless offers to send in the National Guard only to be abusively rebuffed by Democratic mayors and governors, and then threatened with lawsuits.

But all of this is just the political theater of the socialist absurd, which is a cunningly dumb play written by the liberal media and funded by secret opinion puppet masters. The really strategic question is why the Democrats would allow their cities to be ruined in the first place.

Unfortunately the answer is simple and even obvious. The radical Democrats consider themselves to be in a state of war with Trump. As any general can tell you, you must waste some of your forces if you fight a war. That being the case, these radical Democrats are quite willing to “waste” hundreds of their cities’ buildings and businesses and cause numerous deaths to win Washington in November. And why not? If they win, they can write themselves a Washington check to rebuild what they themselves wrecked through their hatred of private property and the rule of law.

Some readers will express astonishment at this seemingly cynical assessment, and therefore doubt its credibility. But anyone who has studied communism knows that the ends always justify the means for such ruthless revolutionaries, and that “peace-loving” radicals will destroy anything to take control of everything. “You can’t make an omelet without cracking eggs!” is the old communist mantra, and it’s always repeated with a crass and nasty laughter.

Replace “eggs” with “heads” and you’ll get its meaning. Lenin, Stalin, and Mao had no problem with cracking eggs — millions of them — to move history “forward” into their rude and brutal hands. The same cynical disregard for individual lives and private property is now on display in America’s own DNC “liberation” cities. There’s only one small problem. You could be the next “sacrifice to progress” in the name of “the people’s freedom” in these tyrants’ bid for total and permanent power. And then they’ll laugh at the human omelet they’ve made of you and your family and your reputation and your property.

Stop this “Radical War On America”!

ROBERT JACQUES

JAMES STUCHELL

Williamsport, PA

FACEBOOK and TWITTER Are A Greater Threat To Democracy and the American Republic Than Any Foreign Power

[The illegal merger between mainstream media and the Democratic Party has to be broken-up if this country is to survive.  Both the media and the Party are dominated by intelligence agency assets, and together, have been waging a media war against the Trump Administration since Trump’s first day in office, even before he took office (SEE: DNI declassifies Brennan notes, CIA memo on allegation that Hillary Clinton approved plot to tie Trump to Russia).  This propaganda war has been documented in several ways, by separate sources, who first polled national reporters, revealing an overwhelming liberal bias among them…SEE BELOW. ]

“According to a study by Lars Willnat and David H. Weaver, professors of journalism at Indiana University, conducted via online interviews with 1,080 reporters between August and December 2013, 28.1% of US journalists identify as Democrats 7.1% as Republicans, and 50.2% as independents.[85][86][87] Additionally, a 2018 Arizona State University and Texas A&M University study of 462 financial journalists found thirteen times more financial journalists identified as “liberal,” as opposed to “conservative.” The study found 58.47% of financial journalists surveyed identified as “liberal,” but only 4.5% identified as “conservative.”[88]

[Researchers then compared the mostly negative news items about Trump in his first 100 days in office to the mostly positive news items about Obama during his first 100 days…SEE BELOW. ]

“An October 2017 Pew Research report found that 62% of stories involving US Republican President Donald Trump during his first 60 days in office had a negative assessment, compared to only 5% of stories with a positive assessment. By comparison, the study found that Democratic President Barack Obama received far more favorable coverage in his first 60 days in office; 42% of stories involving Obama during that period were identified as positive, and only 20% were identified as negative.[89][90] A May 2017 study from Harvard University‘s Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy of Trump’s first 100 days in office also identified a similar negative tone in coverage. The study found that 93% of CNN & NBC coverage of President Trump during the period was negative. The survey also found 91% of CBS coverage was negative and that 87% of New York Times coverage was negative during Trump’s first 100 days.[91]”

[They next polled American voters to ascertain whether the general public sensed an apparent Liberal/Democrat bias among those trusted news “talking heads”…]

“An October 2018 Rasmussen Reports poll of 1,000 likely voters found 45% of Americans believed that when most reporters write about a congressional race, they are trying to help the Democratic candidate. Alternatively, only 11% believed that most reporters aimed to help Republican candidates.[92]“–WIKI

[In the face of this obvious Liberal bias among the Mainstream Media, and as a direct reaction to it, the people have developed their own media sources, calling it the ”Alternative News.”  Since the Mainstream media has been so effective at dividing the people around overly politicized issues, they have accomplished their main task of polarizing the American electorate.  The people’s Alternative News is itself totally polarized, as well, making it a powerful tool for multiplying and intensifying politicized arguments, to the point where “social media” is now a source of open conflict, pitting close friends, family members and associates against each other, in the process, drawing even more people to it.  Making these inter-personal conflicts even worse, is the tendency among many of us to post whatever we think, causing many to post things which should never be said, and can never be taken back…sometimes even causing the writer to lose his job, or to end-up in jail.  This has all been allowed, even encouraged by the people supposedly in charge in “our Democracy”, further pressurizing the pre-election circus we find ourselves locked into today. 

Now we are left wondering about the political circus we have built for ourselves, wondering whether the circus has, in fact, brought our country to the brink of another CIVIL WAR…

FACEBOOK and TWITTER MUST BE SHUT DOWN, for all our sakes.]

peter.chamberlin@hotmail.com

[ Social media’s arbitrary actions could be controlling our minds – analysis]

Social media censorship threatens to widen rift in U.S.

FILE – This May 16, 2012 file photo shows the Facebook app logo on a mobile device in Philadelphia. On Monday, Oct. 12, 2020, Facebook announced it is banning posts that deny or distort the Holocaust and will start directing people to authoritative sources if they search for information about the Nazi genocide. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke, File)

This week, social media giants Twitter and Facebook proved that their monopolistic malpractice is a big problem for politics and culture in America.

When the New York Post published a story about suspicious emails that had been allegedly discovered between Hunter Biden and officials at the Ukrainian energy company Burisma, where he was paid tens of thousands of dollars a month to serve on the board, the revelations were remarkable.

In one alleged missive from 2015, a Burisma adviser named Vadym Pozharskyi thanked the vice president’s son “for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent (sic) some time together. It’s realty (sic) an honor and pleasure.”

The Biden campaign has insisted that no such meeting was found to be on the official schedule, but they do not outright dispute the content of the emails or deny that an informal meeting could have occurred.

A year earlier, right after the younger Biden had been added to the company’s board, Pozharskyi asked him for “advice on how you could use your influence to convey a message/signal” to put a stop to an investigation into the company. Later, Vice President Biden bragged he had been able to get the prosecutor fired.

The trove of correspondence was passed on to the Post by Rudy Giuliani who has been loudly trying to draw connections of corruption between interests in Ukraine and Joe Biden via his son, Hunter.

According the the New York Post, the emails were recovered from a computer that was dropped off at a Delaware repair shop and never retrieved. It is not known who dropped the machine off.

What makes all this most newsworthy is that Joe Biden, the Democratic nominee for president, has been denying that he’d ever taken part in his son’s business overseas or that he was even aware of what that business was.

These emails go directly to refuting that and suggest that Biden was used by his son for payment in exchange for influence.

Thus, the story ran and was distributed through social media until prominent, anti-Trump users demanded that it stop.

Kyle Griffin, an MSNBC producer with more than 900,000 followers tweeted, “No one should link to or share that NY Post ‘report’. You can discuss the obvious flaws and unanswerable questions in the report without amplifying what appears to be disinformation.”

Andy Stone, who works in the communications department at Facebook but has a long resume featuring jobs with various Democratic organizations was also containing the story. “While I will intentionally not link to the New York Post,” Stone tweeted, “I want be clear that this story is eligible to be fact checked by Facebook’s third-party fact checking partners. In the meantime, we are reducing its distribution on our platform.”

By the afternoon, Twitter started blocking sharing of the article in any form, warning users away from the link, and locking prominent accounts that shared it, including that of the New York Post itself, Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany and the Trump campaign account @teamtrump.

In doing so, they turned a shady October surprise leak that would have been ignored by many in the mainstream into a major story that is reverberating through the country. What, many Americans wonder, do these massive tech companies want so badly to hide from them?

The selective censorship by social media monopolies threatens to divide our nation to a degree we have never seen before.

Even Jewish Media Confirms Guiliani’s, So-Called “Anti-Semitic” Anti-Soros Comments

[Even Jewish media sources confirm the worst being said about Soros…the first link is to the Jewish Forward, …the second link is from Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA).]

Giuliani: Soros wants to destroy America because of his ‘sick background’

George Soros is a leading target of anti-Semitism. These Jews openly criticize him anyway

[Here is the original 2008 media source of all the current anti-Soros conspiracy theories, Lyndon LaRouche, Your Enemy, George Soros.  Photocopied at bottom of this report.]

Criticism of George Soros isn’t anti-Semitic, conservative Jewish groups say

George Soros “has his tentacles all over the place and has enormous influence,” says the president of the American Zionist Organization

September 23, 2020

editor:REMIX NEWS

author:JOHN CODY AND DÉNES ALBERT

Hungarian-born American financier George Soros, founder of the Open Society Foundation, may be Jewish, but many prominent conservative Jews says that legitimate criticism of Soros is not anti-Semitic and completely warranted due to his power and progressive positions.

In fact, there is substantial opposition to Soros’s views that are by no means uncommon in centrist and right-wing Jewish circles, with the billionaire’s anti-Israel activities at the forefront, according to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA).

Prominent Israeli orthodox rabbi Pesach Lerner says that Soros is only “superficially Jewish” and works against the Jewish people.

“Yes, Soros is part of the Jewish nation, but ideologically he is not merely distant but openly hostile towards Israel and Jewish interests,” Lerner said last December, when when American conservative and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani stated he was more Jewish than Soros. “It is ridiculous to link an accurate critique of the use of Soros’ wealth to influence certain public officials to hateful, anti-Semitic lies about Jewish communal control over government at large.”

Famous right-wing pro-Israeli donor Adam Milstein voiced an even harsher criticism, saying Soros was funding the anti-fascist network Antifa, calling him a “self-hating Jew” and even questioning his Holocaust survival. In 2017, Milstein tweeted and then deleted a picture of Soros depicted as an octopus with his tentacles spreading across the globe.

The American Zionist Organization recently issued a press release calling Soros a “radical anti-Zionist.” The group’s president, Morton Klein also recently tweeted that “condemning anti-Israel extremist George Soros is not anti-Semitic just like condemning racist David Duke is not anti-White.”

Klein says he is not worried about fueling anti-Semitisim, saying that if he was an artist, he would also depict Soros as an octopus spread out across the globe because Soros “has his tentacles all over the place and has enormous influence.”

According to the JTA article, “Klein acknowledged that such an image could echo an anti-Semitic stereotype about Jews, money and power, but said that in Soros’ case it is warranted.”

Despite what Jewish conservatives may believe about Soros, criticism of the progressive billionaire is increasingly frowned upon and even outright censored in some instances in countries such as the US.

Just last week, Fox News hosts cut off prominent conservative Newt Gingrich when he brought up Soros and his funding of progressive District Attorneys in races across the United States, which Gingrich saying these DAs are against law and order and responsible for releasing violent criminals on the streets of the US. The video of the hosts essentially censoring Gingrich for bringing up Soros went viral across the web and led conservatives to question why Soros’s name cannot be mentioned even when pointing to specific policies and facts surrounding his progressive activities. 

Although the host issued an apology, saying they “don’t censor” on the show, Gingrich complained that criticism of Soros is illegitimately tied to claims of anti-Semitism.

Former Fox News host and conservative commentator Bill O’Reilly also mentioned that it is increasingly difficult to mention Soros due to claims of anti-Semitism and that it is serving as a restriction on discussing Soros’s political activity.

The issue of Soros has cause consternation in the Jewish conservative community, with the billionaire becoming the face of progressive movements around world through his massive spending through his Open Society Foundation.

Some experts believe caution is necessary and special care should be given to criticizing Soros, such as University of Michigan professor Josh Pasek, who studies new media and political communication.

“It cannot be the case that all criticism of something Jewish is necessarily anti-Semitic,” Pasek said, but added that “the decision that you want to make it about Soros, even if for you it isn’t about his Jewishness, will almost undoubtedly feed into anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.”

The Jewish Telegraphic Agency writes that much of the theories about Soros sprung up in reaction to the 2015 migrant crisis and that “conspiracy theories about Soros have been around for a long time, but they gained momentum during the 2015 refugee crisis in Europe. Soros’ charity network, the Open Society Foundations, donated to groups that helped migrants seeking entry into Europe, and anti-Semites accused Soros of trying to replace Europe’s white residents with Muslim refugees.”

At the time, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán directed criticism at Soros for his pro-migration stance, his support for pro-migration NGOs, and his comments on the crisis, including his belief that Europe should borrow billions of euros to pay for refugees.

Although left-wing news outlets like the Guardian and even Soros himself have tried to paint Orbán’s criticisms as anti-Semitic, the government has adamantly denied this claim, saying it is not anti-Semitic to point to Soros’s activities undermining democratically-elected governments. It also points to the Hungarian government’s steadfast support for Israel and Hungary’s Jewish community.

At the same time, comments from Soros such as, “[Europe] has to accept at least a million asylum-seekers annually for the foreseeable future” did lend real worries that Soros was participating in population experiments that would affect the demographic future of Europe.

Soros has become an increasingly popular target for the right within the US, especially due to his activities over the last years, including his recent decision to donate over $50 million to support presidential candidate Joe Biden, however, much of his activities began in Central European countries like Hungary, which underlines his global reach.

Emily Tamkin, a Jew and the author of the book “The Influence of Soros” says right-wing Israeli Jews are not hesitant to criticize Soros because funding left-wing Israeli groups could also harm Jewish interests there, including Soros’s funding of pro-Palestinian groups. 
 8


P.O. Box 6157 Leesburg, Virginia 20178
http://www.larouchepac.com
On the cover: George Soros; Cover design: Chris Jadatz; Photo: EIRNS/Stuart Lewis.
© June 2008 LLPPA-2008-006
Paid for by the Lyndon LaRouche PAC, P.O. Box 6157, Leesburg, VA 20178.
http://www.larouchepac.com and Not Authorized by Any Candidate or Candidate’s Committee
Your Enemy,
George Soros

George Soros: Hit-man for the British Oligarchy 2
Does Soros Have a Drug Problem? 6
George Soros: The Forced-Open Society 9
The Case of Malaysia 13
George Soros Buys the Nomination,
Obama Borrows It 16
Lessons for Denver: FDR’s 1932 Victory
Over London’s Wall Street Fascists 18

The British financial Oligarchy is desperately committed
to completely annihilating all forms of sovereign
nation states from our planet, most importantly the United
States, and George Soros is their chosen hit-man to accomplish
the task. Directly, on behalf of the city of London,
George Soros, with the aid of his puppet, Democratic
National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, bankrolled
filthy operations against Hillary Clinton’s presidential primary
campaign, to guarantee that no policies which reflect
a revival of Franklin Roosevelt’s commitment to the
lower 80% of family income brackets take hold in the
White House after November 2008. Soros is no new comer
to the world of criminal activity. According to former
associates and published reports he was handed his startup
money by Baron Edmond de Rothschild’s right-hand
man, George Karlweiss, who also launched the career of
fugitive narcotics-trafficker Robert Vesco. Since then, Soros
has been involved in various vicious operations, under
the direction of the British Empire, such as financial speculative
warfare to destroy national currencies, pushing
murderous, “useless eater” euthanasia policies, and massively
financing international campaigns for the legalization
of drugs. But of course, the disgraceful character of
George Soros is not solely attributable to himself, but
rather, it was partially generated by his handlers during
his formative adolescent years: the Nazis.
The Golem is born
The pathetic creature known as George Soros made a
willful decision early in life to become the character that
he is now: a Golem. A teenager during the Nazi Occupation
of his homeland, Hungary, Soros began his genocidal
legacy by working for the killing machines that slaughtered
500,000 Hungarian Jews during the Holocaust.
Young Soros was given a job looting the properties of Jews
under the regime of SS Lt. Gen. Kurt Becher, head of the
Waffen SS section known euphemistically as The Economic
Department of the SS Command.
Introduction
Back during Presidential campaign year 2004, my associates and I were calling attention
to an important book on the subject of The Confessions of an Economic Hit-
Man. That man had a conscience. In the following report, LPAC is featuring a much bigger
story, on the subject of George Soros as a political-economic hit-man. The George
Soros we present in this report, has no conscience about what he has done, or what he
does. This is a report written, in large part, by Soros’ own mouth.
George Soros is not a top-ranking financier, he is like the mafia thug, without a real
conscience, like a thug sent to kill a friend of yours, but only a hit-man for the really big
financial interests, hired out to rob your friends, and you, of about everything, including
their nation, and your personal freedom.
George Soros does not actually own Senator Barack Obama; some other people do;
but, Soros is a key controller, and seemingly the virtual owner of both Democratic Party
Chairman Howard “Scream” Dean, that Party, perhaps your political party, and, in fact,
your nation, which are both what political-economic hit-man George Soros is aiming to
destroy.
—Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
June 16, 2008
George Soros: Hit-man for
The British Oligarchy
by Hector A. Rivas, Jr.
Soros credits his father for his own good fortune in
avoiding the gruesome scenes of the concentration camps.
In a broadcast on WNET/Thirteen TV on April 15, 1993
Soros recalled those experiences that formed his beastly
identity: “When the Germans came in, he [the father—ed]
said, ‘This is a lawless occupation. The normal rules don’t
apply. You have to forget how you behave in a normal society.
This is an abnormal situation.’ And he arranged for
all of us to have false papers, everybody had a different arrangement.
I was adopted by an official of the minister of
agriculture, whose job was to take over Jewish properties,
so I actually went with him and we took possession of
these large estates. That was my identity. So it’s a strange,
very strange life. I was 14 years old at the time.” His Father,
Tivadar Soros, professed further that, “as pseudo-
Christians, we had not quite reached that level of Christianity
where we were willing to return bread for stones.”
The Soros family indeed offered plenty of stones to the
many poor Hungarian Jews who were shipped off to Auschwitz
to meet their death.1
The Soros family was among the “elite” Hungarian
Jews, which afforded them the ability to make arrangements
to survive under the Nazi occupation. Prince Alexis
Scherbatoff, former member of the U.S. Army Counterintelligence
Corps before and after WWII, alleged that Soros
obtained his first small fortune by selling his share of the
loot seized with the Nazis. He reported that Soros’ first accomplice
was another Hungarian Jew, who sold rubies
and other Nazi plunder in Belgium after World War II.
Ben Hecht, author of the book Perfidy, documents the
activities of the Nazi Economic Department in Hungary,
and the atrocities committed by the employers of young
Soros. The Department was in charge of pillaging Jewish
properties and “removing the gold fillings from the millions
of teeth of the dead Jews; in cutting off the hair of
millions of Jewesses before killing them, and shipping
bales of hair to Germany’s mattress factories; in converting
the fat of dead Jews into bath soap, and in figuring out
effective methods of torture to induce the Jews awaiting
death to reveal where they had hidden their last possessions.”
George Soros was confronted with such images during
an interview with Steve Kroft on CBS’s 60 Minutes on December
20, 1998:
Kroft: (Voiceover) These are pictures from 1944 of
what happened to George Soros’ friends and neighbors.
(Vintage footage of women and men with bags over their
shoulders walking; crowd by a train)
Kroft: (Voiceover) You’re a Hungarian Jew. . .
Mr. Soros: (Voiceover) Mm-hmm.
Kroft: (Voiceover) . . .who escaped the Holocaust. . .
(Vintage footage of women walking by train)
Mr. Soros: (Voiceover) Mm-hmm. (Vintage footage of
people getting on train)
Kroft: (Voiceover) . . .by–by posing as a Christian.
Mr. Soros: (Voiceover) Right. (Vintage footage of women
helping each other get on train; train door closing with
people in boxcar)
Kroft: (Voiceover) And you watched lots of people get
shipped off to the death camps.
Mr. Soros: Right. I was 14 years old. And I would say
that that’s when my character was made.
Kroft: In what way?
Mr. Soros: That one should think ahead. One should
understand and–and anticipate events and when–when
one is threatened. It was a tremendous threat of evil. I
mean, it was a–a very personal experience of evil.
Kroft: My understanding is that you went out with this
protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted
godson.
Mr. Soros: Yes. Yes.
Kroft: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation
of property from the Jews.
Mr. Soros: Yes. That’s right. Yes.
Kroft: I mean, that’s–that sounds like an experience
EIRNS/Stuart Lewis
George Soros
__________
1. Masquerade, Dancing Around Death in Nazi Occupied Hungary, Tivador
Soros, Arcade Publications, New York, 2001.
that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for
many, many years. Was it difficult?
Mr. Soros: Not–not at all. Not at all. Maybe as a child
you don’t–you don’t see the connection. But it was–it created
no–no problem at all.
Kroft: No feeling of guilt?
Mr. Soros: No.
Kroft: For example that, ‘I’m Jewish and
here I am, watching these people go. I could
just as easily be there. I should be there.’
None of that?
Mr. Soros: Well, of course I c—I could be
on the other side or I could be the one from
whom the thing is being taken away. But
there was no sense that I shouldn’t be there,
because that was—well, actually, in a funny
way, it’s just like in markets—that if I weren’t
there—of course, I wasn’t doing it, but somebody
else would—would—would be taking it
away anyhow. And it was the—whether I was
there or not, I was only a spectator, the property
was being taken away. So the—I had no
role in taking away that property. So I had no
sense of guilt.
Crafted and Unleashed
Nazi collaborator George Soros, set off to
England in 1947 where he became the protégé
of radical positivist Sir Karl Popper, who
taught at the Fabian Society-initiated
London School of Economics in the
1950’s. This is the same Karl Popper
who blamed a large part of the crises
of developing countries on the “political
stupidity” of its leaders. Popper
himself states that, “We [the Empire—
ed] have liberated these states
too early and in too primitive a way.
These are no-law states yet. The same
would happen if you’d leave a kindergarten
to itself.” Soros’ mentor then
argued that the “civilized world” has
the right to launch wars against the
Third World for the sake of “peace.”
Soros bowed to his masters, and carried
out that war.
Soros used his Quantum Fund to
conduct financial warfare through
derivatives and currency speculation.
On the European front, in 1992 Soros
won a key battle against the European
Rate Mechanism (ERM), which
was Europe’s financial structure to
maintain stable exchange rates
among the currencies of Europe. Soros created a financial
crisis so that the system could be replaced by the Maastricht
Treaty, which established the Euro as the single European
currency, and put financial authority in the hands
of one central bank, controlled by the Anglo-Dutch Oligarchy.
This plot began when representatives of Soros met on
June 2, 1992, with top British and Anglo-Dutch financial
Acrhives of Mechanical Documentation, courtesy of USHMM Photo Archives
A member of the German SS supervises the boarding of Jews onto trains during a
deportation action in the Krakow ghetto.
Hungarian Jews on their way to the gas chambers. Auschwitz-Birkenau, Poland, May
1944.
predators, on Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II’s yacht Britannia.
2
Part of this operation can be understood by looking at
his attacks against the Italian lira in the early 1990’s, which
earned him 400 billion lira within a matter of days, while
the Bank of Italy was forced to spend $48 billion of its reserves
in a vain attempt to defend its currency. Within a
few years, Soros was under criminal investigation for
these sinister attacks. Members of the Movimento Internazionale
per Diritti Civili Solidarieta first submitted testimony
on Soros to the Milan court in 1995, and by the
next year, investigations were launched out of Rome and
Naples, which were reported on in the Dec. 24, 1996 issue
of Corriere della Sera: “The investigation has just started,
but the results could be explosive, and the name of the individual
being officially investigated gives an idea of how
delicate this investigation is: The name is George Soros. . .
The crime is stock-jobbing. . . It concerns the attack on the
lira.”
Of course, not all of the money used in this operation
can be attributed to “Golem” Soros, but was only money
that was handed to him, by London. After all, a Golem
doesn’t make himself, he is created and, true to form, Soros’
natural instinct is only to do what he is told in order to
survive.
His father taught his boy how to follow his masters
very well under the Nazi occupation in Hungary: “The
most rational approach, in my view, was complete separation,
followed by a quiet effort to blend in with the general
population. That is the way animals do it: when they sense
danger, instead of presenting a clear target to their enemies,
their natural mode of self-preservation is to blend
with the scenery and simply disappear. Naturalists call
this phenomenon “mimicry.”3
Soros was raised to behave like a beast, and so he does.
Upon the destruction of the ERM, which set the stage for
Maastricht and, inevitably, the Lisbon Treaty, Soros had
only this to say: “I’m sure speculative actions have had
some negative consequences. But that does not enter my
thinking at all. It cannot. If I abstained from certain actions
because of moral doubts, then I would cease to be an
effective speculator. I have not even a shadow of remorse
for making a profit.” He continues, “I did it only to make
money. 4
Project Death
On Nov. 30, 1994 Soros spoke before an audience at the
Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center, and announced
his new foundation, Project on Death in America, to shift
the training of hospitals, nurses and doctors away from
expensive life-saving treatment, to the proper care of the
dying. In pushing euthanasia legislation, Soros made the
Nazi “useless eater” policy legal in the U.S.
A Soros-sponsored assisted suicide (a.k.a. homicide)
program to offer patients lethal prescriptions was the OreProject
on Death in America website.
Official portrait taken at Buckingham Palace, by Terry O’Neill
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and His Royal Highness Prince
Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh
__________
3. Masquerade, Dancing Around Death in Nazi Occupied Hungary, Tivador
Soros, Arcade Publications, New York, 2001
4. London Guardian Dec. 19, 1992.
__________
2. This is the very same Queen Elizabeth which EIR discovered in the
1990’s was on the exclusive clients list of George Soros’ mega-million-dollar
offshore Quantum Fund in which he is once again currently active.
The Hustler on the
Street Corner
In 1985, in response to the chaos of
the British Empire’s dope trade, Lyndon
LaRouche called on nations to cooperate
in a “war on drugs”: “What we are fighting,
is not only the effects of the use of
these drugs on their victims. The international
drug traffic has become an evil and
powerful government in its own right. It
represents today a financial, political,
and military power greater than that of
entire nations within the Americas. It is a
government which is making war against
civilized nations, a government upon
which we must declare war, a war which
we must fight with the weapons of war,
and a war which we must win in the same
spirit the United States fought for the unconditional
defeat of Nazism between
1941 and 1945.”
Since then, the British Empire’s hustler
on the street corner, George Soros,
has continued pushing drug legalization
in the United States and has even strayed over to the other
side of the block and become a supporter of narco-terrorism
in South America and Asia. Soros’ immorality and
ruthless nature1 made him the perfect hit man for enforcing
the Empire’s drug operations. Provided with funding
through speculative activities, Soros launched his own
war against anyone opposing the looting policy of London.
Since the dope trade is the corner stone for the physical
and economic looting of nations by the British Empire,
Soros chose Lyndon LaRouche’s “war on drugs”2 as
gon Death with Dignity Act, which subsequently passed
in 1998: “As the first state in the United States to allow
physicians to help terminally ill patients end their lives,
Oregon’s experience will be closely watched by other
states.”5
Through the Open Society, the Death in America project
and other organizations concerned with “end-of-life”
issues began collaboration on “transforming the culture
of dying.” Soros promoted on his website a one-day seminar
coordinated by Balfour Mount, M.D. of Royal Victoria
Hospital in the mid-1990’s entitled “Searching for the Soul
of Euthanasia.” Soros offered his personal thoughts on
the matter: “The use of technology to extend life when life
has no meaning, does not make any sense. . . It may be
more negative than positive, because it causes unnecessary
pain and suffering, not to mention the expense.” (emphasis
added)
Does Soros Have a Drug
Problem?
by Alexandra Perebikovsky
__________
5. “http://www.soros.org/initiatives/pdia”
Foto ANCOL. Fernando Ruiz
President of the New York Stock Exchange, Richard Grasso, and negotiator for the FARC,
Raúl Reyes, during their 1999 meeting in the Colombian jungle.
__________
1. See George Soros: Hit Man for the British Oligarchy by Hector Rivas, in
this report.
__________
2. Dope, Inc.: Britain’s Opium War Against the US, by a US Labor Party
Investigating Team, The New Benjamin Franklin Publishing Company,
Inc., New York, New York, 1978
his battleground. In defense of his drug hustling operations,
Soros wrote that, “The war on drugs was doing
more harm than the drugs themselves. . ..Drugs kill a few
people, incapacitate many more, and give parents sleepless
nights. . .”3 but, as he summed up, that is nothing
compared to the harm of nations intervening on the free
market.
Through his Open Society Foundation, Soros consistently
funneled money into his Drug Policy Foundation
(DPF) and Lindesmith Center to aggressively pursue drug
legalization in the United States. Soros claimed, “When I
decided to extend the operations of my Open Society
Foundation to the United States, I chose drug policy as
one of the first fields of engagement. I felt that drug policy
was the area in which the United States was in the greatest
danger of violating the principles of open society.”4
Soros used the DPF to fund the Marijuana Policy Project
(MPP), an organization committed to reviving the Woodstock
pot-smoking days of 1968. The MPP has given support
to states across the nation in the fight to legalize
marijuana and threw its support behind Barney Frank,
who lost no time in bending over backwards and lighting
up for the drug lobby by introducing HR 2618, a bill for
the “medical use” of marijuana. In 1996, Soros reached
deeper into the Queen’s underpants and funded ballot initiatives
to legalize “medical marijuana” in California and
Arizona through propositions 215 and 200, respectively.
These propositions made it legal even for children to whip
out the bong and receive doses of class one drugs. In 2000,
Soros took the legalization efforts even further and funded
a bill to set up the legal retail distribution of marijuana
in Nevada, thereby taking the first step towards more serious
drug legalization.
Meanwhile, in South America, his activities were
much more disastrous. With his fist in the British Empire’s
laundered money bags, Soros threw his weight behind
narco-terrorism in Colombia, Peru and Bolivia. His
group Human Rights Watch/Americas is a major part of
the drug cartel’s drug production and terror apparatus,
deploying millions of dollars annually for dope propaganda.
In Colombia, he became the leading financier in
the fight to legalize cocaine and, through Human Rights
Watch, attacked government forces deployed against
drug cartel guerrillas, who were slaughtering people
across the region. On November 8, 1990, the Medellin
Coming from the mouth of Dick Cheney and his ilk, the
expression “War on Drugs” has been used to justify
launching unprovoked wars on sovereign nations, imposing
regime change on their governments, throwing
millions of penny-ante users and small-time dealers in
jail in the U.S., driving desperate peasants in drug producing
countries over the cliff into starvation, and coyly
backing one cartel of drug runners against another,
to keep the market under control—while religiously
taking a hands-off attitude towards the big bankers
who actually run Dope, Inc. from the very top.
For Lyndon LaRouche—who coined the expression
“War on Drugs” back in the 1970s—it has always meant
the exact opposite. On March 9, 1985, LaRouche presented
a 15-point war plan at a Mexico City conference
which centered on cooperation among sovereign nation
states, to identify, attack, and destroy the Britishcentered
[financial] interests who actually run the drug
trade. These interests act as a powerful governmentin-
fact, against which we must wage war. Treaties
should be agreed upon among nations, to conduct
joint military actions against the drug trade, “to the effect
that necessary forms of joint military and law enforcement
action do not subvert the national sovereignty
of any of the allied nations. . .” Intelligence and
technological aid “should be supplied with assistance
of the United States,” in order to eradicate all illegal
plantations, processing centers, and laboratories, and
all unlogged aircraft flying across borders, which fail
to land according to instructions, should be shot down.
And most significantly, “A system of total regulation of
financial institutions, to the effect of detecting deposits,
outbound transfers, and inbound transfers of
funds, which might be reasonably suspected of being
funds secured from drug-trafficking, must be established
and maintained. . . . Special attention should be
concentrated on those banks, insurance enterprises,
and other business institutions which are in fact elements
of an international financial cartel coordinating
the flow of hundreds of billions annually of revenues
from the international drug traffic.” Those involved
are guilty of “crimes against humanity,” based on the
Nuremberg standard. Confiscated drug funds, La-
Rouche added, should be allotted “to beneficial purposes
of economic development, in basic economic infrastructure,
agriculture, and goods-producing
industry.”
That is the essence of LaRouche’s “War on Drugs”—
and that is why George Soros, and his British masters,
hate it.
LaRouche’s War on Drugs
__________
3. The Bubble of American Supremacy: Correcting the Misuse of American
Power, George Soros, pg. 27, Public Affairs, New York, 2004
4. Ibid. pg. 27
drug cartel, leading the violent murder and kidnapping
operations in Colombia, sent out a letter demanding that
the government publish a report by Soros’ Americas
Watch, which denounced the government’s anti-drug actions
as violations of human rights. One week later, Juan
Mendez, the leader of the Colombian Americas Watch
Report, called for “the most total disarmament possible”
of the Colombian military in order to allow “free trade”
of drugs to resume.
Using two groups in which he was a leading financier,
the Andean Council of Coca Leaf Producers and the Andean
Commission of Jurists, Soros then established an international
project called “Coca 95,” to support the dope
trade in Bolivia and Peru. At a conference on March 13-
14, 1996, the Andean Commission of Jurists sponsored
the “International Meeting on Current Scientific Studies
on the Effects of Coca Consumption on Humans,” in
which speakers attacked the anti-drug efforts of governments
as a threat to the environment! Calling for free trade
of all drugs, including cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and
synthetics, the Andean Council of Coca Leaf Producers organized
for an armed revolt in Bolivia. Soros even cut into
the heart of Peru, funding the presidential campaign of
Alejandro Toledo, thereby toppling the anti-drug government
of Alberto Fujimori and once again plunging the nation
into chaos.
Sound pretty bad? Well, it’s not new. The British Empire’s
drive for imperial control is what is truly behind
these attacks on nations. Soros’ promotion of narco-terrorism
is the equivalent of the “gunboats” employed by
the Empire in their launching of the 19th century Opium
Wars against China and India.
British Diplomacy
One of the leading drug traffickers
of the British Empire wrote that as
long as drug use continues to dominate
a country, “there is not the least reason
to fear that she will become a military
power of any importance, as the habit
saps the energies and vitality of the nation.”
5 For the last two centuries, the
British Empire, using this policy to
maintain its imperial control over the
world, has dominated the dope trade,
using it to prop up its horrific system of
slavery. The British East India Company
first opened up the opium trade with
China in 1715 but, it was not until Lord
Shelburne’s 1763-1783 melding of the
bankrupt East India Company and
near bankrupt British nation into a
global empire, that Britain had a monopoly
in the dope and slave trade.
Under the evil free trade doctrine of
Adam Smith, this British Empire used its might as a sea
power to construct a system of controlled trade and drug
trafficking to economically and culturally suppress nations.
The prime drug of choice was opium. With the deployment
of East India Company merchants into India, the West Indies,
and the United States, populations were forced to
grow opium and cotton on slave plantations. Banning any
kind of manufacturing in the colonies, cotton was exported,
loaded onto Royal British Ships, taken on a long trek all
the way to “the manufacturing house” of England, spun
into cloth, and dragged all the way back to India. Meanwhile,
Indian opium was exported to China, and the profits
were used to pay for the entire shipping and manufacturing
of the imported cloth! This system succeeded in enslaving
the populations of India, the Americas, and China, destroying
their land, and rendering the nations incapable of improving
their impoverished condition!
The Chinese emperor, sick at the sight of his destroyed
nation and attempting to resist this cultural enslavement
and bombardment of the population, “seized every particle
of opium; put under bond every European engaged in the
merchandise of it; and the papers of to-day (1839) inform
us that he has cut off the China trade, ‘root and branch.’ ”6
Furious, the British demanded that their “produce” (a.k.a.
Opium) be imported, or else. As one of the London Times
editors puts it, “We have everywhere obtained that our
goods shall be imported into all these countries. . .. To attain
http://www.heroin.org/images/babyopiate.html
An opium den in Manila, the Philippines.
__________
5. Jack Beeching, The Chinese Opium Wars, pg. 258, New York: Harvest
Books, 1975
6. George Thompson, Lectures on India in Lectures, Letters, Debates, Pamphlets,
and Related Correspondence of George Thompson, Manchester University,
John Rylands Library, 1834-1886.
those ends, we use all sorts of means, from courteous invitation
to bombardments. We prefer to employ mere eloquence,
because it is cheap and easy; but if talking fails we
follow it up by gunboats, and, in that convincing way, we
induce hesitating ‘barbarians’ not only to accept our two
unvarying conditions, but also to pay the cost of the expedition
by which their consent to these conditions was extorted
from them. China was so unwilling to listen to our advice,
so blind to the striking merits of our opium and our
consuls, that we were obliged, with great regret, to resort to
gentle force with her.”7 Any challenge to British imperial
policy was immediately met with gunboats and, in the case
of China, two opium wars between the years of 1839-1842
and 1858-1860 were waged in order to complete the process
of “opening up all of China”8 to British free trade. This
British imperial drive continued and, by the end of World
War I, the extent of British imperialism was felt everywhere.
Nations which had attempted to avert British imperial control
were destroyed economically and culturally and their
countries were flooded with drugs.
Revive the War on Drugs!
The British Empire still exists as an active threat to the
world today, though the name has since become taboo. If
you’ve bought in to the media-fed cover stories that history
occurs only as isolated local events and are thinking,
“I don’t believe in conspiracy theories,” then you don’t
know history. In reality the same financier and oligarchical
circles which were responsible for the launching of the
China Opium wars throughout the 18th-19th centuries,
typified by the ancient imperial models of Babylon, Persia,
and Venice, are responsible for creating the current
global financial and economic collapse.
George Soros is one of the main British instruments,
carefully chosen to be a front man of the Empire, covering
up for its disgusting looting policy, now known, euphemistically,
as globalization. Through organizations such
as Human Rights Watch and Open Society, Soros pushes
drugs and destroys nations. Soros says that now, “The
United States, like nineteenth-century Britain, also has an
interest in keeping international markets and global commons,
such as the oceans, open to all.”9 Just like the British
East India Company’s devastation of India and China
through two opium wars and decades of free trade, the
same Empire calls on Soros as the assassin in the destruction
of the United States. It is only through the obliteration
of British hack George Soros and the British Empire
which he represents, that we can hope to sober up the
United __________ States today.
7. As quoted in Henry Carey, Reply to the London Times, Letter V, pg. 2.
8. LaRouche in 2004 Special Report, To Stop Terrorism—Shut Down Dope,
Inc!, pg. 96, LaRouche in 2004, December 2001
George Soros:
The Forced-Open Society
By Leandra Bernstein
As the world financial system hobbles on its last legs,
the City of London has once again unleashed George
Soros to open the gates of hell at the present strategic
turning-point in world history. Soros has long been a
front-man chosen to subjugate nations by funneling offshore
money into corruption conduits coyly masked as
“philanthropic” and “human rights” organizations. His
purpose is to eliminate the U.S. system of national sovereignty,
as he states himself, “Democracy and open society
cannot be imposed from the outside because the principle
of sovereignty stands in the way of outside interference. . .
Admittedly it is difficult to interfere with the internal affairs
of sovereign countries, but it is important to face up
to the problem.”
Not Philanthropy. Misanthropy
During his first criminal investigation for stock manipulation
in 1979, George Soros started The Open Society
Fund. The Fund was used to create “open societies”
through philanthropic organizations now operating in
29 countries. Asserting that “states have interests but no
principles,” Soros explains that the ideal open society
would suppress particular national interests, while an
international political and financial structure takes responsibility
for the good of the so-called common good.1
__________
1. In this respect, Soros’s gushing admiration for the UN (emphatically the
5 member Security Council), WTO, World Bank, and IFTI (international
financial and trade institutions) is notable, as well as his past and present
collaboration with these institutions and their ranking members.
__________
9. George Soros on Globalization, George Soros, pg. 61, Public Affairs,
New York, 2002
10
To serve that common good, Soros arms his philanthropic
organizations with cash, buying up key sectors within
the population who are then let loose to overthrow a government
that tries to maintain a “closed society.”2 If a nation
wishes to control its own natural resources, it’s a
closed society. If a nation wants to develop its economy
and power of labor through tariffs and regulations, it’s a
closed society. Any nation that rejects globalization (i.e.
British Imperialism), is a closed society and subject to
attacks from Soros and his shadow government of nationals.
The Open Society Institute (OSI), Human Rights
Watch, the Soros Foundation, the Extractive Industries
Transparency Institute, are all British-style intelligence
outfits under the supervision of Soros. In 2002, Soros admitted
to personally spending over $2.1 billion in 5 years
on his philanthropic ventures. Of his organizations, he
writes, “They work with the government when they can
and independently of the government when they cannot;
sometimes they are in outright opposition. When foundations
can cooperate with the government, they can be
more effective; when they cannot, their work is more
needed and more appreciated because they offer an alternative
source of funding for civil society. As a general
rule, the worse the government, the better the foundation
because it enjoys the commitment and support of
civil society.”
That same year, George Soros and Liberal Imperialist
(limp) Tony Blair launched the Extractive Industries
Transparency Institute (EITI), to create an international
standard by which nations rich in
oil, natural gas, and strategic metals
would report government-to-company
revenues. The international
organization (EITI) lobbies the governments
to adopt a standard for
revenue reporting which allows
them to peer into government-company
revenues in strategic industries.
Whatever they view as “closed
society” behavior is brought before
the tribunal of the paid-for demos;
or, if the behavior seriously threatens
imperial interests, the UN,
World Bank, IMF, WTO, etc can be
mobilized to implement sanctions.
This process of subjecting a sovereign
nation to a fixed international
standard of behavior is called,
“transparency.” The fixed relationship
among those subject nations is
called Empire.
Blair explicitly stated his vision for such international
institutions in a speech before the UN World Summit in
September 2005: “For the first time at this Summit we are
agreed that states do not have the right to do what they
will within their own borders, but that we, in the name of
humanity, have a common duty to protect people where
their own governments will not.”3 Already the EITI has 23
countries lined up to be swallowed into the Commonwealth
and looted. These nations are primarily throughout
Africa, but include crucial states bordering Russia and
China.
Yet, many well-meaning people inside the U.S. and
elsewhere have thrown their support behind Soros for his
“human rights advocacy,” rallying to the call of ending
“authoritarian regimes,” and increasing “transparency.”
The Fight for Eurasia
In his historic 1983 economic forecast, Lyndon La-
Rouche warned that if the Soviet Union were to reject his
Strategic Defense Initiative, adopted by President Reagan,
then “the strains on the Comecon economy would
lead to a collapse of that economic system in about five
years.” At his 1988 address at the Kempinski Hotel in Berlin,
LaRouche repeated that warning: “All of us who are
members of that stratum called world-class politicians,
know that the world has now entered what most agree is
the end of the postwar era. . . What governments do during
__________
2. To better understand this process, see Euripides’ Greek tragedy, The
Bacchae, on the cult of Dionysus.
__________
3. Earlier, in 1999, Blair demanded the NATO bombing of Serbia/Yugoslavia,
under the humanitarian guise of protecting Kosovo and Albania
against the Serbs. Blair’s rejection of the principles of the 1648 Treaty of
Westphalia have pioneered the modern era of pre-emptive war, and much
of the mess of our war-torn planet today.
Chris Jadatz
11
the coming two years will decide the fate of all humanity
for a century or more to come. . .The time has come for a
bold decision on U.S. policy toward Central Europe.” At
that time, the LaRouche Movement was recruiting from
the influential circles throughout Eurasia around the
prospect of building the Productive Triangle and later the
Eurasian Land Bridge to transform the region into a prosperous
community of nation-states.
LaRouche was the first to identify and act on the coming
turning point in world history, but the British establishment,
also thinking in terms of long historical waves,
saw the crisis in Germany and the Soviet Union as an
opening for a drastic turn to their system.
Soros was their point-man, deployed into the fight to
build his foundations throughout the contested Eastern
European bloc. The Stefan Batory Foundation in Poland
was ground-zero for the European test-run of Jeffrey
Sachs’ “shock therapy” model, later used
throughout the region to implement free-market
looting, and monetary austerity. Soros wrote of the
Polish implementation, “The IMF approved and
the program went into effect on Jan. 1, 1990. It was
very tough on the population, but people were willing
to take a lot of pain in order to see real
change. . .Inflation has been reduced, but the outcome
still hangs in the balance because structural
adjustment is slow in coming. Production has fallen
30%, but employment has fallen by 3%. This
means the entrenched management of state enterprises
is using the respite it gained from wage
claims to improve its profit margins and keep the
workers employed. There is an unholy alliance between
management and labor that will be hard to
break.” In other words, Shachtian monetary austerity,
slave labor, and wrecking guarantees to state
workers.
This was the same model used to cripple Russia, where
Soros pushed the Shatalin Plan to shut down the Soviet
military-industrial economy and impose “budgetary discipline.”
Soros’ program was a disaster: the privatization
of state industry, rotten deals to sell off Soviet military industrial
stockpiles, smuggling raw materials, weapons,
and drugs. In only five years, the labor force had largely
shifted from production to criminal activity, and Russia
saw the largest expansion of drug trade and drug use in
that region. 4
In the years following the Soviet break-up, Soros set up
Foundations in 23 countries. On the launching of the 1991
Balkans War, Soros dumped millions into the region, earmarking
$15 million in funds for political subversion in
Croatia alone. In December 1996, Croatian president,
Franjo Tudjman, launched a useful attack, saying, “With
the help of Soros, [the organizations] have entirely infiltrated
society. . . They have involved in their project 290
different institutions, as well as hundreds of people. . .
[T]hrough financial support, they roped in members of all
ages and classes, from high school students to journalists,
university professors, and academicians, from all circles
of culture, economy, science, health, law, and literature. . .
They openly say: Their duty is to change the property and
government structures through donations. . . To create favorable
circumstances for the subversion of the present
authority and situation in Croatia, to gain control over all
spheres of life, they intend to focus their energies and influence
on the media and the world of culture.”
__________
4. The spread of drug use coincided with an epidemic of HIV/AIDS largely
along the drug trade route into Afghanistan. Today, the Soros Foundation
prides itself in “treatment, advocacy, and harm reduction services” to deal
with HIV/AIDS and TB, the results of Soros’ free-market reforms.
Russian peasants. Ogonyok..
Soviet women show ration cards to buy food. Ogonyok 1991.
12
During the same time, Soros set up the International
Science Foundation, offering sizable grants to Russian
scientists. People were poor and looking for a living; Soros
stepped in with projects and money. Many confided that
they knew it was wrong, but they needed the money to
survive. Though he was able to pay the scientists, Soros’
R&D investments were not nearly enough to accomplish
breakthrough work. U.S. intelligence sources were convinced
that Soros was just picking their brains. The ISF
initially offered large grants, but as Soros steadily withdrew
funds, he drew young scientists out of the country,
taking from Russia its most vital natural resource.
In 2003, Soros announced that he was officially withdrawing
support to Russia in order to focus more on the
United States, after becoming “preoccupied with problems
of globalization” and, since September 11, “with the
role that the United States plays in the world.” On June 12
of this year, the OSI announced an initiative to spend
$800 million over the next 10 years “to advance democracy
and progressive reform in the United States.” Grantees
will be funded to study how institutions like the EU
and the UN can be used to “influence or constrain illiberal
behavior,” and how stability and order can be maintained
after an “authoritarian regime” has been collapsed.
The shock troop attacks from Soros’ hordes in the East
should be fair warning to those in the U.S. who continue
to be soft on Soros’ “democratic reforms” and “open society”
projects.
There Is No Transparency Off-Shore
Contrary to the romantic view of super-financier,
George Soros, he has never acted alone in any of his operations,
and his primary self-interest has been saving his
sorry neck from his sponsors.
A decade before launching The Open Society Fund, Soros
left his post at Arnhold and S. Blechroeder Inc.5 with
sponsorship to launch the off-shore Quantum Fund N.V.,
which was reportedly managing $11-14 billion in 2001.
Both the Quantum Fund and Soros Fund Management,
operate as crucial sources for the money going to the international
projects cited above. By setting up in the Netherlands
Antilles, a British Protectorate, and excluding
American citizens from investing in the fund or sitting on
the board of directors, Soros eludes U.S. law enforcement
scrutiny, U.S. taxes, and other regulations, while demanding
transparency from everyone else.
Soros has gone so far out of his way to avoid U.S. laws
that he is not even on the board of his own fund, but serves
as official “Investment Advisor” through the New York
based Soros Fund Management. Instead, the list of investors
and the board of the Quantum Fund is stacked with
British, Italian, and Swiss financiers, with Queen Elizabeth
II holding a special position on the list of exclusive
clients. Quantum board member Richard Katz is also on
the board of the London N.M. Rothschild & Sons merchant
bank, and is the head of Rothschild Italia S.p.A.;
Nils O. Taube, is the head of the London investment group,
St. James Palace, a major partner with Lord Rothschild;
and George Karlweiss, of Edmond de Rothschild’s Swiss
Banca Privata. According to interviews and published
sources, Karlweiss played a key role in giving Soros the
initial start-up capital for Quantum. The Rothschilds’
banking apparatus, with its international branches, has
been, and remains at the center of British sponsored dirty
money and financial warfare operations, from money
laundering, to raw materials grabs, drugs-for-weapons
deals, sponsorship of international crime networks, and
significant control over the gold trade—which is essential
for the global drug trade.
Quantum board member and top Swiss financier, Edgar
de Picciotto, was involved in launching attacks against
LaRouche’s European organization through the mid-late
1980’s when he pushed money through the Swiss thinktank,
Geo-Pol, to fund the corrupt Laurent Murawiec,
presently residing at the neo-con Hudson Institute.6 De
Picciotto is presently the chair of the Union Bancaire Privee,
the offspring of a shady merger with Edmund Safra’s
Trade Development Bank, notably involved in the Iran-
Contra affair. Safra, who became too dirty for even the
British to use, was famously murdered in 1999 when under
investigation by Swiss and US authorities for using his
Republic Bank of New York to transfer billions of Federal
Reserve notes to Mafia-controlled banks in Moscow in the
early 1990’s. He was also under investigation for laundering
money through the Turkish and Colombian drug
trade.
According to former U.S. State Department intelligence
officers, familiar with the Soros case, Soros’ Quantum
Fund amassed its billions from “silent investors,” like
Marc Rich—as well as Mossad agents Shaul Eisenberg
and Rafi Eytan. During Soviet break-up, Quantum Fund
investor, Marc Rich,7 was crucial in the raw materials
smuggling. He did the ground work of coercing desperate
and corrupt Russian and Soviet leaders to sell the nation’s
raw material wealth to the global markets. That money
__________
5. Arnhold and S. Blechroeder Inc. represented Rothschild banking interests
in Germany during the period of Chancellor Bismarck. As of 1993 it
was the principal custodian of the Quantum fund, along with Citibank.
__________
6. In his 2001 Strategic Memorandum: Look What Happened in Brazil, Lyndon
LaRouche describes Laurent Murawiec as “a real-life ‘Beetlebaum’
of the legendary mythical horse-race, and a hand-me-down political carcass,
currently in the possession of institutions of a peculiar odor.”
7. Before running $2.5 billion in “natural resources” trade with Russia,
Marc Rich got his start in the triangular trade of weapons, oil, and drugs,
around the Afghan and Iran-Iraq Wars. EIR Special Report, To Stop Terrorism—
Shut Down Dope Inc. (2001), and EIR Special Report, The True
Story of Soros the Golem (1997).
13
was then taken out of the country and invested in offshore
accounts. Rich, a U.S. fugitive since 1984, organized the
looting from his office in London, where he helped his
Russian contacts sell those materials normally used for
domestic consumption.
For 17 years, Rich was a fugitive in London from charges
of tax evasion, fraud, and trading with the enemy (Iran).
Rich hired Lewis Libby as his personal attorney. In 2001,
Al “stinking possum” Gore helped get a Presidential pardon
for Rich in the final hours of Bill Clinton’s term. Later,
in testimony before Congress, Libby admitted that he secured
the pardon for Rich by working through Gore’s former
chief of staff, Jack Quinn (as well as two former Mossad
agents employed by Rich).
A Piece of Advice:
The global economy is presently undergoing a hyperinflationary
blow-out. The international institutions and financier
networks outlined above, whose activities are illegal under
the United States Federal Constitution, have been positioning
themselves for decades to seize control now. It is now possible
for the government of the United States to immediately
shut down Soros’ filthy operations and launch the recovery
prescribed in LaRouche’s “Three Steps to Survival.”
It were wise for all those who are presently defending
George Soros by accepting his money to take pause: Whatever
happens otherwise, if the United Kingdom continues
its present course Britain’s imperial design (1763-2008) is
now soon doomed to a very early and ugly end. All that remains
in doubt on this account, is, whether or not the disintegration
of the British empire will carry the rest of European
civilization down with it, down into a prolonged,
planetary-wide dark age, down forever from the Britain of
Lord Shelburne which aspired to become a permanent
successor to the failed Roman Empire. Is the money really
worth it?8
The Case of Malaysia
by Alexandra Perebikovsky
__________
8. Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr., “That Doomed & Brutish Empire,” EIR Volume
35, Number 11, March 14, 2008.
Technically, Malaysia gained its independence from the
British Empire in 1957. Since then however, the British
intention has been to continue using the nation as its
very own playground for its free trade chaos and looting
operations. In 1997 Lyndon LaRouche stated, “free trade,
practiced against the nations of Southeast Asia, is simply
a new form of colonialism, whose fruit is mass murder. In
that sense, there is no difference, in effect on people, between
free trade and Nazism.”
Up until the mid 90’s currency crisis, Malaysia was a
staunch follower of globalization, albeit taking significant
steps toward development in the years following their independence.
Since the British deployment of George Soros
into Southeast Asia to loot the currencies of these nations,
Malaysia has changed its view. In the mid-1990’s,
Lyndon LaRouche forecast that the so-called “Tigers” of
Southeast Asia,1 after years of globalization, hot money
flows, and destructive speculative activity would suffer
the same fate as Mexico after 1995—utter collapse. Indeed,
in the months leading up to July 1997, Soros worked
tirelessly to carry out London’s currency warfare, with the
intent to collapse the Southeast Asian economies. The Tiger
economies had succumbed to the flood of hot money
in the 1990s, which created bubble economies based on
inflated stock values and financial services. The government
“guarantees” on foreign investments, imposed by
the western speculators, ultimately bankrupted the Southeast
Asian national economies.
Soros financed a large portion of this hot money. He
began his attack on the Thai and Malaysian currencies in
February of 1997 “with a zeal I haven’t seen since the successful
assault on several European currencies around
three years ago” according to one analyst. 2 Through speculation
in futures markets, Soros’ Quantum Fund leveraged
$1.2 trillion. He took short positions against the
Thai baht, the Philippine peso, the Indonesian rupiah,
and the Malaysian ringgit, sending these currencies falling
by 40-70%, collapsing stock markets, and wiping out
currency reserves. The breaking point was in July of 1997
when the Thai baht was forced to float, with greater than
20% devaluation, after the government had unsuccessfully
spent over $15 billion trying to defend the currency.
The IMF austerity conditions imposed on these nations
following the collapse drove their economies back 15-20
years in their potential for development and their standard
of living.
On September 20, 1997, Malaysian Prime Minister Dr.
Mahathir Bin Mohammed stood before the IMF and defi14
antly spoke out against the looting
policies of the British Empire:
“We in Malaysia laughed at
the suggestion that our country
would follow the fate of Mexico.
. . . But now we know better.
We know why it was suggested
that Malaysia would go the way
of Mexico. We know now that
even as Mexico’s economic crash
was manipulated and made to
crash, the economies of other
developing countries, too, can
be suddenly manipulated and
forced to bow to the great fund
managers who have now come
to be the people to decide who
should prosper and who
shouldn’t.”
Prior to the attack on the
Southeast Asian markets, Mahathir
had been an outspoken
follower of globalization. However,
following the British Empire’s
organized takedown of
the Malaysian economy, the fantasy
of “free trade” was broken.
Reflecting the proposals of
economist Lyndon LaRouche,
Dr. Mahathir launched his own attack against speculator
George Soros, calling him a “moron.” EIR’s special report
“The true story of Soros the Golem; A profile of mega
speculator George Soros,” circulated widely in Malaysia’s
leading circles. London, surprised by Mahathir’s sudden
backlash, unleashed a string of slanders, including an article
published in the Asian Wall Street Journal on September
19, 1997, titled: “Malaysia’s Mahathir Finds
Strange Source for Soros Campaign; Asian Country’s Media
Tap U.S. Conspiracy theorist Lyndon LaRouche, Jr.”
In an attempt to destroy any influence or connection Malaysia
had to LaRouche, London deployed Soros once
more to clean up the mess. Soros was given a chance to
defend himself against Prime Minister Mahathir’s accusations
and attempted to deny the charges—he was not
successful:
Ted Koppel: “You’re talking here about the Malaysian
Prime Minister.”
George Soros: “That’s right.”’
Ted Koppel: “And he, I mean
his charge is that you, in effect,
systematically set out to destroy
Malaysia’s currency.”
George Soros: “And that is
absolute nonsense. Now, you
know, what more can I say? It’s
just absolutely no foundation at
all.”
Ted Koppel: “Because—I
mean put it in easily understandable
terms. I mean if you could
have profited by destroying Malaysia’s
currency, would you have
shrunk from that?”
George Soros: “Not necessarily,
because that would have
been an unintended consequence
of my action. And it’s not
my job as a participant to calculate
the consequences. This is
what a market is. That’s the nature
of a market. So I’m a participant
in the market.”
Ted Koppel: “Apolitical,
amoral?”
George Soros: “That’s exactly
right.”3
The Backlash
In September 1998, Dr. Mahathir shocked the world by
declaring sovereign currency controls on the Malaysian
ringgit, pegging their currency to a fixed exchange rate
against the dollar, and thereby effectively ending the speculators
ability to loot the country through currency speculation.
Soros, and the entire western financial oligarchy,
went berserk, claiming that Dr. Mahathir’s actions against
IMF orthodoxy would bring damnation down upon his
country. In fact, as was later obvious to all, his defense of
the nation’s sovereignty saved the population from the
devastation suffered by every other nation that had been
subjected to Soros’ butcher knife.
Following Malaysia’s break with globalization, London
launched an even nastier operation to create an internal
crisis in Malaysia. Anwar Ibrahim was the deputy prime
minister and chosen heir to Mahathir; he became the target
to carry out the Empire’s brutal operation.
Anwar was later kicked out of his post as deputy prime
minister because he “lacked the moral standards required”
to lead the nation. Financed by Soros and his cronies
through the Open Society Foundation, Anwar pro-
Swiss-image.ch/Remy Steinegger
Malaysian Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Bin Mohammed
in 2002.
__________
3. Pre-recorded interview with Ted Koppel, ABC News Nightline, Wednesday,
October 7, 1998
__________
1. It turns out that the Southeast Asian Tigers were no better than those
tigers of infamous “magicians” Siegfried and Roy—all doped up.
2. As described by Dawai Institute of Research Director Peter Scheifelbein
days after the meeting of Myanmars SLORC (State Law and Order
Restoration Council)
15
ceeded to launch a campaign to bring down the
government of Malaysia. He portrayed himself as a
freedom fighter and champion of free market society,
denouncing the new government’s protectionist
economic policies and accused them of carrying
out a conspiracy to destroy him. Meanwhile, Soros’
Human Rights and Open Society organizations
played their part in labeling Mahathir as the “last of
the old-line Asian authoritarians” and showed Anwar
as the “reformer” trying to free the people of
Malaysia. The western media, including the Wall
Street Journal, continued to fuel the turmoil in Malaysia,
saying: “The sacking Wednesday night of
Malaysian Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim
signaled the end of a battle for the soul of an important
nation. . . . At home and abroad, Mr. Anwar had
come to symbolize the democratic aspirations and
open-mindedness of a new generation, more at ease
in the world and less burdened with the pain of old
sleights and frustrations than the man he was expected
to succeed.” 4
Even Soros buddy, Al Gore, threw his weight behind
the speculators.5 On November 13, 1998, President
Clinton had been invited to speak at the Asia
Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum, hosted by
Malaysia. Due to the severity of the Iraq crisis, Clinton
was forced to stay back and dispatched Al Gore
in his place. The resulting catastrophe occurred on
November 16 when Gore delivered a speech to the
APEC business advisory council where he called for
“short term” recovery by allowing “free markets to
work their magic” and, though not naming him, endorsed
Anwar Ibrahim over Mahathir to lead the nation. 6
Sprinkling salt in the wound, Gore echoed Anwar’s cries
for a new government: “People will accept sacrifice in a democracy,
not only because they have had a role in choosing
it, but because they rightly believe they are likely to benefit
from it. . . . The message this year from Indonesia is unmistakable:
People are willing to take responsibility for their
future—if they have the power to determine that future. . . .
Democracy confers a stamp of legitimacy that reforms
must have in order to be effective. And so, among nations
suffering economic crises, we continue to hear calls for democracy
and reform in many languages—‘people’s power,’
‘doi moi,’ ‘reformasi.’ We hear them today—right here,
right now—among the brave people of Malaysia.” With the
Malaysian government incensed and the Malaysian people
riled up, Gore promptly left the venue. A few days later,
then foreign minister Abdullah Badawi, sent the US a heated
letter of protest, warning that the United States would
be held accountable for inciting instability.
Malaysia Today
The escapades of Soros, Gore, and other London cronies
in Malaysia can only be seen in one light—the British
Empire’s continued aims at destabilization in Southeast
Asia. Today, Abdullah Badawi has taken over the post of
prime minister and Anwar, with one hand permanently
glued to Soros’ gluttonous money bags, is still running operations
aimed at destabilizing the government, including
his intended buy-off of parliamentarians in the opposition
party, the United Malays Political Organization. The fate
of Malaysia remains to be seen. However, in the context of
the current global financial collapse, its future lies in the
implementation of Lyndon H. LaRouche’s four powers
agreement7 and in the destruction of the British Empire
and its crony, George Soros.
World Economic Forum/swiss-image.ch
Al Gore at the Davos meeting in January 2008.
__________
4. The Wall Street Journal, September 3, 1998 issue
5. In the intervening decade, with weight to spare, Al Gore threw it behind
his own speculative venture in the cap and trade carbon market.
6. At that time, Anwar had been under arrest and on trial for charges of
corruption and sodomy.
__________
7. See Lyndon H. LaRouche’s, Three Steps to Survival
16
George Soros Buys the
Nomination, Obama Borrows It
By Ed Hamler
The ongoing 2008 Presidential election represents
Soros’ importation of the techniques he has utilized
for popular subversion in foreign lands to the U.S. political
process. MoveOn.Org, an organization hugely funded
by George Soros, played a central role in Barack Obama’s
capture of the Democratic nomination, despite Hillary
Clinton’s clear superiority in the popular vote. Although
positioned as a pro-Obama instrument long before, as of
February of 2008, MoveOn officially backed Obama’s campaign,
sending him an army of “volunteers” and an established
money machine and fundraising base. As Lyndon
LaRouche has repeatedly warned, Obama himself is a
throwaway in the financial oligarchy’s plan to capture the
Presidency of the United States under conditions of economic
collapse. He was promoted to destroy the Clinton
candidacy and its potential for a Rooseveltian solution to
the financial collapse.
MoveOn.Org
MoveOn.org got its start in 1998, receiving major support
from the most fascist Democrats in the party, Joe
Lieberman
and Daniel Patrick Moynihan, to censure President
Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Faced in
1998 with a worldwide economic collapse, President Clinton
called for a “new financial architecture,” echoing Lyndon
LaRouche’s call for a New Bretton Woods financial system.
Soros, at the same time, engaged in currency warfare,
which intentionally collapsed the Thai baht, the ringgit of
Malaysia, and the lira in Italy. In short order after the President
called for a new financial architecture, the Lewinsky
scandal blew-up. The Newt Gingrich-led Congress, along
with Al Gore’s treasonous faction inside the Democratic
Party fed the ensuing media frenzy, effectively destroying
the Clinton Administration’s economic program in its remaining
years. In its drive to censure President Clinton,
MoveOn demonstrated a proclivity for political prostitution,
appreciated by Soros’ controllers. Soros moved to buy
up MoveOn. By 2004, MoveOn, the so-called “grassroots”
organization, was practically owned by George Soros.
According to a Michelle Goldberg article in Salon.com,1
this process began in 2003. Soros and his associates had
decided to pour tons of money into the MoveOn coffers.
The total contributed from 2003-04 was about $6.2 million
dollars, the largest “soft money” contribution ever.
During 2003-2004, Soros and MoveOn heavily backed
Wall Street suckling Howard “Scream” Dean for President.
They later mobilized to ensure him a comfortable
seat as Chairman of the Democratic Party to do what he
does best: lose! As chairman, Dean’s mission has been to
demoralize the lower 80% of income brackets (the true
base of the Democratic party) while recruiting white collar
and affluent professionals, myspace addicted youth,
and as many minorities and trade unionists who will sell
their souls as a new “Democratic majority.” Despite Dean’s
sabotage, the American population gave the Democrats a
resounding victory in the 2006 mid-term election, turning
out in record numbers to vote on the basis of ending the
war and fixing the economy. But by October of the next
year, Congress’ support from the population fell, from
80% to below that of President Bush, due to Dean and
Pelosi’s roles in blocking any initiative to reverse the damage
wreaked by Bush and Cheney. Mission accomplished.
MoveOn also played an active and significant role in
the pressure campaign to make sure Senator Clinton
dropped out of the race for President, thus acting as a
front organization for Soros and his masters. MoveOn.org
sent out a sophistry-ridden email petition, ironically attacking
Clinton for putting pressure on the superdelegates
for support. It called on the superdelegates to let the voters
decide who the Democratic nominee will be:
“Stand up for Democracy in the Democratic Party.
“A group of millionaire Democratic donors are threatening
to stop supporting Democrats in Congress because
Nancy Pelosi said that the people, not the superdelegates,
should decide the Presidential nomination.
“They’re Clinton supporters and they’re trying to use their
high-roller status to strong arm the Democratic leaders.
“So let’s tell Nancy Pelosi that if she keeps standing up
for regular Americans, thousands of us will have her back.
“A compiled petition with your individual comment
will be presented to Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democratic
leadership.
__________
1. Michelle Goldberg, MoveOn Moves Up, Salon.com, Dec. 1, 2003.
17
“Full petition text:
“The Democratic nomination should be decided by the
voters—not by superdelegates or party high-rollers. We’ve
given money—and time—to progressive candidates and
causes, and we’ll support Speaker Pelosi and others who
stand up for Democracy in the Democratic Party.”
Of course, when Senator Clinton won the popular vote
and the real high-rollers of the world and the party establishment
united behind Obama, MoveOn stood fully exposed
as the expendable creation of these same forces.
Since Senator Clinton actually won the popular vote, will
MoveOn stand by its original statement?
Never one to miss an “opportunity” Soros also personally
profited from one of MoveOn’s biggest political campaigns.
In 2006, MoveOn and Center for American Progress
waged a campaign against Cheney’s Halliburton.
Halliburton’s stock dropped from $40 to $26 a share.
While MoveOn railed against Halliburton, Soros gradually
bought 1,999,450 shares. By December 2006, these
shares comprised more than 2% of his total portfolio,
making Halliburton the Soros Fund Management’s biggest
investment that year. Then, the attacks on Halliburton
stopped, and the stock value began climbing, climbing
all the way up to today’s $50/share.
Democracy Alliance
One further maneuver in Soros’ effort to take over the
Democratic Party was his formation of the Democracy
Alliance. In 2005 George Soros and 70 millionaires and
billionaires got together to discuss further prospects for
buying up the Democratic Party. On July 27, 2006 the
Washington Post reported that there was a requirement
that every member of the Democratic Alliance give
$200,000 to the organization, but most members gave
more, and Soros was one of the top three contributors.
Democratic Alliance funds were thrown into organizations
like the Center for American Progress (CAP) and
the Association of Community Organizations for Reform
Now (ACORN). These organizations also played a role
in operations against Senator Clinton in the primary
campaign.
For example, on May 13, the day of the West Virginia
primary, John Edwards publicly stated his neutral position
concerning which candidate he would back for President
until the nominating convention in August. A day later
he came out to endorse Obama, following Obama’s
defeat by Senator Clinton by huge margins in the West
Virginia primary. Edwards thus participated in a public
spectacle meant to take the sting away from the millions
of votes Clinton received from the poorest state in the nation.
Edwards had just launched an anti-poverty campaign
called “Half-In-Ten,” which proposes to cut poverty
in half in the next ten years. Edwards anti-poverty campaign
received significant funding from the Soros controlled
CAP and ACORN organizations. In addition to
threats and other pressure tactics known to have been utilized
against super-delegates, one wonders what might
have been brought against Edwards concerning the funding
of the programs dearest to him?
Barack Obama
Obama himself has been blessed with Soros’ “soft money”
since he was an Illinois State Senator. Obama’s career in
national politics was catapulted by George Soros’ pool of
dough during his run for U.S. Senate in 2004. Throughout
that campaign year Soros kept tabs on Obama. On July 4,
2004, one month before the Democratic Nominating Convention
in Boston, Obama was the only candidate Soros personally
met with that year in Soros’ New York home. This
same year, Soros and his family raised $60,000 for Obama.
In 2006 Obama, as U.S. Senator for the state of Illinois,
had his sights set on bigger things. He met with Soros
again in his Manhattan office. That meeting lasted about
an hour. Immediately afterward Soros introduced Obama
to a dozen of the biggest money bags in politics, including
financier and hedge fund manager Orin Kramer and
Union Bank of Switzerland U.S. Chief Robert Wolf. A
week later Wolf had dinner with Obama in Washington
D.C. to craft his campaign strategy, one month before
Obama officially launched his Presidential bid.
Obama announced his candidacy for President in January
2007. In just four months, Soros and Wolf raised
$500,000 for Obama. From April until the closing months
Photo: John Pettitt / DeanForAmerica.com
Howard “Scream” Dean
18
of the primary campaign season, Soros and his associates
held a series of fundraisers and practically guaranteed a
steady flow of money into his campaign. In fact, Soros
played a major role in changing how political campaigns
are run in the United States, through his support for the
McCain-Feingold campaign reform legislation in 2002.
Soros’ Open Society claims that it provided the key logistical
support for the legislation by mobilizing itself and other
foundations to lobby for the legislation and to raise the
money needed to defend it against subsequent court challenges.
As a result of the McCain-Feingold act and subsequent
developments, PACs with wealthy sponsors, like
MoveOn, internet based “movements,” and wealthy bundler,
like those who predominate in Obama’s campaign,
have taken the place of constituency organizations, and
have thus become the central focus of all political activity.
So, after the vast sums of cash that were thrown around,
after key Clinton support was simply bought off, should
there be any mystery as to how Obama apparently got the
nomination?
LESSONS FOR DENVER
FDR’s 1932 Victory Over
London’s Wall Street Fascists
by Jeffrey Steinberg
On July 1, 1932 , New York Gov. Franklin
Delano Roosevelt won the Democratic
Party Presidential nomination
by a landslide vote of 945-190, over his
nearest rival and avowed political enemy,
the former New York governor and
J.P. Morgan tool, Alfred E. Smith. On
Nov. 8, 1932 , Roosevelt won a second
landslide victory, this time over incumbent
Republican President Herbert
Hoover. Roosevelt won 57% of the popular
vote, and swept the Electoral College
by 472-59. It was the greatest mandate
for change in memory, and FDR
immediately set out to return the U.
S.A. to the tradition of the American
System of political-economy, and, in so
doing, brought the country out of the
depths of the Great Depression, and
prepared the nation for the great battles
to come, against Nazism and Fascism—
and an expected post-war battle
to end the scourge of Anglo-Dutch colonialism.
Most Americans, with even a slight
degree of historical literacy, know these
basic facts about the election of 1932 . Few, however, know
how close the nation came to a disaster at the Democratic
nominating convention in Chicago; how close FDR came
to being deprived of the Presidential nomination, despite
a groundswell of popular support; and how ruthlessly his
Wall Street and City of London enemies sought to overturn
the outcome of the 1932 election, through attempted
assassination and coup d’état.
Franklin D. Roosevelt’s nomination as the Democratic candidate for President was far from
assured when the 1932 convention met in Chicago; it took four ballots, and a knock-down
drag-out political fight against the London-Wall Street interests who backed FDR’s opponents.
He is shown here campaigning in Kansas in 1932.
19
It is that story, rarely told, that offers a vital lesson today
to the Democratic Party, and to the American people,
as the nation faces another monumental Presidential election—
an election, like 1932 , that once again may determine
whether the United States survives for another generation,
as the sovereign republic established by the
Founding Fathers.
A Challenge to Wall Street
From the time that Franklin Roosevelt was reelected
governor of New York in November 1930, by a sweeping
majority, he emerged as the clear frontrunner for the
Democratic Party Presidential nomination in 1932 . He
had already staked out a new direction for the nation,
through his published writings and speeches, and some of
the emergency measures he had taken as governor, to deal
with the crushing impact of the 1929 Wall Street stock
market crash, and the ensuing collapse of the U.S. economy.
In 1931, he pushed legislation through the Republicanmajority
New York State Legislature, which created the
Temporary Emergency Relief Administration (TERA),
with Harry Hopkins as the executive director. The $20 million
program created jobs for the construction of hospitals,
schools, and other vital infrastructure in the state,
and provided other relief for the growing legions of unemployed.
But Roosevelt made it clear that his efforts in New
York were being countered, at every turn, by the Hoover
Administration in Washington, that was more committed
to bailing out the bankrupt financial institutions, than it
was to providing for the welfare of an increasingly desperate
American people.
In July 1928, FDR had penned an article for Foreign Affairs,
the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations,
which presented a “Democratic View” of “Our Foreign
Policy,” in which he boldly spelled out a radical overhaul
of American foreign policy, in the tradition of John Quincy
Adams and the Treaty of Westphalia. Before being striken
with polio in 1921, FDR had been Assistant Secretary
of the Navy under President Woodrow Wilson, and had
been the unsuccessful Democratic Party Vice Presidential
candidate in 1920.
FDR wrote in Foreign Affairs, “The time has come when
we must accept not only certain facts but many new principles
of a higher law, a newer and better standard in international
relations. We are exceedingly jealous of our
own sovereignty, and it is only right that we should respect
a similar feeling among other nations. The peoples of the
other Republics of this Western world are just as patriotic,
just as proud of their sovereignty. Many of these nations
are large, wealthy and highly civilized. The peace, the security,
the integrity, the independence of every one of the
American Republics is of interest to all the others, not to
the United States alone. . . . Single-handed intervention by
us in the internal affairs of other nations must end; with
the cooperation of others we shall have more order in this
hemisphere and less dislike. . . . The time is ripe to start another
chapter. On that new page there is much that should
be written in the spirit of our forebears. If the leadership
is right—or, more truly, if the spirit behind it is great—the
United States can regain the world’s trust and friendship
and become again of service. We can point the way once
more to the reducing of armaments; we can cooperate officially
and whole-heartedly with every agency that studies
and works to relieve the common ills of mankind; and
we can for all time renounce the practice of arbitrary intervention
in the home affairs of our neighbors.”
The policies and ideas presented by FDR were not only
anathema to his Republican rivals. They were at fundamental
odds with the London-allied Wall Street interests
that held a vise-grip control over the Democratic Party,
from the top down.
Following his 1928 defeat by Hoover, the Democratic
Party Presidential candidate, Alfred Smith, FDR’s earlier
sponsor, turned bitterly against Roosevelt. Smith was furious
that FDR had won the 1928 New York gubernatorial
election, while he had been overwhelmingly defeated in
New York State by Hoover. FDR had also refused to give
Smith hands-on control over his top Albany appointments.
Even more to the point, Smith had already been coopted
by the powerful J.P. Morgan banking interests, which
were among the City of London’s flagship assets inside
Wall Street. Smith was installed as a top executive of the
Morgan-financed Empire State Corp., which built the Empire
State Building, and became a witting tool of the Morgan
interests, who had other, equally powerful hooks into
the Democratic Party.
Following the disastrous 1928 Hoover victory over
Smith, the Democratic Party had fallen deep into debt.
The party owed an estimated $1,600,000—a considerable
sum of money in those days. To bail out the party, Morgan
asset John Jakob Raskob stepped in to loan the party over
$370,000. In return, Raskob, who had managed Smith’s
failed Presidential campaign, was named chairman of the
Democratic Party. He, in turn, appointed another Morgan
man, former Democratic Congressman Jouett Shouse, as
the party’s executive director. Just months before taking
over the party, Raskob had lamented that he was not able
to vote for his favorite politician, Calvin Coolidge, for
President in 1928. Raskob had been a life-long Republican
up until that point.
Born in 1879, Raskob went to work for Pierre du Pont
in 1900, and rose rapidly through the ranks of the Morgan-financed
chemical and arms combine. By 1914, Raskob
was treasurer of the DuPont Corporation. Four years
later, after DuPont took control of 43% of the stock in General
Motors, Raskob was named vice president for finance
20
of both GM and DuPont. By the early 1920s, Morgan had
bought a $35 million stake in GM, making it a joint Du-
Pont-Morgan venture. Raskob remained vice president of
GM until 1928, when he took over Al Smith’s Presidential
campaign, steering the New York Governor hard-right,
into the Morgan camp. Raskob remained at DuPont for
another decade, amassing a very large personal fortune.
Throughout the 1920s, Raskob was on Morgan’s list of
“preferred customers,” who were beneficiaries of insider
trading, and privileged stock purchases.
Fascism for All
During the 1920s, Morgan and allied London and Wall
Street banks had financed Italy’s Fascist leader Benito
Mussolini. In 1925, for example, Morgan partner Thomas
Lamont arranged a $100 million loan to the Mussolini
regime, at a point that the regime was in deep political
trouble.
At the same time that Morgan was bailing out Mussolini,
the DuPont and Morgan interests were launching a
proto-fascist
movement in the United States—ostensibly
in opposition to Prohibition, which had been enacted
with the 18th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified
in January 1919. The Association Against the Prohibition
Amendment (AAPA) was headed by Capt. William
H. Stayton, but was run by a tightly knit group of Wall
Streeters, including Pierre du Pont, Irénée du Pont, Lammot
du Pont, John Raskob, and Charles Sabin. Sabin
was the chairman of the Morgan-owned New York Guaranty
Company. According to a Senate investigation into
the AAPA, by 1928, of the 28 directors of GM, 15 were
listed as members of the group, which promoted the repeal
of Prohibition, and the replacement of corporate
taxes with a tax on beer and liquor, based on the British
model.
The 1932 Democratic Convention
On Jan. 22 , 1932 , Roosevelt announced his candidacy
for the Democratic Party Presidential nomination. The
convention was scheduled for late June in Chicago. From
the very outset, FDR was by far the favorite to win the
nomination and the Presidency. However, the top-down
Morgan interests that literally owned the Democratic Party,
through Raskob and Shouse, had other plans. They
launched a “Stop Roosevelt” operation, employing a number
of Morgan assets, and drawing upon party factions,
which had their own differences with FDR.
Morgan man Al Smith announced his candidacy on
Feb. 6, immediately creating a serious split in the New
York Democratic Party. A number of “favorite son” candidates
also entered the race, most with the understanding
that they would ultimately throw their support—at a
price—behind either FDR or some rival, in the event that
the convention was deadlocked. The Raskov-Shouse-Morgan
strategy was to deny Roosevelt the nomination on the
first series of ballots, and then draw support away from
the New York governor, and behind their chosen “compromise”
candidate, Newton D. Baker, Woodrow Wilson’s
Secretary of War (1916-1921), and later a lawyer for the
Morgan interests in Cleveland, Ohio.
Although FDR competed in the Democratic primary
elections, winning over half the delegates, he suffered
several setbacks, orchestrated by the Morgan crowd and
others. The biggest upset came in California, where Texan
John Nance Garner, the Speaker of the House, won
41% of the vote, to Roosevelt’s 32 % and Al Smith’s 26%.
Garner had campaigned against Roosevelt and Smith as
“Tammany Hall” politicians, and had the backing of William
Gibbs McAdoo, the California lawyer, who had been
Wilson’s Secretary of the Treasury (1913-1918), and a
two-time contender for the Democratic Presidential
nomination, in 1920 and 1924. McAdoo was the son-inlaw
of President Wilson, and, appropriately, had the
strong backing of the Ku Klux Klan in his 1924 bid for
the nomination (Wilson had shamelessly boosted the revival
of the KKK from the White House, through his promotion
of the Hollywood film, Birth of a Nation, which
lionized the racist organization). In 1924, McAdoo had
gotten into a pitched battle with Smith over the nomination,
deadlocking the convention for days, and leading,
ultimately, to the selection of a “compromise” candidate,
John W. Davis—yet, another lawyer for the Morgan interests.
McAdoo also had a very close relationship with the
country’s leading publisher, William Randolph Hearst,
who, at one time, had also sought the Democratic Presidential
nomination.
Going into the Chicago convention, Roosevelt had
well-over half of the 1,154 delegate votes needed to clinch
the nomination. However, the rules of the party required
a two-thirds majority, which meant that 770 votes were
needed to win. As long as the Morgan forces could block
any large crossovers, FDR could be defeated, despite the
fact that he had won 11 of the 13 primaries in which he
competed, and had won 44.5% of the total votes cast.
Memories of the disastrous 1924 nominating convention,
which took 103 ballots to break the deadlock between
Smith and McAdoo, added to the political climate,
favoring a Morgan-led anti-FDR “compromise”
nominee.
Adding to the political minefield facing FDR, was the
fact that Chicago’s Democratic mayor, Anton Cermak, was
allied with the “Stop Roosevelt” forces, and was a leading
proponent of the repeal of the 18th Amendment (he coveted
control over liquor licensing and taxation, which
would greatly enhance his financial and political power),
and he would control who would be allowed into the galleries
at the convention center, an important psychologi21
cal intimidation factor. Cermak had gone East on the eve
of the convention, to meet with Raskob and Shouse, ostensibly
to push an anti-Prohibition plank for the party
platform.
The Backdrop to the Convention
Cermak also hoped that the revenues generated by
hosting both the Democratic and Republican nominating
conventions would bail Chicago out of a desperate financial
crisis. 750,000 Chicagoans had lost their jobs since
the 1929 Crash; over 100,000 families were on some kind
of public welfare; half of the banks in Chicago had gone
under; city workers, including police and teachers, were
being paid in IOUs; and almost every luxury hotel in the
city’s famous downtown Loop was in bankruptcy receivership.
On the eve of the convention, 759 teachers had lost
their homes, because they had not been paid in five
months, according to the authoritative account of the
1932 convention, Happy Days Are Here Again, by Steve
Neal (HarperCollins, New York, 2004). And garbage collectors
had also gone on strike, after missing months of
pay, resulting in a pile-up of garbage everywhere.
Arriving delegates were greeted by “Hoovervilles” all
over the city. Writing for The New Republic, John Dos
Passos described the scene on Michigan Avenue: “Down
here the air, drenched with the exhaust from the grinding
motors of trucks, is full of dust and the roar of the
heavy traffic that hauls the city’s freight. They lie in rows
along the edges above the roadway, huddled in grimed
newspapers, men who have nothing left but their stiff,
hungry, grimy bodies, men who have lost the power to
want.”
Weeks before the convention opened, Samuel Insull,
the leading industrialist in Chicago, had lost his entire
$170 million personal fortune, when debts were called
in on his utility companies, which suffered huge losses
through the collapse of industry and the fall-off in electricity
consumption. The Morgan interests were widely
accused of being behind the pulling of the plug on Insull.
In June 1932 , thirty-nine small and medium-size
Chicago banks all went bankrupt, as part of the Insull
collapse.
Days before the convention opened, the major Chicago
banks, including First National Bank of Chicago and First
Union Trust, were hit with a run on deposits, estimated at
over $50 million. Next, Charles G. Dawes, former head of
Hoover’s Reconstruction Finance Corporation, announced
he was about to shut down his Central Republic
Bank and Trust Company, which had lost half of its $240
million in assets. Had Dawes’ bank shut down, the chain
reaction would have wiped out all of the major Chicago
banks. As the convention was opening, the RFC stepped
in with a $100 million emergency bailout loan, thus averting
a full-blown financial meltdown.
Morgan Versus FDR
Even before the battle over the nomination commenced,
a number of other issues had to be addressed,
that would vitally effect the outcome of the convention.
The first involved the seating of the Louisiana delegation.
Three contending delegations all showed up in Chicago,
reflecting the larger splits in the party between the proand
anti-FDR factions. At the time of the convention, Sen.
Huey P. Long was backing Roosevelt, and his delegation
was being challenged by a former Louisiana governor, Jared
Sanders. After a rousing debate between Long and
Sanders, punctuated by loud anti-Long rants by Cermak’s
bleachers rabble, the Long delegation was seated, by a
convention vote of 638-514.
Next, the crucial vote on who would be the convention
chairman took place. Roosevelt had chosen Montana’s
Thomas J. Walsh, a 73-year-old, 20-year Senate veteran, as
Library of Congress
During the 1920s, J.P. Morgan (shown here), and allied London and
Wall Street banking interests financed Italy’s Fascist dictator
Mussolini. They intended to establish Fascism in the United States—
but they had to try to eliminate FDR in order to do it.
22
his candidate. Walsh had presided over the tumultuous
1924 convention, before Morgan man Davis had won the
nomination, but was widely respected for the way he handled
that chaotic affair. The candidate of party chairman
Raskob was his fellow Morgan man, Shouse, the party’s
executive director.
By another close vote, 626-528, Walsh won the pivotal
chairmanship. The two narrow victories for the FDR forces
would prove decisive. FDR’s pointman in Chicago
(Roosevelt, in the tradition of nominating conventions,
stayed back in Hyde Park, New York, but had a special
speaker-phone hookup to his Chicago convention stadium
headquarters), James Farley, would write in his diaries:
“To me the most vital moment of the convention was the
seating of Huey Long’s delegation.”
Efforts by the Roosevelt team to change the party
rules, to end the two-thirds majority requirement, flopped
miserably, and almost cost FDR the support of some of
his Southern backers, who saw the rule as key to their
party influence. The Morgan faction, allied with many of
the urban political machines, from Cermak to Tammany
Hall, tried to push through an anti-Prohibition resolution,
with the aim of drawing Roosevelt into a divisive
side issue, that could split off some of his Southern backers,
who were among the leading proponents of the ban
on alcohol. Ultimately, the convention voted 934-213 in
favor of repeal of the 18th Amendment. Roosevelt had
successfully stayed on the sidelines, averting the Morgan
trap.
On June 30, Walsh convened the nominating session.
By the time the nominating speeches and seconding
speeches had been completed, it was 4:28 AM, on the
morning of July 1. All told, 11 names had been placed in
nomination. Among the key candidates hoping to win the
nomination in the wake of another disastrous 1924-type
stalemate, in the event the Morgan “Stop Roosevelt” operation
succeeded, were: Newton D. Baker, Speaker of the
House John Nance Garner, Maryland Gov. Albert Ritchie,
and Al Smith.
At the end of the first round of balloting, FDR had 666
votes, followed by Smith, with 201, Garner with 90, Ohio
governor and favorite son George White, with 52; and a
lineup of other favorite sons with a total of 143 votes
among them. On the second ballot, Roosevelt gained 11
votes, but the failure of any major holdout delegations to
break was a bad sign. Furthermore, Cermak was working
non-stop to break away Roosevelt delegates, as part of the
Morgan scheme to deadlock the convention for a half-dozen
ballots, thus forcing Roosevelt to throw in the towel.
While his efforts failed, the third ballot also was inconclusive.
At 9:15 a.m., the convention adjourned, to resume
again that evening.
From the opening gavel of the convention, FDR was
targeted for massive dirty tricks, including a vicious rumor
campaign that he was “too sick” to be President, another
that he was in bed with the KKK. One of the leaders
of the “Stop Roosevelt” operation was Walter Lippman,
who was circulating a petition among the convention delegates
to draft Newton Baker as the compromise candidate.
Lippman lied, “All through these various delegations
there is an astonishingly strong though quiet conviction
that the party can unite on a man who is stronger than any
of the leading contenders. That man is Newton Baker of
Ohio. My impression is that he is the first real choice of
more responsible Democrats than any other man, and
that he is an acceptable second choice to almost every
one.” Lippman’s petition was accompanied by a massive
telegram campaign, touting Baker as the savior of the party,
against FDR’s divisiveness.
FDR responded with his own telegram to all the delegates,
in which he promised, “I am in this fight to stay.
This is a battle for principle. A clear majority of the convention
understands that it is being waged to keep our
party as a whole from dictation by a small group representing
the interests in the nation which have no place in
our party.” FDR concluded, “My friends will not be misled
by organized propaganda by telegrams now being sent to
delegates. Stick to your guns. It is clear that the nation
must not and shall not be overridden. Now is the time to
make clear that we intend to stand fast and win.”
Roosevelt’s use of the term “the interests” was a direct
shot at the Morgan Wall Street and London crowd
that was behind the desperate drive to deny him the
nomination.
There are varying accounts of what happened next.
What is clear is that during the hours of July 1, between
the adjourning of the convention, and its resumption in
the evening, a deal was reached between the FDR forces
and Garner. Clearly, McAdoo had a role in the effort, and
Neal’s account identified Joseph Kennedy as a mediator
with Hearst. What is clear is that, faced with a prospect of
either Newton Baker or Al Smith winning the nomination,
should FDR fail to win the showdown fourth balloting, the
Texas and California delegations, both pledged to Garner,
went over to FDR, with the understanding that Garner
would be Roosevelt’s choice as Vice Presidential runningmate.
But even in the Texas caucus, the vote to support
FDR was by the narrowest 54-51 majority. And in the California
caucus, McAdoo was so uncertain of the outcome,
that he never took a vote, choosing instead to inform his
delegation that Garner had released the votes, but taking
the unilateral decision to pay back his rival Al Smith, by
personally announcing both the California and Texas endorsements
for FDR.
But there was more here than a backroom deal. Roosevelt
had clearly touched a deep chord among progressive
Democrats, who understood the implications of another
Morgan hand-picked candidate leading the Democratic
23
slate.
By the time the convention reconvened, on the evening
of July 1, the Morgan-Raskob-Smith gang had been defeated,
albeit by a near-miracle of political perseverence.
Once Texas and California broke, Cermak delivered the
Midwest states to FDR, and triggered a stampede of all the
favorite son delegations.
Shouse, the Morgan man, bitterly wrote to Newton
Baker after the vote: “If McAdoo had not broken the pledges
he made, Roosevelt would not have been nominated.
On the fourth ballot there would have been serious defections
from his ranks with the result that some other nominee
would have been certain. That nominee would have
been either you or Ritchie.”
Understanding the divisive role of the Morgan gang
and the urgent need to heal the wounds of the convention
fight, FDR took the unprecedented step of flying out
to Chicago, to directly address the convention. The
whole country followed in rapt attention, as FDR flew,
through inclement weather, from Albany to Chicago. He
delivered a powerful speech, proclaiming his “New Deal”
for America.
Assassination and Coup d’Etat
In the wake of FDR’s landslide victory over Herbert
Hoover in the November 1932 general elections, the Morgan
and City of London financier faction quickly regrouped.
If they could not defeat FDR by the manipulation
of the ballot, they would use other means.
On Feb. 15, 1933 , less than a month before Roosevelt’s
March 4 inauguration as President, a “lone assassin” attempted
to kill him, during a rally at Bay Front Park in
Miami, Florida. An Italian immigrant unemployed laborer,
Giuseppe Zangara, fired at the podium, as Roosevelt,
ironically, was shaking hands with Mayor Cermak. Cermak
took the shot, and died several weeks later. While investigations
into the shooting never developed evidence of
a broader plot, interrogations of Zangara confirmed that
he intended to kill the President-elect, thus dispelling later
claims that he had been sent by Chicago mobster Frank
Nitti, to kill Cermak, who had cracked down on his Capone
mob rivals.
The Morgan hand was all over another plot to oust
Roosevelt, in the early months of his Presidency. As reported
to the McCormack-Dickstein Committee of the
House of Representatives, by Maj. Gen. Smedley Darlington
Butler (USMC-ret.), a group of leading Morgan
and DuPont operatives, including the recently deposed
Democratic Party chairman John J. Raskob, and his executive
director, Jouett Shouse, conspired to organize a
miltary coup d’état against FDR, claiming that Roosevelt
was a “Jew Communist,” who would destroy the United
John J. Raskob photograph collection
John J. Raskob (right) went to work for the Morgan-linked Pierre du Pont (left), where he amassed a fortune, as one of Morgan’s “preferred
customers,” who benefitted insider trading and priviliged stock purchases. Raskob was the pointman for the Morgan-led opposition to FDR
within the Democratic Party.
Library of Congress
24
States through New Deal hyperinflation.
Members of the conspiracy first contacted Butler in
July 1933 , in an effort to recruit him to the plot; they asked
him to recruit an army of 500,000 World War I veterans, to
march on Washington and force Roosevelt’s resignation,
and the imposition of a regime, modeled on Mussolini
and Hitler.
In September 1934, the plotters established the American
Liberty League, with Al Smith, Raskob, the Morgan
lawyer John W. Davis, joining the ranks of the Grayson
Mallet-Prevost Murphy, Pew, Pitcairn, Rockefeller, and
Lamont interests. To set the stage for the outright pro-Fascist
bankers putsch, Henry Luce’s Fortune magazine devoted
its entire July 1934 issue to praise of Mussolini. Anglophile
editor Laird Goldsborough penned a signed
editorial, which proclaimed, “Fascism is achieving in a
few years or decades such a conquest of the spirit of man
as Christianity achieved only in ten centuries. . . .”
The true nature of the plot was exposed by General
Butler, who had been repeatedly approached by one of the
Morgan operatives, Gerald MacGuire, who had spent seven
months in Europe, at the start of 1934, making contacts
with leading Synarchists in Italy, France, and Germany.
Hesitant to signal Butler that the Morgan gang was
plotting a Hitler-Mussolini-style takeover of America,
MacGuire told Butler that the new movement, to save
America from FDR, was modeled on the French secret
military organization, Croix de Feu (Fiery Cross), which,
he lied, was like America’s Veterans of Foreign Wars or
Aemrican Legion. In fact, the Croix de Feu was a hardcore
pro-Fascist, pro-Nazi apparatus that had failed in
coup plots in France, and ultimately became part of the
collaborationist Vichy regime.
Butler smelled the rat and took his story to the news
media and the Congress, resulting in a tremendous scandal—
in part due to the fact that Congress was afraid to
implicate the top Morgan bankers in such an obviously
treasonous scheme. Working with Philadelphia Record
journalist Paul Comley French, Butler substantiated every
detail of the scheme. In one meeting with French, at the
offices of Grayson M.P. Murphy and Company, MacGuire
openly declared, “We need a fascist government to save
the nation from the Communists.” He explicitly endorsed
Hitler’s forced labor camps as the “solution” to unemployment
in America.
When the American Liberty League formally announced
their founding, the press was called in to the office
of none other than Jouett Shouse, at the National
Press Building in Washington. Shouse, who had headed
Morgan’s Association Against the Prohibition Amendment,
had merely changed the masthead on the old AAPA.
At its heart, it was a London-allied bankers cabal, committed
to imposing corporatist fascism—over the political
corpse of FDR.
A closer approximation of what drove London bankers
and their Wall Street cronies wild was revealed by
FDR and Henry Morgenthau biographer John Morton
Blum. According to Blum, in the autumn of 1933 , Roosevelt
and his Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau,
launched a drive to push up the price of gold and
strengthen the value of the U.S. dollar. As Blum reported
in Roosevelt and Morgenthau (Houghton Mifflin Company,
Boston, 1970), “To take charge of the foreign exchange
operation Roosevelt called upon the Governor of
the New York Federal Reserve Bank, George Harrison,
an urbane, experienced, conservative financier, who was
conscious and jealous of the traditional powers of his
office. Harrison insisted on having full authority over
the technical aspects of his job, to which Roosevelt
agreed, but the President hesitated to accept the banker’s
suggestion that the United States talk with the
British and the French before beginning to trade in
gold abroad. ‘Every time we have taken the British into
our confidence,’ he remarked, ‘they have given us a
trimming.’
“After further thought persuaded him to let Harrison
go ahead, the President thoroughly enjoyed the shocking
surprise of the Europeans. The French, Harrison reported,
had nearly jumped out of their skins. Governor Montagu
Norman of the Bank of England, a die-hard Tory
whom Roosevelt called ‘old pink whiskers,’ heard Harrison’s
news about American plans with incredulity. ‘This is
the most horrible thing that has happened,’ Norman
wailed into the transatlantic telephone. ‘The whole world
will be put into bankruptcy.’ Harrison’s instinct was to reassure
Norman, but Roosevelt and Morgenthau, picturing
foreign bankers with every one of their hairs standing on
end in horror, caught each other’s eye and began to roar
with laughter. Within 24 hours, Roosevelt told Morgenthau,
he expected to ‘see the whites of the eyes of the enemies,’
and he expected Harrison to shoot.”
It was Roosevelt’s open contempt for the British system
of usury and colonialism that drove London’s Wall Street
allies, led by Morgan, to plot outright treason, when they
failed to defeat FDR in Chicago at the convention.
Today, the financial disintegration has gone far beyond
the collapse that FDR faced, and today, once again, London’s
fascist agents, like Felix Rohatyn and George Shultz,
stand in horror at the remotest prospect of the Democratic
Party returning to the spirit and substance of FDR.
They know that the voice of FDR in today’s Democratic
Party is that of Lyndon LaRouche, and, while they know
that LaRouche is not running for President, they fear his
impact on the next Presidency, as much as they feared
FDR’s election in November 1932.
John Ascher, Richard Freeman, and Lonnie Wolfe contributed
research to this article.

Japan Ready To Release Massive Amounts of Fukushima Radiation Into Pacific

Fukushima Radioactive Ocean Impact Map – March 2012

Japan Wants To Release One Million Tons Of Contaminated Water From The Fukushima Disaster Into The Pacific

by


CleanTechnica maintains a Google document that lists all the stories available for our team of writers to write about. One column in that document categorizes the available stories by subject matter — renewables, fossil fuels, plastics, EVs, etc. It’s hard to say precisely where this story fits, so I have decided to classify it as news from the Insanity Desk. After the destruction of the Fukushima nuclear generating station by a tsunami in 2011, more than 1 million tons of water contaminated by radiation were stored onsite, waiting for someone to figure out what to do with it.

Now the Japanese government says it has decided to release the water — which is currently stored in more than a thousand steel tanks — into the Pacific Ocean, a process it says could take decades to complete. Local fishermen are aghast at the idea. Their livelihood was decimated by the original incident at the Fukushima facility. Who wants to buy fish that have been swimming around in nuclear waste? Now nine years later, after struggling to find markets for their seafood again, the government wants to hammer them one more time. The government says, “Not to worry, fisher persons.” It says it will address concerns that consumers will once again shun seafood from the area, whatever that means. That and ¥1,000 will get you a latte.

Alternative solutions include evaporation or the construction of more storage tanks at other locations. That second idea would involve transporting the polluted water from one site to another. What could possibly go wrong in that scenario, huh?

South Korea has banned sales of seafood harvested near Fukushima and has expressed strong concerns about the plan to dump that contaminated water into the ocean. It calls the plan a “grave threat” to the marine environment. Environmental groups also oppose the move, according to a report by The Guardian.

Is There Really An Environmental Threat?

Tepco, the Japanese utility company that owns the Fukushima facility, has developed what it calls its Advanced Liquid Processing System, which removes highly radioactive substances from the stored water. But the system is unable to filter out tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen that nuclear power plants routinely dilute and dump into the ocean. A panel of experts advising the government said earlier this year that releasing the water was among the most “realistic options.”

The members of the panel claim that tritium is only harmful to humans in very large doses, while the International Atomic Energy Agency says it is possible to dilute filtered waste water with seawater before it is released into the ocean. The water at the Fukushima facility will be diluted inside the plant before it is released so that it is 40 times less concentrated. That process that will take 30 years according to the Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper.

Pressure to decide the water’s fate has been building as storage space on the nuclear plant site runs out. Tepco estimates all available tanks will be full by the summer of 2022. As of last month, 1.23 million tons of water were being stored in 1,044 tanks, with the amount of waste water increasing by 170 tons a day. The water becomes contaminated when it mixes with other water used to prevent the three damaged reactor cores from melting.

Hiroshi Kishi, president of a nationwide federation of fisheries cooperatives, voiced opposition to the move in a meeting with the chief cabinet secretary, Katsunobu Kato, this week. Kato told reporters after the meeting that a decision on the water “should be made quickly” to avoid further delays in decommissioning the plant — a costly and complex operation that is expected to take around 40 years.

It’s About More Than Fishermen

Of course local fishermen should be concerned. Imagine if cesspool pumping companies told farmers they were going to dump their waste products on farmers’ fields but don’t worry — first we are going to dilute them by 40 times with clean water. Do you think those farmers would embrace the idea?

The issue is that the thirst for energy clouds the minds of otherwise rational people. Nuclear power is safe because accidents almost never happen — until they do. Drilling for oil and gas is safe because how much harm can one well do in the grand scheme of things? How much harm can the emissions from one Toyota Aygo do? How much harm can the phosphates and nitrogen put on a corn field in Iowa do? How much effect will the emissions associated with constructing a concrete office building in Nairobi do? How can the pollutants going up the smokestack of a single steel mill in Europe threaten the entire environment?

Humans look out at the vastness of the oceans and the skies and convince themselves that Nature is just too vast to ever be affected by human behavior. And besides, who wants to live in a world with no cars, no lights to drive away the darkness, no internet, and no air conditioning? What will people do with themselves if they don’t have ready access to cheap, abundant energy?

Apologists for nuclear energy argue it is mostly a boon to humanity and that the Chernobyls and Fukushimas are few and far between. The risk is manageable, they say. Apologists for the oil and gas industry crow about how they power the world economy, leaving aside the Deepwater Horizon and Exxon Valdez catastrophes as outliers. Same with leaking pipelines. They are just a cost of doing business, one that can be managed.

What about all those more than 100,000 abandoned wells that dot the American landscape? Joe Biden says that capping them will provide lots of jobs, which may be true, but why should taxpayers be stuck with the bill while the companies who drilled them declare bankruptcy and walk away Scot free? Does that make any sense?

What we need is a new consensus, one which recognizes that human action has global consequences. Our tiny blue lifeboat out at the far edge of the universe is not immune to human caused degradation. It needs to be protected from harm. Turning our eyes longingly to distant planets to rescue us from our own foolishness is short sighted in the extreme. Ours is not a throwaway planet, although we treat it as one. We desperately need a check up from the neck up — the old ways aren’t working any more and time to save ourselves from our own actions is rapidly running out.

Computer Repairman Turns In Hunter Biden Laptop To FBI…incriminating evidence cover-up?

“So a laptop with video of the candidate’s son smoking crack while having sex was left for repairs, but after that someone uploaded fake correspondence on the device?”Matt Taibbi  @mtaibbi

The Delaware computer repair shop owner who turned over the Apple Macbook Pro containing Hunter Biden’s emails, photos and (according to Rudy Giuliani) a sex tape featuring Hunter Biden and another woman has come out to the public in an interview with Fox News.

John Paul Mac Isaac told Fox News that he is legally blind, and therefore he “can’t be 100% sure” that the individual who dropped off the laptop was Hunter Biden. But when he was backing up the hard drive, he stumbled upon “disturbing” images, including “pornography”, that freaked him out. Apparently, although Isaac’s blindness prevented him from positively ID-ing Hunter Biden, it didn’t stop him from viewing the contents of the hard drive.

Although it was only April 2019 at this point, Joe Biden was already considered the front-runner for the Democratic nomination. Isaac quickly became frightened, and started to worry about shadowy figures “coming back” for the laptop. To be sure, Fox News reported that whether Hunter Biden was indeed the owner of the laptop “has yet to be substantiated”.

“I just don’t know what to say, or what I’m allowed to say,” Isaac said. “I know that I saw, I saw stuff. And I was concerned. I was concerned that somebody might want to come looking for this stuff eventually and I wanted it out of my shop.”

During the interview, Isaac rejected the notion that the laptop was an “attempt to set him up” (perhaps with hacked photos and emails implanted in the hard drive?).

The man whom Isaac believes to be Hunter Biden dropped off three laptops at his shop in April 2019, but only one was salvageable. Isaac said the customer never returned for the laptop, and, after being unable to get in touch with the customer, Isaac began looking through the contents of the hard drive. He searched the emails by keyword in June or July.

“If I’m somebody that has no journalistic ability, no detective ability or investigative ability and I was able to find stuff in a short period of time, somebody else should have been able to find something to show,” Isaac said.

Isaac contacted an “intermediary” about the laptop, and the intermediary then contacted the FBI. Isaac said the intermediary is somebody whom he has known “for decades”, and declined to identify him beyond saying he was an American citizen. According to Isaac, the FBI first made a forensic copy of the laptop, then returned a few weeks later with a subpoena and confiscated it. After he stopped hearing back from the FBI, Isaac said he contacted several members of Congress, who did not respond, at which point his intermediary reached out to Rudy Giuliani’s attorney, Robert Costello.

Interestingly, when Fox News contacted the US Attorney’s office in Delaware, a spokesperson said “My office can neither confirm nor deny the existence of an investigation.” This was after the New York Post published photos of the Delaware federal subpoena detailing the request for the laptop’s seizure.

The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, the same committee that released a recent report on Hunter Biden’s international business dealings, has confirmed that it is investigating this new leak.

Biden’s campaign insisted that there was no record of a meeting between Joe Biden and a Burisma executive, as described in one of the email chains reported by the post. However, his campaign has left room for the possibility that the two may have met briefly in an informal capacity.

When asked by Fox about his motives for turning over the emails, Isaac said the impeachment of President Trump by Nancy Pelosi and the House, along with the contemporary political climate, had inspired him.

The Original “New World Order” Plot, As Plainly Described By the Conspiracy’s Author–H.G. Wells

[Mr. Wells may have been a genius, but he was a diabolical genius…so devious, that he privately developed a “conspiracy of one”, as a seed to plant, which would grow rapidly, spreading like “kudzo“, until it covered the face of the earth.  The seed/idea (“meme“) was designed to spread subtly through repetition and peer pressure, until the idea became known to most people, at which point the peer pressure would be amplified by the power of the mob, under the guise of humanitarianism“, where it would eventually ignite the world revolution, which we see all around us today, until the mob could overwhelm the old order, and with it all authority derived from national identity, enabling the overrunning of all national borders by stampeding herds of deprived, hungry human refugees…the weaponizing of the poor (SEE: Camp of the Saints ).]

H.G. Wells Plots The World Empire by Michele Steinberg

In 1928, the leading British Round Table strategist, H.G. Wells, wrote The Open Conspiracy: Blue Prints for a World Revolution (New York: Doubleday, Doran and Company). The Open Conspiracy is Wells’ Mein Kampf —a recipe for how to establish a world government that would, over time, perhaps even over generations, recruit individuals and set up institutions to create a world “directorate” to run a “new world order.”Wells does not stand in opposition to fascism or communism, he merely sees these forms as experiments or immature expressions of the “new order” which will be replaced by his vision of the new order.

“The Open Conspiracy is not so much a socialism,” says Wells, “as a more comprehensive scheme that has eaten and assimilated whatever was digestible of its socialist forebears.” He even suggests that “young people” be incorporated into the Open Conspiracy through organizations like “the Italian fasci.”

No, Wells has one essential enemy that the Open Conpi-racy must destroy: that is, the sovereign nation-state. The goal of its destruction is his life’s work.

As Wells put it, “This is my religion …. This book states as plainly and clearly as possible the essential ideas of my life, the perspectives of my world. My other writings, with hardly an exception, explore, try over, illuminate, comment upon or flower out of the essential matter that I here attempt at last to strip bare to its foundations and state unmistakably. . . . Here are my directive aims and the criteria of all I do…. [It is] a scheme for all human requirements.”

End the nation-state forever, replacing it with a world government run by the “Atlantic” elite: “The Open Conspiracy rests upon a disrespect for nationality, and there is no reason why it should tolerate noxious or obstructive governments because they hold their own in this or that patch of human territory. It lies within the power of the Atlantic communities to impose peace upon the world and secure unimpeded movement and free speech from end to end of the earth.

“This is a fact on which the Open Conspiracy must insist.”

But, Wells cautions, the Open Conspiracy might have to make war in order to end war. He explains that the Open Conspiracy’s commitment to world peace and ending war does not mean an exclusion of soldiers, warriors, and military means. Rather, the question is to whom might these warriors be loyal. It may be necessary for the Open Conspiracy to use “enlightened” warriors: “From the outset, the Open Conspiracy will set its face against militarism . . . [but] the anticipatory repudiation of military service . . . need not necessarily involve a denial of the need of military action on behalf of the world commonweal, for the suppression of national brigandage, nor need it prevent the military training of members of the Open Conspiracy. . . . Our loyalty to our current government, we would intimate, is subject to its sane and adult behavior.”

• Control human population to a limit set by a “world directorate” created by this elite. The means to be used for this population control would be “science” (eugenics, sterilization, and birth control); and total economic control by the world “directorate” of all credit generation, and of all distribution of economic staples needed for human survival (food, water, and shelter).

The Open Conspiracy “turns to biology for. . . the regulation of quantity and a controlled distribution of human population of the world.” And without this degree of control, the human race is doomed. So instead of the General Welfare of the U.S. Constitution, Wells suggests a selective welfare where the world directorate eliminates population growth in order to perfect the race. This is not just a material necessity, explains Wells, but larger, for under the Open Conspiracy “[man] will not be left with his soul tangled, haunted by monstrous and irrational fears and a prey to malicious impulse. . . . He will feel better, will better, think better, see, taste, and hear better than men do now. All these things are plainly possible for him. They pass out of his tormented desire now, they elude and mock him, because chance, confusion, and squalor rule his life. All the gifts of destiny are overlaid and lost to him. He must still suspect and fear.”

• Eliminate forever the “illusion” that man is made in the image of God, and as such, has a capacity for the Good. Instead, Wells insists that man is an “imperfect animal”: jealous, rageful, easy to anger, and “not to be trusted in the dark.”

“Man is a malicious animal,” says Wells, with a “common disposition to be stupid, indolent, habitual and defensive.” In man, the creative impulses are weaker forces than “acute destructive ones.” Human nature is destructive, he insists, explaining: “To make is a long and wearisome business, with many arrests and disappointments, but to break gives an instant thrill. We all know something of the delight of the bang. Such impulses must be controlled by the world directorate.”

Wells, at one point, attempts to boil down his new religion to six “basic essential requirements”:

“1. The complete assertion, practical as well as theoretical, of the provisional nature of existing governments and of our acquiescence in them;

“2. The resolve to minimise by all available means the conflicts of these governments, their militant use of individuals and property and their interferences with the establishment of a world economic system;

“3. The determination to replace private local or national ownership of at least credit, transport, and staple production by a responsible world directorate serving the common ends of the race;

“4. The practical recognition of the necessity for world biological controls, for example, of population and disease;

“5. The support of a minimum standard of individual freedom and welfare in the world;

“6. The supreme duty of subordinating the personal life to the creation of a world directorate capable of these tasks and to the general advancement of human knowledge, capacity, and power.”

But the most telling of these “essentials” is the summation, in which Wells insists on an attack on the human soul, that quality that distinguishes human beings from beasts. He insists that all Open Conspirators embrace “the admission therewith that our immortality is conditional and lies in the race and not in our individual selves.”

Upon reading The Open Conspiracy, Bertrand Russell, the other leading British Round Table subversive, wrote to Wells, “I do not know of anything with which I agree more entirely.”

An Unbroken Continuity

The major target of Wells’ Open Conspiracy is “the United States and the States of Latin America,” where, Wells

explains, there is less of a “tangle of traditions and loyalties … of privileged classes and official patriots . . . than in the old European communities.”

Additionally, Wells is nothing if not a global thinker, and, in addition to the U.S., he sees Russia as a crucial target to be assimilated by the Open Conspiracy. At one point, he chuckles that, despite the Soviet Union’s formal commitment to the “proletariat,” the Open Conspiracy “may rule in Moscow before . . . New York.”

He sees America as uniquely important in the Open Conspiracy because of its growing economic strength. For Wells, the American System of economics, i.e., Hamiltonian economics, is the enemy of the Open Conspiracy, and the financier faction is its ally.

By 1928, Wells writes, “American industries no longer have any practical justification for protection, American finance would be happier without it,” but without the success of the Open Conspirators, this protectionism will simply go on and on.

There is no question that the institutions created by William Yandell Elliott and Robert Strausz-Hupe conform precisely to Wells’ “blueprints” for ending the American System that he found so offensive to his new religion. He instructed his current and future Co-Conspirators to further the “new religion.” He instructed:

“Through special ad hoc organizations, societies for the promotion of Research, for Research Defence, for World Indexing, for the translation of Scientific Papers, for the Diffusion of New Knowledge, the surplus energies of a great number of Open Conspirators can be directed to entirely creative ends and a new world organization” can be built up, superseding, but incorporating, “such dear old institutions as the Royal Society of London, the various European Academies of Science and the like, now overgrown and inadequate. . . .”

More broadly, in writing The Open Conspiracy, Wells set out to recruit a worldwide network of Open Conspirators, who would operate, within their national settings, on behalf of the global subversion of all nation-states, the “scientific” depopulation of the darker-skinned races of the planet, and the establishment of One World oligarchical domination, under Anglo-American leadership.

“The political work of the Open Conspiracy,” Wells writes, “must be conducted upon two levels and by entirely different methods. Its main political idea, its political strategy, is to weaken, efface, incorporate or supersede existing governments. . . . Because a country or a district is inconvenient as a division and destined to ultimate absorption in some more comprehensive and economical system of government, that is no reason why its administration should not be brought meanwhile into working co-operation with the development of the Open Conspiracy.”

But, Wells cautions, no one should be excluded from the Open Conspiracy, not for reasons of class, occupation, or nationality. Instead, “[T]he Open Conspiracy must be heterogeneous in origin. Young men and women may be collected into groups arranged upon lines not unlike those of the Bohemian Sokols or the Italian Fasci.. . .”

By the time the first edition of Wells’ Open Conspiracy bible had appeared, institutions like the Rhodes Trust, the Round Table, the British Fabian Society, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, and its New York City adjunct, the Council on Foreign Relations, were already engaged in the process of recruiting successive generations of agents, agents-of-influence, and agents provocateurs, to the One World banner. Wells’ The Open Conspiracy gave focus to the effort, stating bluntly the long-term objectives, and highlighting the critical importance of selecting and recruiting the best and the brightest, albeit corrupted, minds—what Wells called the “serious minority.”

Three-quarters of a century later, Wells’ “Open Conspiracy” is still trying to prevail.

VOLTAIRENET, OPEN CONSPIRACY

Saudi Hand-Puppet Saad Hariri Recants Recent Refusal To Serve Lebanon Again

Hariri Says He Isn’t Candidate to Form Lebanon Government–Sep 27, 2020

Ex-Lebanon PM Hariri says he is in the running to head new gov’t

Saad Hariri who resigned last year amid protests said he ‘will not close the door on the only hope left for Lebanon’.

The former premier stepped down under street pressure last year after mass protests erupted demanding the overhaul of a political class accused of being inept and corrupt [File: Piroschka Van De Wouw/Reuters]

Lebanon’s former Prime Minister Saad Hariri on Thursday said he was a possible candidate to head a new government to stem the country’s economic collapse after a massive port explosion.

French President Emmanuel Macron last month extracted a pledge from all political sides in the former French protectorate to back speedy government formation as part of a road map out of the crisis, but efforts so far have failed. Macron has said a reform-minded cabinet was essential if aid were to flow in to rebuild the country.

“I am definitely a candidate” to head the next government, Hariri said during a live interview on the MTV television channel.

“I will not close the door on the only hope left for Lebanon to stem this collapse,” he said.

The country is mired in its worst economic crunch in decades, and still reeling from a devastating explosion in Beirut on August 4.

The explosion of a massive stockpile of ammonium nitrate at Beirut’s only port killed some 200 people, wounded thousands more and ravaged buildings in surrounding residential neighbourhoods, leaving at least 300,000 people homeless.

President Michel Aoun is to hold parliamentary consultations on naming a new prime minister on Thursday next week.

Hariri said he was ready to start making phone calls during the coming week “if all political teams still agree on the programme” discussed with Macron.

The former prime minister stepped down under street pressure last year after mass protests erupted demanding the overhaul of a political class accused of being inept and corrupt.

The government that followed, headed by Hassan Diab, resigned in the wake of the Beirut blast.

The next prime minister-designate, Mustapha Adib, last month bowed out just weeks after being nominated, after his efforts to hammer out a cabinet were blocked by the country’s two main Shia political parties – Hezbollah and Amal – seeking to keep the finance ministry under their control.Forming a government can drag on for months in multi-confessional Lebanon, where a power-sharing agreement seeks to maintain a fragile balance between all sides.

But Hariri said all political sides had agreed with Macron, who visited Beirut twice in the wake of the blast, to set aside their differences for six months to save the country from further deterioration.

“Every political side can invent a problem to government formation,” Hariri said.

“But if the political parties really want to stem the collapse and rebuild Beirut, they must follow the French initiative,” he said.

The State of American Political Insanity–2020

A confrontation during the President’s visit to Kenosha, Wis., on Sept. 1

A confrontation during the President’s visit to Kenosha, Wis., on Sept. 1  Patience Zalanga for TIME

Alifetime ago, on Sept. 14, Greg Vanlandeghem sat outside a café in Holly, Mich., and explained to me that he planned to vote for the President’s re-election because he saw the race as a contest between two bad options. “We’ve got a guy trying not to die,” he told me, “and we’ve got Trump.”

The candidate Vanlandeghem described as “trying not to die” was Joe Biden, the 77-year-old former Vice President, who’s been dogged by right-wing attacks on his mental acuity. But now, the “guy trying not to die” might well be the 74-year-old President, who was being treated with supplemental oxygen and a battery of drugs after contracting COVID-19, a lethal virus that can cause everything from pneumonia to strokes to neurological impairment. Vanlandeghem, a 37-year-old home builder, is a social and fiscal conservative, but he didn’t vote for Trump four years ago and considers the President a “buffoon.” If anyone’s mind was going to be changed by Trump’s diagnosis, I thought perhaps it might be him.

Vanlandeghem was unfazed. “I think it’s unfortunate,” he said, after I called him back to ask his opinion on the latest updates. “But it’s something that a vast majority of the population is going to come down with at one point or another.” He still isn’t considering voting for Biden.

I wasn’t surprised. Once again, history was unfolding in Washington; once again, voters seemed to be reacting with a collective shrug. If there is one constant in this extraordinary presidential election, it’s that every time the political class declares that a news event will permanently reshape the race, it usually seems to evaporate into the ether. The President could be impeached for abuse of power, publicly muster white supremacists, tear-gas peaceful protesters for a photo op, pay less than his employees in taxes, declare that he’d refuse to accept the results of the election, hold a possible superspreader event at the White House–and millions of Americans will ignore it. To half of us, all this is an outrage; to the other half, none of it matters.

How voters are processing Trump’s behavior at this fractured moment may be the most important question of the 2020 election. But it’s a tricky one to answer in the midst of a pandemic that has turned the campaign into one interminable Zoom call. It’s hard to get a read on a race that has limited travel for both candidates and reporters, a contest with countless polls but few insights, lots of speeches but few crowds, plenty of talking heads but few ordinary voices. So in September, after recovering from COVID-19 myself, I spent three weeks driving across the battleground states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, trying to get a fix on what’s happening between the ears of the people most likely to determine the winner on Nov. 3.

The more people I met, the more I detected something deep and unpredictable lurking beneath the surface, something that I wasn’t sure was reflected in the polling data, something that maybe couldn’t even be measured at all. My phone was filling with news: news about wildfires engulfing the West Coast; news about Trump reportedly calling fallen soldiers “losers” and “suckers”; news about the death toll from COVID-19 passing 200,000; news of Trump’s admitting to journalist Bob Woodward on tape that he had intentionally downplayed the virus, purportedly to avoid causing a panic. But almost nobody seemed to be talking about these headlines, and when I asked about them, people often didn’t believe them or didn’t care. I felt caught in the chasm between the election as it was being reported by my colleagues in the press and the election as it was being experienced by the voters.

Most Trump voters I met had clear, well-articulated reasons for supporting him: he had lowered their taxes, appointed antiabortion judges, presided over a soaring stock market. These voters wielded their rationality as a shield: their goals were sound, and the President was achieving them, so didn’t it make sense to ignore the tweets, the controversies and the media frenzy?

But there was a darker strain. For every two people who offered a rational and informed reason for why they were supporting Biden or Trump, there was another–almost always a Trump supporter–who offered an explanation divorced from reality. You could call this persistent style of untethered reasoning “unlogic.” Unlogic is not ignorance or stupidity; it is reason distorted by suspicion and misinformation, an Orwellian state of mind that arranges itself around convenient fictions rather than established facts.

At its most acute, unlogic manifested as a belief in dangerous falsehoods, from the cult of QAnon to the conviction that COVID-19 is a hoax. But the milder forms of unlogic were more pervasive: believing that most reports about the President were fabricated by lying reporters (they aren’t) or that Biden is a socialist (he isn’t) or that the coronavirus is no worse than the flu, as Trump keeps insisting (it’s far more deadly). Unlogic erupted on the left after Trump’s COVID-19 diagnosis, with liberals online speculating that Trump is faking his illness (he isn’t).

With so many voters ignoring the headlines, it became increasingly hard to tell where most Americans fall on the continuum from reason to unlogic. In the absence of agreed-upon facts, the possibility of consensus itself seemed to be disappearing, and the effect was unsettling.

Most of the time, voters reacted to news events in ways that conformed to what they already believed. When I first met Eddie Kabacinski, a city-council member in Warren, Mich., in mid-September, he gestured to my mask and said, “So you’re saying the air that we breathe outside, there’s something wrong with that? That’s kind of like, you’re not all there.” I nodded and tugged my mask under my chin to appease him. “We need to get back to reality,” he added.

When I called Kabacinski back after Trump’s hospitalization, he was in the middle of a “MAGA drag,” a procession of cars waving Trump flags as they cruised down I-75 . “It does no good for our Commander in Chief to be showing cowardice and wearing a mask,” he told me. “He’s the President of the United States. Nobody has the right to question him.”

A Black Lives Matter supporter near the site where Jacob Blake was shot by police in Kenosha, Wis.

A Black Lives Matter supporter near the site where Jacob Blake was shot by police in Kenosha, Wis.  Patience Zalanga for TIME

Democracy, at least in theory, relies on a rational electorate acting in response to credible information. Since the dawn of mass media, elections have been shaped by voters’ reactions to the news. But as I drove through the three states that decided the 2016 election by a little less than 80,000 votes, I sensed a glitch in the information loop, like a scratch on an old-fashioned record. People kept repeating things that were false, and dismissing things that were true.

Over the course of three weeks, I spoke to nearly 200 people of all political persuasions. There were Biden diehards and Trump Republicans, tepid Democrats, old-fashioned conservatives, even the elusive undecided voter. I spoke to Wisconsinites in the conservative suburbs of Milwaukee and the streets of Kenosha, where the windows downtown were boarded up and spray-painted with phrases like “Love is the Answer” after nights of racial-justice protests; Michiganders in the swingy counties surrounding Detroit and in red-to-blue districts near Flint; Pennsylvanians in the suburbs around Pittsburgh and bellwether Luzerne County. I approached voters on sidewalks and in grocery stores and as they waited in line for restaurant tables. I was kicked out of Target parking lots and shopping malls. My diet consisted mostly of egg breakfasts, granola bars and dirty looks. I learned to say, “Hi there!” with an extra chirp, smiling with my voice since nobody could see my mouth behind my mask.

Much of the time, I got back into my white Ford rental with a pit in my stomach. Conspiracy theories like QAnon–the perverse delusion that Trump is the final defense against a “deep state” cabal of Democrats and Hollywood elite who traffic and rape children–kept cropping up in my conversations. Two women in Cedarburg, Wis., told me the “cabal” was running tunnels under the U.S. to traffic children so elites could torture them and drink their blood. When I checked into an airport hotel in Kalamazoo, Mich., the night manager made small talk about politicians running a pedophile ring as he directed me to the elevator.

The day after Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, I asked two women carrying Trump face masks in Mt. Lebanon, Pa., what they thought of the late Supreme Court Justice. They would only give me their first names, Kelly and Karen, because they did not trust the media. “I think we’ve been lied to: she died last year,” Kelly said. “I’m furloughed, so I have a lot of time to research things.” Karen added that they both watch OANN, a pro-Trump news network, because “I’m fed up with being blasted every day, people telling me how I should think, how I should feel.” OANN, Kelly added, is “like dry toast. They just give you the facts.”

As he returned his shopping cart after a trip to a Walmart in Sterling Heights, Mich., Michael Thomas, a 41-year-old who works in automotive-paint delivery, listed all the reasons he planned to vote for Trump again: he’s a Christian who opposes abortion and backs the Second Amendment. But also: “I believe in Q [and] Pizzagate,” he said, referring to the conspiracy theory that Democrats trafficked children out of the basement of a D.C. pizza parlor. Where does he find this information? He shrugged as he pulled out his keys.”The Internet,” he said simply.

The fact that a growing segment of the electorate has gone off the deep end is as much of a concern to many Republicans as it is to Democrats. “The only constant for a lot of voters has been ‘choose your own reality,’” says Tyler Brown, a former digital director for the Republican National Committee who is now president of Hadron Strategies. “Broadly speaking, Republican voters are less likely to accept what they read in the mainstream media on face value,” he adds. “I can see how that worldview can start to make people feel like they’re existing within two different realities.”

Kaitlin Martin, a 30-year-old nanny in Macomb County, Michigan, a politically purple region north of Detroit, was one of the few people I met who professed to be truly undecided about how to vote this year. She dislikes Trump: “I don’t respect someone who can be so unkind to people,” she says. On the other hand, she’s seen some things online that give her pause about Biden. “I don’t know what’s real and what’s photoshopped,” she said. “Is it dementia? Or is it his stutter? In a year or two, is he going to deteriorate? Now everybody is out there saying he’s a pedophile.” She’s not sure that she believes any of it.

All of these suspicions are like swirling clouds in a monster hurricane, tearing through the possibility of consensus in American democracy, chewing up the guardrails, ripping out the precedents; a hurricane going nowhere, with nothing at its center. The chaos and confusion can feel overwhelming, says Rolando Morales, a stay-at-home dad who’s retired from the medical-software industry, pausing on his way out of a Jimmy John’s sandwich shop in Racine, Wis. “You’re so sick of everything, you don’t know what to trust anymore,” he said. Morales voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016, and his wife and father-in-law are pro-Biden. But the violence over the summer in Kenosha made him wonder if he should vote for Trump. He doesn’t even know what to think anymore.

“It feels like there’s a new America being created, and I don’t know who’s cut out to deal with it,” he said. “We’ve headed somewhere different right now. And I don’t know where.”

A Trump supporter with a campaign flag turned out to see the President’s motorcade in Wisconsin

A Trump supporter with a campaign flag turned out to see the President’s motorcade in Wisconsin  Patience Zalanga for TIME

Distrust of the establishment has always existed in America; historian Richard Hofstadter famously called it “the paranoid style.” But now it’s amplified by social-media networks whose algorithms reward extremism, and championed by a misinformation warrior who happens to serve as the President of the United States. In a study of more than 38 million articles about the pandemic, researchers at Cornell University recently found that President Trump was the single biggest driver of false information about coronavirus. A major Harvard study released in October found that Trump had perfected the manipulation of mass media to spread false information about mail-in voting, and that the President was an even bigger source of disinformation than “Russian bots or Facebook clickbait artists.” No wonder, then, that so many Americans are caught in the confusion, unsure what to believe.

When I asked David Cracchiolo, a Michigan land developer, about a report in the Atlantic that Trump called American war dead “losers” and “suckers,” Cracchiolo explained it was “a complete lie”: “He didn’t say it.” Karen Martin, a registered nurse who works in Pittsburgh, said she was skeptical of all the “hype” around COVID-19. People die of the flu, too, she reminded me. “I think the media overblew a lot of it,” she said. Why else had her hospital been bracing for an influx of critically ill patients that never came?

When I called Martin back to ask about Trump’s health, she said the diagnosis changed nothing for her. “I don’t think you could really blame him,” she said. “I’m not sure what other precautions we could have been taking.”

“He’s clearly made some mistakes,” Tom Schettino said when I asked him about the President’s handling of the pandemic. Schettino and his wife Grace are senior citizens who have lost four friends to COVID-19, and they were wearing masks when I encountered them in a Wilkes-Barre, Pa., mall. “I don’t know if anyone could have done it better,” Schettino shrugged.

I called Schettino back recently to see if his thinking had changed. “It is what it is,” he said, inadvertently borrowing a phrase the President used to describe the pandemic’s death toll. “He’s probably not prudent doing all these rallies and stuff, but he’s gotta live with it, and hopefully it gets better.” He still plans to vote for Trump again in November because he opposes Democratic economic policies.

And then there is Greg Vanlandeghem. After Trump was inaugurated, “I prayed that he would say something unifying, be a leader, instead of being a spoiled brat,” he said. He was one of the rare people I spoke with who did, in fact, change his mind. When I called him back after the President’s diagnosis, he informed me that he no longer intended to vote for Trump–but not because of the frenzy around his COVID diagnosis. After watching his obnoxious antics at the first presidential debate, he had decided he probably wouldn’t bother voting at all. Still, he said, the President’s conduct “doesn’t really affect our lives as much as our government telling us to shut our business down for no reason or shelter in place.”

Trump opponents and supporters don’t just merely disagree on issues, many live in different realities

Trump opponents and supporters don’t just merely disagree on issues, many live in different realities  Patience Zalanga for TIME

Biden’s campaign is built on the opposite premise: that a President’s character is as important as his politics. Since launching his bid for the White House, the Democratic nominee has positioned himself as the antidote to Trumpian chaos, the steady leader who can guide the nation back to sanity and stability. His pledge to “restore the soul of America” promises a return to a time when Republicans and Democrats could be civil, even friendly, as they vigorously debated matters of great importance. The apple-pie vision did little to excite progressives enthralled with candidates like Senators Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, who promised “revolution” and “big structural change.” But while his primary opponents raced to the left to argue over who could change America faster, Biden won over the many voters at the end of their ropes. “I wish everything could go back to normal,” sighed Gwen Bogan, a Biden supporter shopping in the hardware aisle of a Walmart in North Milwaukee.

The polls kept showing Biden with a sturdy lead, but you wouldn’t know it from driving through the neighborhoods that make up Biden’s path to victory. Out in the battleground states, Biden’s statistical advantage seems muted compared to the ostentatious displays of Trumpian devotion. After four years of mobilizing grassroots armies that helped elect Democratic governors in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, and flip six House seats in those states, I expected to see more visible enthusiasm for Biden. Instead, everywhere I looked I saw Trump memorabilia: flags strapped to boats bobbing in Racine Harbor, trucks in Michigan parking lots with massive signs reading “Trump: No More Bullsh-t.” At a pro-Trump gathering in Kenosha, a week after the shooting of Jacob Blake, I saw a young woman, barely a teenager, in a T-shirt that read “Trump 2020: Because F-ck You.” I saw more Biden signs in one afternoon in Mt. Lebanon, Pa., than in eight days of driving through Michigan.

That’s partly because the Biden campaign, in a nod to public health, had until the final stretch focused almost entirely on digital organizing and phone banking instead of traditional canvassing. At two Biden events, I saw pro-Trump protesters show up with flags, while Biden supporters were few and far between. The Biden campaign says all this is intentional: they are seeking to keep events small to curtail transmission of the coronavirus. Only in the past week or so has the Biden campaign embraced on-the-ground campaigning, with teams of canvassers knocking doors in key states and a socially distanced crowd greeting Biden on a recent train trip through Pennsylvania.

But the battle for the nation’s future isn’t just about public shows of force from the rival campaigns. It’s playing out in intimate conversations all over the country, as Americans struggle to preserve what feels like an increasingly fragile union.

Jackie Brown and Josh Scott had been engaged for less than a day when they explained their diverging political views to me outside a Pennsylvania mall. Brown, who is Black, thought Trump was racist, sexist and erratic on foreign policy. “I think that Biden is a candidate who can work across the aisle,” she said. Scott, who is white, voted for Trump in 2016 and was considering voting for him again, because “I’m not for the social programs Biden has laid out,” which he thinks would require more taxes. The couple had been dating a year and a half; he proposed that morning.

After Brown, an attorney, rattled off her indictment of the Trump Administration–from the politicization of the Supreme Court to violations of the Hatch Act–I asked how their political conversations usually go. “Poorly,” Scott said, “but we respect each other’s opinions.” Brown looked at him sideways and, twisting the new ring around her finger, said, “He’s trying to convince me less than I’m trying to convince him.”

–With reporting by Leslie Dickstein and Simmone Shah

This appears in the October 19, 2020 issue of TIME.

Jewish Zealot Protesters Claim Cultural “Sensitivity” Should Exempt Them From Covid Emergency Restrictions


[It is the same way in the Middle East.]

Israel: Clashes erupt as police arrest ultra-Orthodox Jews who defied coronavirus rules

Amid COVID-19 spike in ultra-Orthodox areas, Jewish history may explain reluctance of some to restrictions

Joyce Dalsheim, Associate Professor of Global Studies, University of North Carolina – Charlotte

<span class="caption">COVID-19 has spiked in ultra-Orthodox Jewish parts of New York City.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="link rapid-noclick-resp" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/person-walks-through-the-brooklyn-neighborhood-of-borough-news-photo/1278637895?adppopup=true" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" data-ylk="slk:Spencer Platt/Getty Images">Spencer Platt/Getty Images</a></span>COVID-19 has spiked in ultra-Orthodox Jewish parts of New York City. Spencer Platt/Getty Images

spike in coronavirus cases in several Orthodox Jewish areas of New York has prompted state and city authorities to impose new localized restrictions aimed at halting the spread.

On Oct. 5, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced that nearly 100 public schools and 200 private schools in 20 ZIP codes – many of which have a large ultra-Orthodox population and have seen increased rates of positive test results of COVID-19 – would end in-person classes “temporarily.”

The move has sparked animosity among some Orthodox Jews, who claim that they are being unfairly singled out. It comes amid warnings from New York Mayor Bill de Blasio of further action to prevent the spread and follows earlier instances, including the breaking up a funeral for an Orthodox Jewish rabbi by police in Brooklyn on April 28.

Similar tensions have played out in Israel, where recent plans to implement a system to identify coronavirus hot spots met resistance from some ultra-Orthodox leaders, who suggested it was unfair to place restrictions on their communities while many secular Israelis have been gathering regularly to demonstrate against the government. Rather than loosen restrictions on the ultra-Orthodox community, the government tightened restrictions on demonstrations, resulting in additional tension between secular and ultra-Orthodox Israelis.

Most prominent rabbis around the world have supported government regulations intended to curb the spread of coronavirus, even if it means closing places of study and worship. But some observant Jewish communities in the United States and Israel have been reluctant to adopt social distancing.

Outsiders are often outraged when religious communities defy policies meant to protect the general public.

As an anthropologist who studies religion, politics, identity and conflict in Israel and Palestine, my research helps explain why some strictly observant Jewish communities disobey public health guidelines – and it’s more complicated than simply flouting the rules.

Who are Haredi Jews?

Ultra-Orthodox, or Haredi, Jewish communities are a diverse population, with varying spiritual and cultural practices. But they all follow Halacha, loosely translated as Jewish law.

As such, many do not share the same information sources that others take for granted. In accordance with the rulings of their rabbis, internet access, television broadcasts and certain cellphone functions are generally limited in strictly observant Jewish communities.

Maintaining their closeness to God by distancing themselves from the secular world prevented many Haredim from seeing news reports of the virus spreading worldwide in February and March.

 

Some Haredi leaders maintained that gathering to pray and study remained paramount. Studying the Hebrew scriptures, or Torah, is a commandment and a duty in Judaism. Haredi men generally gather to pray three times daily. Students at yeshivas, or Jewish seminaries, may spend 18 hours a day studying together.

More than a way of life, prayer and study are believed to be the means for protecting life itself. According to Jewish sages, “One who engages in Torah study also protects the entire world.” Indeed, “without Torah the world falls.”

The importance of engaging with the Torah explains why one prominent rabbi in Israel insisted in March that “canceling Torah study is more dangerous than the coronavirus.”

Ultimately, the Israeli government intervened to enforce its coronavirus restrictions. On March 22, police were sent into Me’a She’arim, a Haredi neighborhood in Jerusalem, to end public gatherings, close synagogues and shutter schools.

They were met with curses, slurs and thrown stones. Some Haredim even called the Israeli police “Nazis.”

Collective memory

While such responses might seem extreme to outsiders, they become clearer when considering Jewish history and the memories provoked by police intervention.

Anthropological research demonstrates that people give meaning to their experiences in different ways. Our perception, imagination and actions are deeply embedded in the whole of our experiences. The past – whether individually experienced or collectively nourished by the community – gives meaning to the present.

Henri Bergson, a French philosopher, used the term “duration” to explain how the past shifts to show itself in ways that appeal to current experiences in different ways for different people.

In times of crisis like the coronavirus pandemic, this sense of duration becomes more acute.

For some, hospital tents erected in public places evoke World War I. A Holocaust survivor recently told me the stay-at-home order brought back memories of her childhood years of confinement hiding from the Nazis. One New Orleans resident found that the “flood” of coronavirus deaths recalled Hurricane Katrina.

Duration as personal memory is central to an individual’s sense of self, but it arises in collective memories, too.

Collective memory, including the stories we all tell ourselves and our children about our past, gives meaning and purpose to our collective selves. These stories recount struggles and triumphs and help define our moral community.

Duration interacts with collective memory, and is key to the formation of group identity.

History of persecution

The historical persecution of Jews around the world is central to both secular and strictly observant Jews. However, how that memory works in contemporary circumstances is not predetermined. My research demonstrates that different aspects of the past inform collective meaning and actions differently.

Unlike most Israelis – who see Jewish history as a justification for the state of Israel and understand the Israeli army and police as existing to protect them – some Israeli Haredim distrust the government and its functionaries.

In fact, Haredi Jews, who make up about 10% of Israel’s population, are foundationally opposed to Zionism, the political ideology of Jewish nationalism that led to the establishment of Israel in 1948.

While Haredi Jews believe that God promised the land of Israel to the Jewish people, they are also certain that promise cannot be fulfilled by human intervention in God’s work, such as the establishment of a nation state. They have previously clashed with the Israeli government and law enforcement over compulsory military service and other policies.

 

Suspicion of police

So when armed men in uniform entered their neighborhoods to close down synagogues and yeshivas, members of the Haredi community drew on their collective memories of soldiers and police wreaking havoc and destruction on Jewish communities in czarist Russia and later in Western Europe. Rather than feeling protected by the state, they were fearful and suspicious.

Suspicion of the police is common in other communities historically mistreated by law enforcement. The collective memories of both Black Americans and the Roma of Europe, for example, associate police with violence and danger.

When facing a crisis like the coronavirus, many people rely primarily on science, technology and governments for protection. And the Haredim do not reject science or medicine.

But for them, living the Torah life through daily study and prayer is the primary means by which all human life is maintained and preserved. When the political order interferes with their work, the consequences could be more disastrous than a pandemic. It could mean the end of Jewish life, if not humanity itself.

This article is an updated version of a story that was published on April 27.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts.

Chevron Buys Noble Energy Assets, Shuts-Off Leviathan Gas To Israel

[SEE: Leviathan ]

After Acquiring Noble Energy, Chevron Shuts Off the Gas to Israel, Demands Higher Prices

Netanyahu said their entrance was “tremendous revolution in the supply of energy to the State of Israel” and “will bring billions, tens of billions and perhaps hundreds of billions of shekels to you, the citizens of Israel.” Israeli Energy Minister Yuval Steinitz said, “The entry of the global energy giant is great news for the Israeli economy and opens up opportunities for investment in the high-tech and startups in the energy sector.”

Advertisement



Unfortunately, one of Chevron’s first moves in the Israeli market was to turn off the flow of gas to the Israel Electric Company (IEC) on Tuesday and demand much higher prices.

A bit more of a revelation than a revolution.

In 2012, the IEC agreed to pay $6.30 per BTU for the offshore gas from the Tamar gas field, but over the intermitting years, new agreements were made and the prices for gas dropped to $3.75 per BTU (according to a Globes report, the agreement was to sell for 10% less than the Leviathan price). The latest agreements were made with Isramco, Dor Gas, Tamar Petroleum and other partners, who have combined 53% control of the Tamar gas field, according to a TheMarker report.

Chevron and Delek, the remaining partners, refuse to honor that agreement. Noble Energy and Delek had unsuccessfully tried to block the deal for the past year.

In February, with the start of the Coronavirus crisis, natural gas prices dropped and the IEC imported liquefied natural gas (LNG) on the spot market, for an average $3.5 BTU. The pandemic also caused Noble Energy’s stock to crash which helped Chevron’s acquisition of the company.

Currently, global natural gas prices are approximately $2.60.

Chevron informed the Israel Electric Company that the they were cancelling the last price agreement, and were demanding the full 2012 price.

To leave the IEC with no alternative, Chevron also shut off the flow of gas to Israel from the Tamar gas field.

Without any other immediate options for gas to run the country’s electric generators, IEC switched over to buying gas from the Leviathan gas field at the higher price of $4.79.

It just so happens that Chevron and Delek control 85% of the Leviathan rights, so by the IEC moving over to Leviathan at its higher prices, they’ve already doubled the profits for Chevron and Delek.

Israel’s offshore drilling sites and gas finds. Credit: Noble Energy

The IEC is contractually required to buy 1.75 BCM from the Tamar gas field in 2020, and has so far purchased 1.5 BCM. The IEC now plans to buy only the minimum (0.25 BCM) from the Tamar field until the end of the year, and will look for other sources and contracts for gas for the rest of its needs (3 BCM), according to TheMarker.

As an aside, Chevron holds a 35% stake in Cyprus’s offshore Aphrodite gas field, Delek holds 30%, another 35% is held by Royal Dutch Shell. Netanyahu and Steinitz are hoping that Chevron will expand Israel’s reach into the global market via a pipeline to Europe (which may now be effectively controlled by Chevron).

The Israel Competition Authority had recently ruled that Isramco and Tamar Petroleum could make separate deals with the IEC from Noble (Chevron) and Delek, after they complained that Noble (Chevron) and Delek were blocking the the Tamar deal to halt competition, according to Globes.

But Deputy Attorney General Meir Levine declared that Chevron has veto rights over new contracts on the Tamar field until the end of 2021. While the IEC says that Chevron has no right to shut off the flow of gas to Israel, and they plan to turn to the courts.

Isramco and Tamar Petroleum have also demanded the Tamar gas flow be turned back on and accused Chevron and Delek of monopolistic practices and a conflict of interest to direct business to their more lucrative Leviathan holdings.

Chevron’s entry is definitely a game changer, just not the one that Netanyahu and Steinitz expected.

A Vote For Biden Is A Vote For More War

As our (un)civil war escalates towards the real thing, America is in throes of unrest unlike any in our 244-year history

In backing Biden, the leftist ‘resistance’ to Trump is perpetuating illegal US invasions & wars, & handing victory to the neocons

Michael Rectenwald
Michael Rectenwald is an author of ten books, including the most recent, Beyond Woke. He was Professor of Liberal Arts at NYU from 2008 through 2019. Follow him on Twitter @TheAntiPCProf
In backing Biden, the leftist ‘resistance’ to Trump is perpetuating illegal US invasions & wars, & handing victory to the neocons
Trump calls the Iraqi invasion ‘a disaster,’ wants to end ‘endless wars,’ and bring US troops home. It’s this that has fueled the deep state’s attempts to remove him from office by any means possible. The hawks want Biden to win.

In a recent op-ed on RT, I outlined the puzzling and ironic configuration that is the anti-Trump ‘resistance.’ But I didn’t explore one important ‘interest group’ within a ‘deep state’ intent on destroying Trump’s presidency at all costs—namely, the neocon hawks of both major political parties and the military and intelligence establishments that defy strict party affiliation.

This contingent includes members of top military brass and intelligence officers, of course, but also military and intelligence contractors, including those employed by the permanent bureaucracy to foil Trump’s first run for the presidency by attempting to tie him to “Russian collusion.”

Condemn Trump all you want. It’s quite fashionable and facile to do so. The penchant has long since leaked across the Atlantic via the US and international media establishments. But critics must be either uninformed or disingenuous to liken Trump to Hitler. Hitler was, after all, a fascist strong man and supremacist intent on militarism and world expansionism. And Trump is nothing of the sort.

The Trump Doctrine

Quite the contrary, Trump wants no part of expansionism. He has insisted that he deplores the endless wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan. Trump has been removing troops from both regions since his presidency began. And he’s reportedly been foiled in efforts for a complete withdrawal by his generals. But now he may be prepared to flout their prerogatives and take matters into his own hands, if given a second term.

While Trump touts a strengthened military, the Trump Doctrine involves a particular brand of populist American nationalism. This includes a foreign policy stemming from 19th-century Republican politics. Those who have subscribed to this political position have been traditionally non-interventionist, while demanding that a premium be laid on national self-determination, the protection of national sovereignty via strong borders, and the promotion of national self-interest over international or global entanglements.

Trump has suggested that the military brass wants to start wars to enrich military contractors.

The hue and cry coming from the political establishment over Trump’s foreign military policy is a thin scrim to cover for the interests of the military industrial complex. And the interests of the military industrial complex are for its own expansion and the profits that derive from it

Why the hawks want Biden

Trump’s foreign policy on the limited use of military force runs counter to those of the Bush-Cheney and Obama-Biden administrations. Both of these followed the orders of neocon hawks. Shocking his left-wing base, Obama retained many of Bush’s top cabinet members, including war hawk Defense Secretary Robert Gates. And, of course, then-Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) voted in favor of and championed the invasion of Iraq in 2002.

The Obama administration not only continued the Bush campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, it extended them with record-breaking bombings in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, and Libya. Recall that it was Obama who murdered, via a drone bomb, sixteen-year-old US citizen Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. Abdulrahman was the son of alleged al-Qaeda fighter (and American citizen) Anwar Awlaki, who Obama had bombed two weeks earlier, in Yemen. In fairness it must be noted that a US raid in Yemen resulted in the death of Abdulrahman’s 8-year-old sister in 2017.  But it was Obama who exploded the conflict in Yemen.

The Obama-Biden international adventurism extended to the invasion of Libya and the assassination of Muammar Gaddafi, an escapade that destabilized that country and led directly to the arming of jihadists. Under Obama, the Pentagon and CIA directly armed and trained Syrian “rebels” fighting Bashar Assad, many of whom then grew into the ISIS caliphate. A 2016 iconic headline in the Los Angeles Times said it all: “In Syria, militias armed by the Pentagon fight those armed by the CIA.” It is interesting to note that it was Trump who ended the CIA’s training of the so-called “moderate” Syrian rebels whose intent was the toppling Assad’s government.

Obama was elected in 2008 on his promise to end Bush’s war in Iraq, a conflict he said he opposed from the outset. Instead, Obama and his war hawks expanded this war and added several others. And all of this after Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (for no apparent reason) in 2009.

The military escalation under Obama-Biden surely explains the deep state’s preference for Biden over Trump. But what about the voters? In opposing Trump and favouring Biden, the leftist ‘resistance’ is supporting the continuation of dodgy and illegal US invasions and endless wars. An achievement to be proud of. On the other hand, voters who support non-intervention and troop withdrawal favour the Republican, Donald Trump.

So, tell me again: who’s ‘left’ and who’s ‘right’ in this US presidential election?

DNI Declassifies CIA Memo On Reported Hillary/Brennan Sabotage Plan For Incoming Trump Administration

[CIA told Obama of claim Hillary Clinton conjured Trump-Russia scandal: spy chief;Hillary Clinton says Joe Biden should not concede on election night]

Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe has declassified notes taken by former CIA Director John Brennan along with a CIA memo from 2016, citing intelligence claiming Hillary Clinton approved of an alleged plot by her campaign to accuse then-candidate Donald Trump of collusion with Russia in order to distract from her email scandal ahead of the election.

Last week, Ratcliffe wrote a letter informing Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), “In late July 2016, U.S. intelligence agencies obtained insight into Russian intelligence analysis alleging that U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had approved a campaign plan to stir up a scandal against U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump by tying him to [Russian President Vladimir] Putin and the Russians’ hacking of the Democratic National Committee.”

Ratcliffe noted, “The IC does not know the accuracy of this allegation or the extent to which the Russian intelligence analysis may reflect exaggeration or fabrication.”

As TheBlaze previously reported:

Ratcliffe went on to say that former Central Intelligence Agency Director John Brennan briefed former President Barack Obama on the claims garnered from Russian intelligence. Those claims were also forwarded to then-FBI Director James Comey and then-Deputy Assistant Director of Counterintelligence Peter Strzok.

On Tuesday, Ratcliffe provided documentation to back up his letter, releasing a heavily redacted CIA memo from September 2016 addressed to Strzok, which describes “an exchange … discussing U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s approval of a plan concerning U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering U.S. elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.”

Formal CIA Referral To FBI … by The Federalist

The DNI also released notes taken by Brennan, who was CIA director at the time, showing he jotted, “Cite alleged approval by Hillary Clinton (on 28 July) on proposal from one of her foreign policy advisors to villify (sic) Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service.”

Brennan also wrote “any evidence of collaboration between Trump campaign & Russia,” in a bullet point next to where he had written “POTUS” in the margin.

According to an exclusive report from Fox News, “A source familiar with the documents explained that Brennan’s handwritten notes were taken after briefing Obama on the matter.”

The outlet pointed out that much of “the notes are redacted, except in the margins, which reads: ‘JC,’ ‘Denis,’ and ‘Susan,'” adding, “The notes don’t spell out the full names but ‘JC’ could be referring to then-FBI Director James Comey, ‘Susan’ could refer to National Security Adviser Susan Rice, and ‘Denis’ could refer to Obama chief of staff Denis McDonough.”

Following Ratcliffe’s letter to Graham last week, a Clinton spokesperson called the Russian intelligence claims “baseless bulls**t.”

But Racliffe told Fox on Tuesday, “To be clear, this is not Russian disinformation and has not been assessed as such by the Intelligence Community. I’ll be briefing Congress on the sensitive sources and methods by which it was obtained in the coming days.”

India, A Truly Racist State Which Classifies “Blacks” (Dalits) As “NON-HUMANS”

[One fact is certain…there were NO “George Floyd protests” in India.]

[ India Officially A Racist State For Treating Dalits As “Sub-human” “Untouchables”;

Life In the Racist Hindu State–For Dalits, Who Are Considered Less Than Human ]

[SEE: DALITS, Untouchables]

Raped to death: 4 upper caste men arrested in alleged gang rape of Dalit woman in India

Associated Press
Shiv Sena party youth wing activists hold posters of Uttar Pradesh state Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, his eyes covered with a face mask, during a protest condemning the alleged gang rape and killing of a Dalit woman, in Mumbai, India, Oct. 3, 2020.

NEW DELHI – Hundreds of protesters demanded the dismissal of the government of a northern Indian state where a 19-year-old woman from the country’s lowest caste was allegedly gang raped and later died in a hospital.

The demonstrators on Friday shouted “Hang the rapists” and “First raped by devils, then by the system” as they gathered near Parliament in New Delhi.

Police have said they have arrested four suspects, all from an upper caste.

The protesters, including Bollywood actress Swara Bhaskar, said police in the Uttar Pradesh state government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party cordoned off the family’s village.

An activist holds a placard reading "Hang the rapists" during a protest against the gang rape and killing of a Dalit (lowest caste) woman in India's northern state of Uttar Pradesh, in Hyderabad, India, Friday, Oct. 2, 2020.

A leader of the main opposition Congress party, Priyanka Gandhi, said at a prayer meeting at a temple in New Delhi on Friday that blocking off the village was an injustice to the family and showed that the state is unsafe for women.

Protesters accused authorities of trying to hush up the crime.

The state government suspended five police officer for alleged negligence in their handling of the investigation of the case, said Awanish Kumar Awasthi, a top state official.

Awasthi also said the police officers, the four suspects in the case and the victim’s family will also undergo lie-detector tests as part of investigation.

Indian television news channels on Friday showed journalists being refused entry to the village by many police officers. One posted outside the village said the media would be allowed in after the investigation into the case is completed.

Bhaskar said the hasty cremation of the victim’s body without the family’s approval showed the callousness by the state government. She demanded the dismissal of Yogi Adiyanath, the state’s top elected official.

The victim was cremated early Wednesday, with the family alleging that police did not allow them to perform her final rites. Videos on social media showed the family weeping as police insisted on cremating the body without allowing them to take it home.Priyanka Gandhi said she was prevented by police from visiting the family on Thursday with her brother, Rahul Gandhi.

Dalits – formerly known as “untouchables” and at the bottom of India’s Hindu caste hierarchy – are victims of thousands of attacks each year. According to human rights organizations, Dalit women are particularly vulnerable to caste-based discrimination and sexual violence.

In India, rape and sexual violence have been under the spotlight since the 2012 gang rape and killing of a 23-year-old student on a New Delhi bus. The attack galvanized massive protests and inspired lawmakers to order the creation of fast-track courts dedicated to rape cases and stiffen penalties for those convicted of the crime.

An activist holds a placard reading "No Racists No Rapists" during a protest against the gang rape and killing of a woman in India's northern state of Uttar Pradesh, in Hyderabad, India, Friday, Oct. 2, 2020.
An activist holds a placard reading “No racists, No Rapists” during a protest against the gang rape and killing of a woman in India’s northern state of Uttar Pradesh in Hyderabad, India, Friday, Oct. 2, 2020. Mahesh Kumar A, AP

Is Trump’s Covid the Real “October Surprise”, President Pelosi, Or, President Pompeo?

[SEE: ‘Continuity of Government’ Planning: War, Terror and the Supplanting of the U.S. Constitution ; If COVID incapacitates Trump, the 25th Amendment kicks in ; Continuity of Government – 2020 ]

The Real Nightmare Scenario: A Sick Mike Pence

The U.S. government knows how to handle an incapacitated commander in chief, but has no idea how to deal with a very sick vice president.

Vice President Mike Pence and President Donald Trump at a White House coronavirus briefing.

ACovid-19 outbreak inside the White House brings into sharp relief the literal nightmare scenarios that constitutional and presidential scholars have warned about for decades. What happens if Donald Trump is sick or incapacitated and unable to fulfill the duties of the presidency? And what happens if both Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence get sick? Who takes over then?

Most Americans—if they think of presidential succession at all—probably assume that the government has clarified and settled the questions of who takes over at the White House in crisis situations. But there are two major problems with U.S. executive succession rules that inject enormous uncertainty: First, while the 25th Amendment neatly covers what happens if the president resigns, dies or falls sick in office, it says nothing about a sick or incapacitated vice president—a problem that led Dick Cheney to write a secret resignation letter and have his White House lawyer hide it away in case his heart problems ever left him unable to function as vice president.

Second—and more problematic for a scenario where Nancy Pelosi is second in line to the presidency—the presidential succession plan laid out by Congress is legally murky and might actually be unconstitutional. Today, it remains an open debate whether the House speaker is actually eligible to succeed to the presidency.

All this is to say that, while the news that Trump has tested positive and is showing symptoms of Covid-19 is worrisome, true fear about the future of the Republic shouldn’t settle in until either the vice president falls ill or the vice president takes over. Both these scenarios could lead to potential power struggles and fraught questions about whom military and government officials should be listening to.

We’re obviously a long way from Trump being unable to fulfill the duties of the presidency, and Pence and his wife have now tested negative for Covid-19—his separate travel schedule this week makes it seem likely that he’s dodged whatever disease vector has already sickened Hope Hicks, Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump. But any future questions about the vice president’s health might mean the nation would be in for a rocky time.

Given the current makeup of the executive branch, it’s not hard to imagine a scenario in which Secretary of State Mike Pompeo might, with the help of an aggressive attorney general, William Barr, challenge any attempt by Nancy Pelosi to ascend to the presidency if both Trump and Pence are incapacitated by Covid-19—perhaps even preemptively putting out a legal opinion that Pompeo is legally next in line for the acting presidency.

Could Nancy Pelosi assume the acting presidency and fire Barr to get her own contrary legal opinion? Would Barr treat such an order as legitimate? Would the Supreme Court weigh in? How those questions would be answered would almost certainly hinge less on actual legal fights and more on vague public sentiments—questions such as whether the president or vice president looks likely to recover.

“The nation could thus be deeply divided, in a hard-to-resolve way, on the very basic question: Who is the (acting) president of the United States?” legal scholars Jack Goldsmith and Ben Miller-Gootnick wrote back in March at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic.

The 25th Amendment was a product of the Cold War, a desire to bring clarity to presidential succession as nuclear missiles collapsed time and space such that American government needed to know minute-by-minute who was eligible to succeed to the presidency. Until it was ratified in the late 1960s, in fact, the presidential line of succession had been a strange amalgamation of informal secret letters, confusing and shifting congressional legislation, and a seemingly unintentional misinterpretation of the Constitution itself.

Even when the Founders sat down to debate presidential succession, it wasn’t an academic argument. In an era when daily life was much more uncertain and hazard-filled, colonial governors had a track record of high mortality—nearly a third had died in office. Who should take over in the event of a president’s death? Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania originally argued for the chief justice of the Supreme Court, while others pushed for the president of the Senate; however, both proposals seemed to the Founders to inappropriately mix the branches of government. The heir to the executive should come from the executive branch, so a late suggestion came to establish the “Vice-President,” who would be elected in the same manner as the president, while also serving as the president of the Senate on a day-to-day basis.

After the vice president, U.S. law later laid out only the House speaker and the president pro tempore of the Senate in the line of succession for most of America’s first century—a period when four presidents and five vice presidents died in office. It was a thin bench for the highest office in the land. Moreover, there was no mechanism at all for dealing with a sick or incapacitated president, so for more than a hundred years, the United States dodged constitutional crises only through luck and chance. Sixteen different times—a period totaling nearly 38 years—in the country’s first nearly 200 years, the U.S. had been without a vice president. Seven of the first 34 presidents—one out of five—suffered some period of incapacitation, during which time there wasn’t really anyone technically able to execute the powers of the presidency.

When, in 1841, William Henry Harrison became the first president to die in office, a spirited debate unfurled in Washington over whether Vice President John Tyler actually assumed the presidential office or merely the duties and power therein. John Quincy Adams, himself a former president and in 1841 a member of Congress, believed that Tyler was merely the “Acting President” or “Vice President, Acting as President.” Tyler moved into the White House and, despite ongoing attacks from his political opponents who would refer to him as “Your Accidency,” he was never seriously challenged as president; for years to come, though, he would return unopened any mail that came to the White House addressed to “Acting President” or “Vice President Tyler.”

The odd thing, Constitutional scholars now agree, is that Tyler was almost certainly wrong about becoming president. Little was known in the 1840s about the debates that went on during the Constitutional Convention—Madison’s notes from the debates, for instance, were only published for the first time in 1840, and the first major scholarly review of the Convention wasn’t published until 1911. But subsequent study has shown that the Founders clearly intended for the vice president to merely “act” as president during a vacancy or incapacity. At least three other sections of the Constitution actually refer specifically to the vice president only acting as president. The only way the Founders ever intended for someone to become president was to be elected by the nation; anyone else would merely be “acting.” Yet Tyler’s precedent would guide the nation for the next 120 years. No one questioned the “president” title when Andrew Johnson took over from Abraham Lincoln’s assassination or when Calvin Coolidge took over after President Warren G. Harding’s death from a heart attack.

Picking a successor for vice president was trickier—and many times impossible. Through the 19th century, Congress elected the speaker and Senate president pro tem only while the body was in session, meaning that those posts sat vacant through the long periods of congressional recess. When Grover Cleveland’s vice president, Thomas Hendricks, died in 1885, Congress was out of session, and had anything happened to Cleveland, no one knew who would become president. Presidential aides were so concerned that they recommended Cleveland not even travel to Indiana to attend Hendricks’ funeral. That potential crisis finally nudged Congress to act, and in 1886 it added Cabinet members to the line of succession ahead of the congressional leaders.

Harry Truman, 60 years later, tried to reverse that, arguing that the speaker of the House has the closest thing to a national electoral mandate after the elected president. As a result, in 1947 Congress passed a law that outlined the modern succession line—the vice president, the speaker, the Senate president pro tem, and the Cabinet secretaries in descending order of their department’s founding (leading to today’s quirk that the Department of Homeland Security, one of the officials most versed in national security, is actually dead last in succession, although acting Secretary Chad Wolf is ineligible for the presidency since he’s not a Senate-confirmed secretary).

Beyond just a clear line of succession, the presidency after Truman made clear that the U.S. government needed to wrestle with presidential illness or incapacity too. Dwight D. Eisenhower was hospitalized for seven weeks after a 1955 heart attack amid the height of the Cold War. “It was not until two weeks after the heart attack that the tension in Washington was eased,” then-Vice President Richard M. Nixon recalled years later. “The ever-present possibility of an attack on the United States was always hanging over us. Would the President be well enough to make a decision? If not, who had the authority to push the button?” The next year, Eisenhower had urgent intestinal surgery, as most of the nation slept, from 2:30 a.m. to 4:35 a.m., an experience that left Nixon worried. “On several occasions afterwards, he pointed out to me that for the two hours he was under anesthesia, the country was without a Chief Executive, the armed forces without a Commander-in-Chief,” Nixon wrote later. “In the event of a national emergency during those two hours, who would have had the undisputed authority to act for a completely disabled President?” Then, amid the high-stress weeks of the Cold War following the launch of Sputnik, Eisenhower in November 1957 suffered a minor stroke that left him disoriented and his speech slurred.

Eisenhower’s answer was an informal agreement, hidden from the American people and unknown until decades later: In February 1958, he summoned Nixon and Attorney General William Rogers to the Oval Office and handed them a four-page letter outlining conditions under which the vice president could assume the powers of the presidency. He distributed just three copies—one to Nixon, one to Rogers and one to the secretary of State. He wrote that Nixon “after such consultations as seems to him appropriate” could just assume the powers of the presidency if Ike seemed unable to function. It was a wild, extra-constitutional arrangement—one that cried out for a more formal process in the age of nuclear weapons. In the years ahead, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson both wrote similar letters, a system that would work only as long as there was total trust between a president and a vice president. Otherwise, it was a literal recipe for a coup.

The letter of agreement between Kennedy and Johnson read, in part, “The Vice President agrees to serve as Acting President ‘after such consultation as seems to him appropriate under the circumstances’” and allowed the vice president to operate “with a free mind that this is what the President intended in the event of a crisis.” JFK’s assassination raised new problems and concerns (what if JFK had lain comatose after being shot, rather than dying immediately?) and left Johnson without a vice president for 1964. Through the end of that presidential term, House Speaker John McCormack kept in his Capitol office safe a secret two-page agreement that he and LBJ signed together on December 23, 1963, outlining when he could take over the presidency if Johnson fell ill or was otherwise incapacitated. “It is outside the law,” McCormack said later, “but it was the only thing that could be done under the circumstances.”

Finally, Congress moved on the 25th Amendment, which created the first-ever mechanism for replacing a vice president in the event of resignation, death or vacancy and created the first-ever system for dealing with presidential incapacity or illness. It arrived just in time: The resignation in 1973 of Nixon’s vice president, Spiro Agnew, amid the Watergate scandal was the first use of the 25th Amendment, allowing Gerald Ford to be nominated and confirmed by Congress as vice president—and later to succeed to the office and nominate his own vice president. It made Ford the first American ever to become president without being elected to either the presidency or vice presidency.

And yet there are two major holes still in the 25th Amendment and the related Presidential Succession Act that, at least until now, have remained only abstract and esoteric questions for presidential and constitutional scholars.

Dick Cheney himself figured out the first problem in the 25th Amendment itself: There is literally no mechanism for removing an incapacitated vice president from the line of succession. As Cheney—whose heart problems were well-documented—took office in 2001, he kept thinking about Woodrow Wilson, whose stroke had left him incapacitated for the final year and a half of his presidency and left his wife secretly managing the nation’s affairs. “I knew how important it was to ensure we had a plan in place for leadership succession and survival,” Cheney wrote later. “We had a duty to make sure an enemy attack could not result in decapitation of our government.”

For the Cheneys in the vice presidential mansion at the Naval Observatory, a vice presidential vacancy wasn’t too much of a thought exercise: One of Lynne Cheney’s novels, The Body Politic, published in 1988, had focused on the death of a vice president that the White House chose to cover up on the eve of critical primaries—setting up a Weekend at Bernie’s-style satire that followed the staff trying to ensure that no one noticed the vice president’s death.

To ensure that his own health problems wouldn’t leave the nation without an able vice president, Dick Cheney wrote a secret letter of resignation, dated March 28, 2001, and addressed it to the secretary of state—not unlike the letters that Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson had penned before the existence of the 25th Amendment. Sitting in his office two months after his inauguration, Cheney attached a cover letter to his resignation addressed to his legal counsel, “Dave Addington—you are to present the attached document to President George W. Bush if the need ever arises. — Richard B. Cheney.” He handed the letters to Addington with a cautionary speech: “I won’t give specific instructions about when this letter should be triggered, but you need to understand something. This is not your decision to make. This is not Lynne’s decision to make. The only thing you are to do, if I become incapacitated, is get this letter out and give it to the president. It’s his decision, and his alone, whether he delivers it to the secretary of state.”

Addington slipped the resignation letter inside two manila envelopes, and hid it in a dresser drawer at his home—where it would be safe, even from a crisis that destroyed the White House. Cheney told Bush what he’d done and that Addington had the letter, if the need ever arose. Other than that, their plan remained secret throughout the presidency.

There’s still no more formal mechanism for an incapacitated vice president. Did Joe Biden write a similar letter as Barack Obama’s vice president? Has Mike Pence filed away such a letter? If he hasn’t, and Pence is incapacitated, the U.S. would be stuck without a functioning vice president until January 20, 2021 (and perhaps beyond, if Trump wins reelection). That would mean that there would be no one ready to step in if something happened to the president—the presidency would pass to Mike Pence, even if he were comatose and unable to fulfill the duties of the presidency. Nor is it clear that the 25th Amendment’s clause whereby members of the Cabinet can sign a letter removing the president from office would pertain to a vice president since that very clause vests the letter’s authority in the vice president. If there’s no functioning vice president, there’s no one to trigger the letter from the Cabinet saying the president can’t function.

The second problem is with the statute, the Presidential Succession Act, that guides the line of succession beyond the vice presidency. It may not really be constitutional—and the nation may find the law tested in a moment of great crisis. There’s a clear and well-understood debate that the law dodges a vexing question: Are the speaker of the House and the Senate president pro tem considered “officers of the United States” for constitutional purposes and thus eligible to succeed to the presidency at all? No less an authority than the author of the Constitution himself, James Madison, argued that they were legislators, not constitutional officers, and thus ineligible to become president. Congress has worried particularly since 9/11 about how, in a divided government, a terror attack or assassination attempt could alter government. “You could shift the entire direction of this country with one or two bullets,” Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) explained during one hearing. “What an invitation to assassins. We could have replaced George W. Bush with Nancy Pelosi.” The process outlined in the law appears to be in conflict with other parts of the Constitution that hold that only executive branch officials are “officers” and that uncertainty could allow it to be disputed in court.

Legal scholar Akhil Amar told Congress during one post-9/11 hearing, “The current Presidential Succession Act, 3 U.S.C. Section 19, is in my view a disastrous statute, an accident waiting to happen. It should be repealed and replaced.”

Republican Senator John Cornyn raised the question of what would happen if a speaker of the House or Senate president pro tem ascended to the presidency—and then was challenged by the secretary of State, who argued that the legislators didn’t count as constitutional officers. “Believe it or not, the secretary actually has a rather strong case, in my view,” Cornyn said. “Who is the president? Whose orders should be followed by our armed forces, by our intelligence agencies, and by domestic law enforcement bureaus? If lawsuits are filed, will courts accept jurisdiction? How long will they take to rule? How will they rule? And how will their rulings be respected?”

Later, a special bipartisan “continuity of government” commission led jointly by the Brookings Institution and the American Enterprise Institute, concluded, there “are serious policy and constitutional objections to having congressional leaders in the line of succession.”

The United States semiroutinely deals with moments when the vice president officially assumes—without taking any meaningful action—the presidency. In 2002, Vice President Cheney officially assumed the powers of the presidency when George W. Bush was sedated for a colonoscopy, and did so again in 2007. Officially, Cheney was in charge from 7:09 a.m. to 9:24 a.m. on June 29, 2002, and from 7:16 a.m. to 9:21 a.m. on July 21, 2007. And this summer, a new book by New York Times journalist Michael Schmidt reported that Pence was told to be ready to assume the powers of the presidency after a still unexplained urgent weekend trip by Trump to Walter Reed Hospital in November 2019.

But if the vice president’s not there—either for a routine matter or an urgent crisis—we don’t have any rule book ready.

For now, the nation waits.

Garrett M. Graff (@vermontgmg) is the author of RAVEN ROCK: The Story of the U.S. Government’s Secret Plan to Save Itself—While the Rest of Us Die, from which parts of this essay have been adapted.

“Publicly endorsing the mass murder of your political adversaries”

Ex-Twitter CEO says selfish capitalists will be ‘shot in the revolution’

By Nicolas Vega

Dick Costolo

Former Twitter CEO Dick Costolo.Corbis via Getty Images

Jumping into a recent controversy over employee activism at tech companies — kicked off when Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong announced in a blog post this week he was banning at-work discussions about politics and societal issues — Costolo bemoaned the end of an era where “tech companies used to welcome lively debate about ideas and society.”

Costolo said that the openness within Silicon Valley companies  was what “differentiated tech culture from, say, Wells Fargo culture.”

Things got testy, however, when another Twitter user said that tamping down political activism within companies would “be rough for people who want an activist job on a tech person’s salary.”

“Me-first capitalists who think you can separate society from business are going to be the first people lined up against the wall and shot in the revolution,” Costolo shot back. “I’ll happily provide video commentary.”

The remarks were met with swift blowback from conservatives on Twitter, with many complaining about the violent language in the tweet.

“This tweet is an actual violation of twitter TOS for glorifying violence,” alt-right personality Mike Cernovich replied. “That aside, thanks for publicly endorsing the mass murder of your political adversaries. This is clarifying.”

Costolo was in charge of Twitter from 2010 until 2015 when he was replaced by Jack Dorsey, and is currently a venture capitalist.

Representatives for Twitter and Costolo did not immediately respond to The Post’s request for comment.

Look For Trump To Attack Latest Enemies Before Election…think S. China Sea, Venezuela

The stage is set for a Venezuela October surprise

 

With an Eye on China, Reaper Drones Train for Maritime War

Does this US military uniform suggest it is preparing for war with China?

Is Trump preparing an “October Surprise”?

 

With the US presidential election barely five weeks away, Washington is stoking dangerous conflicts across the globe. With the danger that any one of them could escalate into a military confrontation, the question that is increasingly being discussed in US foreign policy circles and by worried governments around the world is whether US President Donald Trump is preparing an “October Surprise.”

There is a long history of events taking place in October, either planned or unplanned, which have major effects on an upcoming presidential election. In 1956, the eruption of the Sinai War and the Hungarian Revolution helped solidify support behind President Dwight D. Eisenhower. In 1968, the Johnson government’s announcement that it would suspend the bombing of North Vietnam almost swung the election to Democrat Hubert Humphrey. In 1972, Henry Kissinger infamously declared that “Peace Is at Hand” in Vietnam, giving Nixon a boost in the polls over George McGovern.

But the phrase “October Surprise” was coined by William Casey, Republican candidate Ronald Reagan’s campaign manager in 1980 and subsequent CIA director. In the case of Reagan and Casey, the “surprise” in question was the prospect that Iran would release US personnel taken hostage in the 1979 seizure of the American Embassy by Iranian students. According to both US and Iranian officials, Casey and the Reagan campaign conducted secret negotiations with Tehran to prevent the hostages’ release until after the election.

Four F/A-18 Hornets and two F-22 Raptors participate in a training exercise (Image Credit U.S. Marine Corps photo by Chief Warrant Officer Wade Spradli)

Today, the threat is that the “October Surprise” will come in the form of an eruption of American militarism.

Washington Post columnist David Ignatius wrote in a column last week warning, “Iraq is the place where a U.S.-Iran confrontation could explode in the next few weeks, creating an ‘October surprise’ before the U.S. presidential election.” It is doubtful that Ignatius, who has close connections with the US military-intelligence apparatus, is using this phrase loosely.

He was referring to an ultimatum delivered by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to Iraq’s new Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi that Washington will close its Baghdad embassy unless the regime cracks down on Iraqi Shi’a militias aligned with Iran that have lobbed rockets in the general vicinity of the US facility. Such a crackdown would likely trigger the government’s downfall.

Ignatius pointed out that the embassy’s “closure could also be a prelude to heavy U.S. airstrikes against the militias.”

Such military action could quickly escalate into a confrontation with Iran, which is already escalating on other fronts. A US Navy carrier strike group has been sent through the strategic Strait of Hormuz into the Persian Gulf for the first time since last November. The deployment comes as the Trump administration has arrogantly claimed the right to unilaterally reimpose United Nations sanctions that were lifted under the 2015 nuclear agreement between Tehran and the major powers, a deal that Washington unilaterally abrogated.

Chief among the sanctions that the US is now claiming is the right to enforce a ban on the export of conventional weapons to Iran that is set to expire in the middle of next month. Both Russia and China are prepared to resume such exports. The US vow to continue enforcing the ban raises the prospect of American warships seizing Russian or Chinese vessels in the Persian Gulf or on the high seas.

The threat of direct conflict between US imperialism and its two major nuclear rivals continues to escalate across a wide field of military operations.

The Pentagon is staging nearly continuous provocative military exercises on Russia’s borders. Last week, it brought along NBC’s chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel, who flew in an Air Force F16 as US warplanes simulated large-scale “dogfights” on the border with Russia. As an “embedded” reporter, Engel cast the aerial provocation in heroic terms.

This operation follows by only weeks, live fire exercises in Estonia involving what the US Army described as “multiple launch rocket systems” in shooting range of Russia. Moscow’s embassy in Washington described the action as “provocative and extremely dangerous for regional stability.” It asked, “How would the Americans react in the event of such shooting by our military at the US border?”

Meanwhile, Washington is staging relentless provocations against China, particularly over the island of Taiwan, where a pair of visits by high-level US officials over the past two months, combined with multibillion-dollar arms sales, have been directed at strengthening US-Taiwanese relations and effectively overturning the “One China” policy that has been central to US-China relations for more than 40 years.

In what Beijing has justifiably interpreted as a gross provocation and unconcealed threat, Military Review, the US Army’s principal publication, dedicated its entire September-October issue to the prospect of a US war with China over Taiwan, based on the premise of Beijing’s military takeover of the island.

One article in the Army journal is titled “Drive Them into the Sea” and advocates “dispatching an Army heavy corps to Taiwan” that “will drive the enemy into the sea.”

Another, written by a US Marine Corps officer, titled “Deterring the Dragon: Returning U.S. Forces to Taiwan,” expresses concern over the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) military advances, particularly in terms of intermediate range missiles, and calls for deploying American troops to Taiwan. It concludes, “America needs to posture its forces in a way that would inevitably trigger a larger conflict and make plain its commitment to Taiwanese defense,” adding “it would be extremely unlikely that the U.S. government would not commit to a larger conflict after U.S. ground forces were engaged in Taiwan.”

The triggering of a direct military conflict in any one of these arenas could provide Trump with his “October surprise” at the potential cost of a massive loss of life and a spiraling conflict leading to world war. The aim would not be so much to sway voters, as Trump is not pursuing a strategy based on the popular vote which he failed to win in the 2016 election, but rather on creating the conditions for a coup d’état aimed at consolidating a presidential dictatorship and violently suppressing all opposition. War could serve as the pretext for making good on his threats to invoke the Insurrection Act and impose martial law.

Trump’s ostensible political opposition, the Democratic Party and its presidential candidate Joe Biden, have only helped to create the conditions for such a military provocation and its far-reaching political consequences. They have repeatedly denounced Trump for being too “soft” on Russia and China, including in the wake of a recent crash between US and Russian armored cars in Syria, in which they demanded retaliation for the minor injuries suffered by American soldiers.

Given this reality, in the event of a US military engagement against Russia or China, the Democrats would throw their support behind Trump’s war effort.

Underlying the threat of war is the insoluble crisis of the capitalist system and the turn by US imperialism toward military aggression as a means of offsetting the decline of its global hegemony. This has only been intensified by the uncontrolled spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, mass unemployment, poverty and growing social unrest. America’s ruling oligarchy seeks to divert these intense and insoluble domestic tensions outward in the form of an eruption of militarism.

The struggle against war, along with the fight against the devastation of jobs, living standards and the very lives of workers, as Republicans and Democrats alike pursue the homicidal back-to-work and back-to-school agenda, cannot be waged within the framework of the Trump-Biden electoral contest. Regardless of the outcome of the 2020 election, the drive toward war and dictatorship will continue.

The threat of war and all of the life-and-death questions confronting the vast majority of the American people can be confronted only by means of the independent political mobilization of the working class in the fight for socialism. This poses the need for the formation of rank-and-file workplace and neighborhood committees to organize this struggle and the fight for a political general strike to halt Trump’s dictatorial conspiracies and topple his government.

Bill Van Auken

WWIII Shaping-Up In the Eastern Mediterranean

The Navy ship, the Hershel “Woody” Williams, will be deployed to a joint U.S.-Greek base, a move that could serve as a mark of America’s growing irritation with Turkey.

Credit…Dimitris Papamitsos/Prime Minister Press Office, via Shutterstock

By

CRETE, Greece — In a move that could be construed as a symbolic show of support for Greece in its tense standoff with Turkey, America’s top diplomat said on Tuesday that the United States will base a mammoth Navy ship at a military base it shares with Greece, just 600 miles from the Turkish coast.

Expeditionary Seabase USS Hershel ‘Woody’ Williams Deploys for AFRICOM

The Hershel “Woody” Williams, a Expeditionary Sea Base ship, is assigned to the U.S. Africa Command and is not the kind of vessel that might intervene in a high-intensity conflict, should rising strains between Turkey and Greece — two NATO allies — boil over.

But its deployment at Souda Bay, a joint U.S.-Greek base near where Turkey earlier this year sent survey and drilling ships to search for gas, could serve as a symbolic warning of America’s growing irritation with Ankara.

The dispute with Turkey — along with how to resolve it — was chief among the priorities of Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis of Greece following a series of meetings and tours at Souda Bay on Tuesday with the American secretary of state, Mike Pompeo.

Mr. Mitsotakis accused Turkey of violating international laws with its expansionist strategy to claim waters and resources in the eastern Mediterranean and Aegean that are controlled by Greece and other countries.

“It is a very sensitive area that has been recently tried by Turkey’s aggressiveness with provocative actions,” Mr. Mitsotakis told journalists after a private meeting with Mr. Pompeo. He said Turkey had stoked the tensions with extreme rhetoric and misleading communications about its intent: “In other words, actions that are contrary to the values of the Western world,” Mr. Mitsotakis said.

The widening rift puts the United States in an unenviable position, and not only because it risks being torn between two fellow NATO states. The U.S. alliance with Turkey is central to the Trump administration’s campaign to rout Shiite militias and other Iranian-backed efforts in Syria, where Iran supports the government of President Bashar al-Assad. The United States also has a massive air base in Incirlik, Turkey, where it stores tactical nuclear weapons.

But the Trump administration also has sought, with mixed success, to reel back some of Turkey’s aggressions.

Turkey’s incursion in northeast Syria, sending forces into areas held by Kurdish fighters whom Ankara considers a terrorist organization, has threatened the key ground force that beat back the Islamic State. Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has detained U.S. citizens, governed in an increasingly authoritarian manner and hosted Palestinian militia who have been designated as terrorists by the United States.

The United States has not formally sought to mediate the dispute between Turkey and Greece; that is a task most recently handled by Germany.

In his public remarks on Tuesday, Mr. Pompeo gamely sought to straddle the division.

“We strongly support dialogue between NATO allies Greece and Turkey and encourage them to resume discussion of these issues as soon as possible,” Mr. Pompeo said in the remarks with Mr. Mitsotakis.

He described progress in mediation efforts by NATO, and said developing the eastern Mediterranean Sea “should promote cooperation and provide a foundation for the durable energy security and economic prosperity of the entire region.”

Earlier this month, Mr. Pompeo visited Cyprus — which has also objected to Turkey’s activities in disputed waters in the eastern Mediterranean — and declared the United States “deeply concerned” over Turkey’s use of warships and jet fighters in its energy exploration efforts. Turkey invaded Cyprus in 1974 and claimed the island’s north as its territory, which is recognized nowhere else in the world.

Greece and Turkey nearly went to war in 1996 over an uninhabited island, a crisis defused by U.S. diplomacy.

Mr. Mitsotakis noted that Mr. Pompeo “had a chance to realize” Turkey’s aggressions off the Cypriot coast during that trip and said after Tuesday’s talks that he believed Greece and the United States were “fully aligned” on the issue.

Armenia accuses Turkey of shooting down warplane

Armenia accuses Turkey of shooting down warplane

The Armenian defense ministry said an SU-25 warplane was shot down, and its pilot killed, by a Turkish F-16 fighter jet. Turkish officials have denied the accusation, calling it “absolutely untrue.” 

Aserbaidschan Konflikt um Berg-Karabach (Defence Ministry of Azerbaijan/Reuters)

Armenia’s defense ministry accused Turkey on Tuesday of shooting down an Armenian warplane, in the ongoing violent conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Defense ministry spokeswoman Shushan Stapnyan said an SU-25 warplane was downed, and its pilot killed, by a Turkish F-16 fighter jet amid clashes over Azerbaijan’s breakaway region of Nagorno Karabakh.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erodgan’s top press aide Fahrettin Altun called the claim “absolutely untrue.”

“Armenia should withdraw from the territories under its occupation instead of resorting to cheap propaganda tricks,” Altun said.

Azerbaijani defence ministry spokesman Vagif Dyargahly also called the claim “yet another lie of Armenian propaganda.”

Read moreNagorno-Karabakh conflict: Germany’s Merkel urges ceasefire as violence escalates

The move would represent a major escalation in the decades-old conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the region, that was reignited on Sunday.

Earlier in the day, Azerbaijan’s Defense Ministry said Armenian forces shelled the Dashkesan region in Azerbaijan. Armenian officials said Azerbaijani forces opened fire on a military unit in the Armenian town of Vardenis, setting a bus on fire and killing one civilian.

Armenia’s Foreign Ministry denied shelling the region, and said the reports would justify Azerbaijan “expanding the geography of hostilities, including the aggression against the Republic of Armenia.”

Armine Alexanyan, deputy minister of foreign affairs for the disputed region, said the country is “opting for war.”

“The Azerbaijani side has been announcing that if it doesn’t reach peace through negotiations, it will opt for war, and that’s exactly what it’s doing now;” Alexanyan told DW.

“Azerbaijan has been building up its arms for a long time now, spending billions of dollars on buying new high-tech equipment, including these unmanned drones, which now it’s testing, hoping to regain what it thinks belongs to it,” she said.

Read moreArmenia-Azerbaijan clashes leave several dead in worst hostilities in years

Meanwhile, the Azerbaijani Prosecutor’s office said that 12 civilians have been killed and 35 wounded by Armenian fire. The statement marked a sharp rise in reported civilian casualties.

Dozens more have been killed or wounded since clashes broke out. Nagorno-Karabakh lies within Azerbaijan but has been under the control of ethnic Armenian forces backed by the Armenian government since 1994.

lc/aw (AFP, dpa, Reuters, AP)

The Machinery of Hopelessness—ThomasPainesCorner 5/17/09

[A timely article, in the face of massive, imminent evictions, from a recently passed anarchist/activist/writer, from a publication that no longer exists…Thomas Paines Corner (Gave me my first shot on the Internet).]

The Machinery of Hopelessness

Posted by thomaspainescorner

UntitledBy David Graeber

David Rolfe Graeber ( February 12, 1961 – September 2, 2020)[1] was an American anthropologistanarchist activist

5/17/09

We have reached an impasse. Capitalism as we know it is coming apart at the seams. But as financial institutions stagger and crumble, there is no obvious alternative. Organized resistance is scattered and incoherent. The global justice movement is a shadow of its former self. For the simple reason that it’s impossible to maintain perpetual growth on a finite planet, it’s possible that in a generation or so capitalism will no longer exist. Faced with this prospect, people’s knee-jerk reaction is often fear. They cling to capitalism because they can’t imagine a better alternative.

How did this happen? Is it normal for human beings to be unable to imagine a better world?

Hopelessness isn’t natural. It needs to be produced. To understand this situation, we have to realize that the last 30 years have seen the construction of a vast bureaucratic apparatus that creates and maintains hopelessness. At the root of this machine is global leaders’ obsession with ensuring that social movements do not appear to grow or flourish, that those who challenge existing power arrangements are never perceived to win. Maintaining this illusion requires armies, prisons, police and private security firms to create a pervasive climate of fear, jingoistic conformity and despair. All these guns, surveillance cameras and propaganda engines are extraordinarily expensive and produce nothing – they’re economic deadweights that are dragging the entire capitalist system down.

This hopelessness-generating apparatus is responsible for our recent financial freefalls and endless strings of bursting economic bubbles. It exists to shred and pulverize the human imagination, to destroy our ability to envision an alternative future. As a result, the only thing left to imagine is money, and debt spirals out of control. What is debt? It’s imaginary money whose value can only be realized in the future. Finance capital is, in turn, the buying and selling of these imaginary future profits. Once one assumes that capitalism will be around for all eternity, the only kind of economic democracy left to imagine is one in which everyone is equally free to invest in the market. Freedom has become the right to share in the proceeds of one’s own permanent enslavement.

Since the economic bubble was built on the future, its collapse made it seem like there was nothing left.

This effect, however, is clearly temporary. If the story of the global justice movement tells us anything, it is that the moment there appears to be any sort of opening the imagination springs forth. This is what effectively happened in the late ’90s when it looked for a moment like we might be moving toward a world at peace. The same thing has happened for the last 50 years in the US whenever it seems like peace might break out: a radical social movement dedicated to principles of direct action and participatory democracy emerges. In the late ’50s it was the civil rights movement. In the late ’70s it was the anti-nuclear movement. More recently it happened on a planetary scale and challenged capitalism head-on. But when we were organizing the protests in Seattle in 1999 or at the International Monetary Fund (IMF) meetings in DC in 2000, none of us dreamed that within a mere three or four years the World Trade Organization (WTO) process would collapse, “free trade” ideologies would be almost entirely discredited and new trade pacts like the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) would be defeated. The World Bank was hobbled and the power of the IMF over most of the world’s population was effectively destroyed.

But of course there’s another reason for all this. Nothing terrifies leaders, especially American leaders, as much as grassroots democracy. Whenever a genuinely democratic movement begins to emerge, particularly one based on principles of civil disobedience and direct action, the reaction is the same: the government makes immediate concessions (fine, you can have voting rights) and then starts revving up military tensions abroad. The movement is then forced to transform itself into an anti-war movement, which is often far less democratically organized. The civil rights movement was followed by Vietnam, the anti-nuclear movement by proxy wars in El Salvador and Nicaragua and the global justice movement by the War on Terror. We can now see the latter “war” for what it was: a declining power’s doomed effort to make its peculiar combination of bureaucratic war machines and speculative financial capitalism into a permanent global condition.

We are clearly on the verge of another mass resurgence of the popular imagination. It shouldn’t be that difficult. Most of the elements are already there. The problem is that our perceptions have been twisted into knots by decades of relentless propaganda and we are no longer able to see them. Consider the term “communism.” Rarely has a term come to be so utterly reviled. The standard line, which we accept more or less unthinkingly, is that communism means state control of the economy. History has shown us that this impossible utopian dream simply “doesn’t work.” Thus capitalism, however unpleasant, is the only remaining option.

In fact, communism really just means any situation where people act according to this principle: from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. This is, in fact, the way pretty much everyone acts if they are working together. If, for example, two people are fixing a pipe and one says “hand me the wrench,” the other doesn’t say “and what do I get for it?” This is true even if they happen to be employed by Bechtel or Citigroup. They apply the principles of communism because they’re the only ones that really work. This is also the reason entire cities and countries revert to some form of rough-and-ready communism in the wake of natural disasters or economic collapse – markets and hierarchical chains of command become luxuries they can’t afford. The more creativity is required and the more people have to improvise at a given task, the more egalitarian the resulting form of communism is likely to be. That’s why even Republican computer engineers trying to develop new software ideas tend to form small democratic collectives. It’s only when work becomes standardized and boring (think production lines) that becomes possible to impose more authoritarian, even fascistic forms of communism. But the fact is that even private companies are internally organized according to communist principles.

Communism is already here. The question is how to further democratize it. Capitalism, in turn, is just one possible way of managing communism. It has become increasingly clear that it’s a rather disastrous one. Clearly we need to be thinking about a better alternative, preferably one that does not systematically set us all at each others’ throats.

All this makes it much easier to understand why capitalists are willing to pour such extraordinary resources into the machinery of hopelessness. Capitalism is not just a poor system for managing communism, it also periodically falls apart. Each time it does, those who profit from it have to convince everyone that there is really no choice but to dutifully paste it all back together again.

Those wishing to subvert the system have learned from bitter experience that we cannot place our faith in states. Instead, the last decade has seen the development of thousands of forms of mutual aid associations. They range from tiny cooperatives to vast anti-capitalist experiments, from occupied factories in Paraguay and Argentina to self-organized tea plantations and fisheries in India, from autonomous institutes in Korea to insurgent communities in Chiapas and Bolivia. These associations of landless peasants, urban squatters and neighborhood alliances spring up pretty much anywhere where state power and global capital seem to be temporarily looking the other way. They might have almost no ideological unity, many are not even aware of the others’ existence, but they are all marked by a common desire to break with the logic of capital. “Economies of solidarity” exist on every continent, in at least 80 different countries. We are at the point where we can begin to conceive of these cooperatives knitting together on a global level and creating a genuine insurgent civilization.

Visible alternatives shatter the sense of inevitability that the system must be patched together in its pre-collapse form – this is why it became such an imperative on behalf of global governance to stamp them out (or at least ensure that no one knows about them). Becoming aware of alternatives allows us to see everything we are already doing in a new light. We realize we’re already communists when working on common projects, already anarchists when we solve problems without recourse to lawyers or police, already revolutionaries when we make something genuinely new.

One might object: a revolution cannot confine itself to this. That’s true. In this respect, the great strategic debates are really just beginning. I’ll offer one suggestion though. For at least 5,000 years, before capitalism even existed, popular movements have tended to center on struggles over debt. There is a reason for this. Debt is the most efficient means ever created to make relations fundamentally based on violence and inequality seem morally upright. When this trick no longer works everything explodes, as it is now. Debt has revealed itself as the greatest weakness of the system, the point where it spirals out of control. But debt also allows endless opportunities for organizing. Some speak of a debtors’ strike or debtors’ cartel. Perhaps so, but at the very least we can start with a pledge against evictions. Neighborhood by neighborhood we can pledge to support each other if we are driven from our homes. This power does not solely challenge regimes of debt, it challenges the moral foundation of capitalism. This power creates a new regime. After all, a debt is only a promise and the world abounds in broken promises. Think of the promise made to us by the state: if we abandon any right to collectively manage our own affairs we will be provided with basic life security. Think of the promise made by capitalism: we can live like kings if we are willing to buy stock in our own collective subordination. All of this has come crashing down. What remains is what we are able to promise one another directly, without the mediation of economic and political bureaucracies. The revolution begins by asking what sorts of promises do free men and women make one another and how, by making them, do we begin to make another world?

 

Pope Francis Refuses To Meet Pompeo To Receive Imperial Ass-Chewing

Pope Francis ‘refuses’ to meet with US Secretary of State after criticism of Vatican’s controversial China deal

Mr Pompeo plans to visit the Vatican this week to protest the imminent renewal of a two-year-old deal between the Catholic church and China

Pope Francis has reportedly refused to meet with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo during his visit to Rome over a dispute between the Vatican and China.

Mr Pompeo plans to visit the Vatican this week to protest the imminent renewal of a two-year-old deal between the Catholic church and China, which the secretary of state has claimed would endanger the church’s moral authority.

He is slated to meet with Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin and Archbishop Paul Gallagher, the foreign minister for the Vatican. But Pope Francis, whom Mr Pompeo met with last October, would not be meeting with him.

According to reports, Pope Francis cited the looming United States presidential election as the reason to not meet with Mr Pompeo. But the Trump administration’s criticism over the deal between the Vatican and China could likely be a factor in the decision.

This deal, which the details have not been disclosed to the public, has allowed the Vatican to have a say in the Catholic bishops appointed in China. Since the historic deal was agreed upon two years ago, two new bishops have been appointed in China after consultation with the Vatican.

Mr Pompeo has argued that the Vatican should not renew its deal with China due to Xi Jinping’s administration facing accusations of religious persecution.

“The human rights situation in China has deteriorated severely under the autocratic rule of Xi Jinping, especially for religious believers,” Mr Pompeo wrote for an article in First Things magazine this month.

He added that there have been “credible reports” of “forced sterilizations and abortions of Muslims in Xinjiang” as well as “abuse of Catholic priests and laypeople”.

Pope Francis has been notably silent on China’s violations of human rights. These violations include the imprisonment of at least one million Uighurs and other Muslims in prison camps, with reports of them facing starvation, torture, murder, sexual violence and much more while at the camps.

“The Holy See has a unique capacity and duty to focus the world’s attention on human rights violations, especially those perpetrated by totalitarian regimes like Beijing’s,” Mr Pompeo wrote. “In the late 20th century, the church’s power of moral witness helped inspire those who liberated central and eastern Europe from communism, and those who challenged autocratic and authoritarian regimes in Latin America and East Asia.”

He added. “What the church teaches the world about religious freedom and solidarity should now be forcefully and persistently conveyed by the Vatican in the face of the Chinese Communist party’s relentless efforts to bend all religious communities to the will of the party and its totalitarian program.”

In a tweet, Mr Pompeo added that the Catholic church “endangers its moral authority, should it renew the deal”.

The extension of the deal between the Vatican and China is expected to be signed next month.

Mr Pompeo’s trip to the Vatican comes with him also traveling to Greece, Italy, and Croatia to promote diplomatic relations and religious freedoms.

Azerbaijan’s military offensive

The demise of diplomacy: Azerbaijan’s military offensive



Volunteers of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation gather in Yerevan to leave for Nagorno-Karabakh (Artsakh), where martial law has been declared September 27, 2020. Armenia has imposed martial law and total military mobilization after clashes erupted in the territorial conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan in Nagorno-Karabakh. Both sides have reported civilian casualties after shelling, artillery and air attacks along the front.
EPA-EFE//MELIK BAGHDASARYAN

For the past several years, the outlook for diplomacy in Russia’s self-proclaimed “near abroad” or sphere of influence has been particularly daunting.  Ranging from Russia’s invasion of Georgia in 2008 to its annexation of Crimea in 2014 and continuing aggression in eastern Ukraine, Western diplomacy has been largely stalled and stalemated.  More recently, it was Belarus that emerged as the obvious focal point for European engagement and diplomatic efforts, with a new challenge for security and stability along the EU’s “eastern neighborhood.”

But with a sudden and sweeping military offensive by Azerbaijan early on Sunday morning, the unresolved Nagorno Karabakh conflict has now surfaced as the more pressing and most urgent crisis for European diplomacy.

From Concern to Crisis

For many experienced European diplomats, and for much of the EU External Action Service, the stability and security of the Armenian-backed enclave Nagorno Karabakh has been illusive and imaginary.  Fueled by pronounced frustration from the lack of any demonstrable progress to date from the mediation of the Karabakh conflict, Azerbaijan has been close to walking away from the peace talks with Armenia for some time.

But Azerbaijan’s disdain for diplomacy now threatens to become the demise of diplomatic engagement, as Baku has opted for the force of arms.  More specifically, its most recent renewal of military hostilities marks a dangerous turning point in the escalation and intensity of this conflict, with little room and even less likelihood for de-escalation or disengagement.

And within the broader context, this fresh round of fighting raises the stakes for European diplomacy, clearly moving swiftly from concern to crisis.  For its part, EU leaders have joined calls for a ceasefire, backing similar statements by the U.S. State Department and bolstering an identical demand by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres.  Yet given the localized limits of this rather unique conflict, neither the West, nor Russia for that matter, has much leverage and even less presence or pressure to exert in this case.

A handout photo made available by the Armenian Government Press Office shows Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan (C) meeting with the military leaders in Yerevan o September 27, 2020. EPA-EFE//ARMENIAN GOVERNMENT PRESS OFFICE

Azerbaijan as a Threat to Regional Security and Stability

For diplomacy in Europe’s east, the timing could not have been worse.  Despite the shared threat from the global public health crisis over the coronavirus or COVID-19 pandemic, Azerbaijan chose this especially vulnerable time to attack.  This is not an isolated incident, however, as this new offensive follows a similar attack in July, now seen as part of a more pronounced pattern of using the military force of arms to attempt to impose a “resolution” to the Karabakh conflict by force rather than through diplomatic negotiations.  And in this context, Azerbaijan has only revealed that it now stands apart as the primary threat to regional security and stability in the wider South Caucasus.

Moreover, the coordination and logistical preparation necessary to conduct this latest offensive by Azerbaijan only demonstrates that this latest round of fighting was a calculated and planned act of aggression.  Beyond the surprise nature of the attack, Azerbaijan’s willingness to target civilian areas and population centers in Karabakh also demonstrates a new disregard for the security of non-combatants.

The Risk of Spillover & “Proximity Powers”

Although Nagorno Karabakh is a rare conflict with no Russian military presence, there is a real risk of conflict contagion, or spillover, as nearby “proximity powers” may feel compelled to commit to intervening or at least interfering if the fighting continues.  Among these regional powers, Russia, Turkey and even Iran may pose even greater challenges for a concerted diplomatic effort at de-escalation.

Clearly, in terms of Russian interests, the Karabakh conflict serves as an effective element for sustaining power and position, cementing Moscow’s influence over both Armenia and Azerbaijan.  In recent years, this has only expanded, as Russia has replaced Turkey as the primary arms supplier for Azerbaijan.  Moscow has also skillfully managed Armenian insecurity and threat perception in its favor, maintaining its security “partnership” with Armenia despite a deepening crisis in that bilateral relationship.

Moreover, even within the context of Western diplomacy, Russia has been granted a rare degree of legitimacy and credibility as a diplomatic partner and mediator of this unique conflict, primarily due to its position as a co-chairing nation, along with France and the United States, of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s (OSCE) “Minsk Group,” which stands apart as the only diplomatic venue for managing and mediating the Karabakh conflict.

Armenian families in Nagorno Karabakh take refuge inside a bomb shelter after Azerbaijan reportedly shelled civilian areas in the disputed region, September 27, 2020. EPA-EFE//ARMENIAN FOREIGN MINISTRY PRESS OFFICE HANDOUT

Yet, it has been Turkey that has emerged as the most active actor.  In a role that may be as decisive as it is divisive, Turkey has pursued a much more assertive and even aggressive defense of Azerbaijan.  For Armenia and Karabakh, Turkey is increasingly seen as a more serious threat because of its more aggressive posture and due to the Erdogan regime’s assertive pursuit of its interests, most notable evident in its full and unquestioned backing of Azerbaijan.  This driving factor has only elevated the Armenian threat perception of Turkey.  It has only been bolstered by Turkey’s reassertion in the Eastern Mediterranean has prompted a dynamic response in Armenian foreign policy, with a strategic repositioning of Armenia in a closer alliance with Greece and Cyprus and a tactical alignment with Israel and Egypt over maritime security and offshore energy resources.

For Turkey, this vocal support for Azerbaijan is also an attempt to restore Ankara’s past role as Baku’s strategic military patron state, which it lost to Russia and Israel in recent years.  This is also why the Turkish response to recent fighting was immediate and harsh, blindly endorsing Azerbaijan’s version of events even well before the true state of affairs on the ground was determined.  Although this position can be viewed as a natural reaction by Turkey, the sudden and swift backing of Azerbaijan was more of a premature and reflexive reaction than as a result of any prudent well-considered strategy.  Therefore, and most importantly, it is a combination of each of these drivers, and Turkey’s repeat of its response to this latest attack, that is now ushering in a new period of a much more active and offensive Armenian foreign policy.

Ultra-nationalist Azeris and Turks hold their national flags and shout slogans against Armenia duirng a July 2020 rally in front of the Istanbul University in Istanbul. EPA-EFE//SEDAT SUNA

The Outlook for Diplomacy

Given this combination of daunting obstacles well beyond the confines of the conflict, the outlook for diplomacy remains bleak.  But with an imperative to halt the fighting and broker a ceasefire or bolster an agreement to “cease firing” at a minimum, it is only European diplomacy that has a chance.  Russia has little interest in anything beyond securing its own position of leverage from the conflict.  Turkey has already exposed itself as a biased player without even the pretense of impartiality.  And as the United States remains distracted and disengaged from the South Caucasus, all eyes are on Brussels.

Therefore, the most effective approach for European engagement will be to do just that: engage and engage all parties to the conflict.  With an advantage from Armenia’s greater legitimacy from truly free and fair elections and success in a peaceful transition to democracy, the EU can also engage the democratically elected representatives in Nagorno Karabakh (Artaskh) itself.

While it is no longer sufficient to ignore Karabakh, the military attacks by Azerbaijan and its disdain for diplomacy only makes the case for a new policy of “status neutral” engagement of all parties, without distinction or prejudice.  This is the only way to restore a ceasefire and rebuild a cessation of hostilities that can contribute to a new climate more conducive to genuine and sincere diplomatic negotiations.

Trump/Pompeo Try To Extort Sudan Concessions To Israel, To Escape “Terrorist State” Label

Normalizing Sudan-Israel Relations Now is a Dangerous Game
by Jeffrey Feltman, the principle Middle East fire-starter for Bush, Obama and Trump.  He is the one man responsible for lighting both Libya and Syria on fire…every tragedy which flowed from this conflagration is his fault, along with Prince “Bandar Bush” (SEE: The Original Syrian Media Report Revealing Bandar/Feltman Plan To Destroy the Middle East )

Pompeo tries to extort cash from struggling Sudan

Sudan rejects linking removal from US terrorism list with Israel

Sources say US officials indicated they wanted Khartoum to open ties with Israel, following in the UAE and Bahrain’s steps.

The White House and the US State Department declined to comment when asked about the status of negotiations [File: Anadolu]

Sudan does not want to link its removal from a US “terrorism list” that is hindering access to foreign funding for the country’s economy with the normalisation of relations with Israel, Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok said on Saturday.

Sources said this week that US officials indicated in talks with a Sudanese delegation they wanted Khartoum to follow the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Bahrain and open ties with Israel.

Sudan’s designation as a “state sponsor of terrorism” dates back to its toppled ruler Omar al-Bashir, and makes it difficult for its new transitional government to access urgently needed debt relief and foreign financing.

In a visit to Khartoum last month, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo urged Sudan’s Sovereign Council chief General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan to normalise ties with Israel [File: Sudan’s Foreign Media Council/AFP]

Hamdok said Sudan had told US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo during a visit last month it was necessary to separate the removal from the US list from the normalisation of relations with Israel.“This topic [ties to Israel] needs a deep discussion of the society,” he told a conference in Khartoum to discuss economic reforms.

Sudan’s surging inflation and plummeting currency have been the biggest challenges to Hamdok’s transitional administration, which rules with the military since al-Bashir’s removal.

Sudan was put on the US list in 1993 because the United States believed al-Bashir’s government was supporting armed groups.

But many in Sudan consider this is undeserved since al-Bashir was removed last year and Sudan has long cooperated with the US on counterterrorism.

The White House and the State Department declined to comment when asked about the status of negotiations.

Burhan and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu held a surprise meeting in Uganda earlier this year. Yet opening ties is sensitive, as Sudan was a staunch foe of Israel under al-Bashir.

Electing Biden Means War with Russia…period.

[Biden promises that he is “coming for” Putin, after also promising a mask mandate, meaning masks for everybody all the time outside of the home, under threat of Govt. prosecution…Do liberals and Democrats really want mandated masks and war with Russia?]

[SEE: Why Are Top Democrats So Anxious To Start War With Russia? ; Democrats and Hollywood = Jewish Control Over the Weak American Mind ]

Secret source for(Non-Russian) anti-Trump Steele dossier is revealed

by Daria Bedenko

As the US presidential election approaches, the Democratic party is ramping up speculation about “Russian interference”, with Moscow allegedly attempting to undermine the campaign of Democratic candidate Joe Biden.

Joe Biden warned there would be “consequences” for Russian President Vladimir Putin for “violation of our sovereignty” when asked by MSNBC host on allegations that Russia is conducting “interference [in the US presidential election] to hurt you and cause chaos”.

“My message to Vladimir Putin is that if I get elected, I’m coming”, Biden said. “Because here’s the deal, it’s a violation of our sovereignty. I made it clear before, and I’ll make it clear again… [Trump] would like to see very much Vladimir Putin continue down the road he is. But I promise you, I promise you: there’ll be consequences. There’ll be consequences if I win, for this involvement in our sovereignty”.

This is not the first time Biden has addressed the Russian president, as the former has promised to “stand up to [Putin]” during his entire presidential campaign, calling the Russian president “a bully” and accusing him of attempting to choose the American president.

© Sputnik / Mikhail Klimentyev
Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump

Biden also slammed US President Donald Trump for allegedly playing a “subservient role” to the Russian leader.

“Never before has an American president played such a subservient role to a Russian leader,” Biden said earlier in August during a campaign event. “It’s not only dangerous, it’s humiliating and embarrassing for the rest of the world to see. It weakens us.”

The Russia Card

The saga about Russians allegedly trying to meddle with the US presidential election has been ongoing since 2016, when Democrats, apparently stunned by the unexpected failure of Hillary Clinton, accused Trump of “colluding” with Russia, and claimed that Moscow interfered in the US electoral process.

Despite hysteria around the allegations, US Special Counsel Robert Mueller investigated and found nothing that pointed at a “collusion” between the Russian government and Trump’s election.

As November approaches, allegations that the Kremlin is yet again “meddling” with the upcoming election, are being ramped up.

Recently, The Washington Post reported that a secret CIA assessment claimed that Putin, along with his “top aides”, is “probably directing” a Russian interference operation to shape election results. Specifically, the reported assessment puts forward an idea that the operation is targeted at undermining Biden’s campaign.

Yard signs supporting U.S. President Donald Trump and Democratic U.S. presidential nominee and former Vice President Joe Biden are seen outside of an early voting site at the Fairfax County Government Center in Fairfax, Virginia, U.S., September 18, 2020.
© REUTERS / ALEXANDER DRAGO
Yard signs supporting U.S. President Donald Trump and Democratic U.S. presidential nominee and former Vice President Joe Biden are seen outside of an early voting site at the Fairfax County Government Center in Fairfax, Virginia, U.S., September 18, 2020.

Topping the allegations, the report said that the scheme involves “a prominent Ukrainian lawmaker connected to President Trump’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani”.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly insisted that Moscow never intended to interfere with the US internal affairs, and never will intend to do so, echoed by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who consistently points at a lack of evidence behind the US allegations.

On Friday, the Russian president invited the administration of Donald Trump to exchange pledges of non-interference in elections or other internal affairs, proposing the restoration of a “regular, full-scale, bilateral, inter-agency, high-level dialogue on the key issues of ensuring international information security”.

Judgment Day

[This is one of my lost articles, which I had posted on other Internet sites, before starting ThereAreNoSunglasses, Dec. 06, 2007 .  I just found it on the web, it has never appeared here.  It was slightly re-written before posting it here today.]

Judgment Day

By Peter Chamberlin
Dec. 06, 2007

The world is being steered into an apocalyptic climax that defies reason, by largely unknown powers, for unknowable reasons. All of us are among the unfortunate losers in the ultimate earth lottery, with ringside seats to the end of the world, from which there is no escape. There is a secretive cabal of criminal minds, who are doing everything in their (practically limitless) power to violently forge a utopian world order upon the earth. In this unfolding power play they intend to pre-enact Judgment Day, to convince the people that time is up, making them easier to manipulate, using their own religious beliefs against them. What the Bible gave us as a prophetic warning, these guys are treating as if it was their script for the worst horror movie of all time.

Here we have a lot of very rich and powerful people producing and directing a worldwide Hollywood version of the end of the world, with extreme real world consequences. Cecil B. Demented does “Armageddon” on the streets of America. For the most part, we have passively watched as “shock and awe” rained down from the sky, onto the innocent masses of poor dark-skinned people half a world away. But for those countries who were spared the first act, because they were far away from the war’s front lines, there will be a terrible second act, which will prove to be just as deadly as the first. When the world cracks open, the war will become up close and very personal for everyone.

The name of the new game, from here on out, will be population reduction, selective population reduction. In the end, the human race, at least the surviving remnant, will be much paler than it is today. The same think tanks and globalist foundations who wrote the script for the end of the world are the same ones who produced the threatening “Global 2000 Report,” the blueprint for population reduction that our elite masters conjured up for the Carter administration.

If you want to know what they intend for us in their Judgment Day script then keep in mind that the Book of Revelation has been their inspiration. Wars, famine and pestilence seem to be the motif for the first two acts. They will help to induce shock in the captive audience, for the third and final act of the globalist tragedy. Traumatized populations that have been devastated by atrocities are easier to manipulate, as government practiced psy-ops programs have confirmed.

The goal of the plotters is basically to appear to cause the “end of the (old) world,” so that they can brutally seize for themselves all the promised blessings intended for God’s “Chosen People”, making the sheeple believe that time is up. These powerful men, seeking to enthrone themselves in seats reserved for God’s elect, are playing upon superstitious beliefs, to carry out their twisted plans for world domination.

Elites, using prophecy to mislead the religious, are seeking prophetic rewards for their own cunning. By causing religious people to believe that this might be the “end of days,” they have dissuaded them from rising in opposition to them, as this might also be seen as interfering with God’s work. This deception is as effective for parts of the Muslim faith as it is for some of the Christians. Convincing superstitious people that this man-made end of days might be God’s will is using scripture to bring them into line with the script. Whenever a “wicked and foolish generation seeketh after a sign,” it will find the omens everywhere.

The criminal producers of our horror movie/psy-war operation intend to establish a new world order based on the ashes of the old. Their utopian world will be a world without conscience or morality, as it will be built upon the deaths of billions, who will have been harvested in the final act of this terrible horror script. Their perfected world (based on death), of unlimited profit to a very limited elite will come into being when Trump gives the order for the attack upon Iran. In a world of reason, he would never give such an order, but we all know that the order is about to be given. In this new world order, where some men see themselves as gods, and other humans are simply assets, there is no moral compunction to end the ordering of thousands more to their deaths.

America is prepared to destroy its own economy, the global economy, the international order, and to violate the very foundation of law, on the pretext of eliminating a threat to our ally Israel — a threat that does not even exist. To calm Israel’s fear of its future, we are all set to eliminate the nation of Iran, and with it, our own futures. Before his time runs out, Trump will order the bombers and the missiles into Iranian airspace, to destroy the imaginary nuclear weapons that pose no threat to Israel, in spite of the fact that his help might also destroy the Zionist state, as well. By any measurement, this is insanity. This is the final step on the road to the New World Order, Judgment Day.

The world has been transformed by almost twenty years of Imperial War, into a very unstable swirling cauldron of pent up fear and hatred. The decision to escalate the wars (when diplomacy visibly fails), seeking vindication through the total destruction of all opposition, is a suicidal decision. Those who push our government to take this fatal step will, at minimum, push us into the waiting police state and the accompanying economic depression, or in the worst case scenario, the end of human civilization. Those in Israel who are pushing America to wage war against Iran are apparently so blinded by their fear of the Shia state that they cannot perceive the greater danger that their actions will cause massive death in Israel and possibly its collapse as a free state. These Americans and Israelis are doing their best to bind the US government to actions that will endanger our existence. Why? Is it possible that our leaders believe that it is more important to sow disorder than to seek lasting peace?

The American neocons have used the New Right to bind America to Israel’s extremist Likud policies. These three elements have been the loudest voices on both sides of the Atlantic, trying to force the violent resolution of the mutual hatred between Israelis and Iranians. These are the same strident voices that brashly denounced the peace talks at Annapolis, claiming that they will lead to war.

The most notable of the neocons (many of whom have dual American/Israeli citizenship) are ardent supporters of Ariel Sharon and his Likudists. They proudly carried-on the traditional Zionist positions that Sharon championed, by opposing all negotiations with the Arabs and following policies which aggressively encouraged the Palestinians to leave Palestine. These policies, which amounted to an official program of state harassment, were meant to inflict low levels of terror on the Palestinian people, designed for the purpose of de-populating Palestine. The infamous “Koenig Memorandum” (an Israeli government document) details these harassment policies. From the organized brutality directed at the Palestinian people since then, there can be little doubt, that the policies described in the Koenig Memorandum did in fact become official Israeli policy for dealing with the “Intifada.” Many of the official policies of harassment mentioned in the report became the actual policies used to disenfranchise the Palestinians from the land taken from them.

In the Zionist interpretation of events, it is the peace process that makes peace impossible. Movement leaders have always understood (yet kept carefully hidden) the eventual necessity of driving all the Arabs out of the land of Greater Israel. It has always been a key part of the Zionist plan to empty the land of its rightful inhabitants, in the most subtle manner possible:

“Spirit the penniless population across the frontier by denying it employment . . . Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried away discreetly and circumspectly,” wrote Theodore Herzl, founder of the World Zionist Organization Complete Diaries, in a June 12, 1895, entry.

In this view, those who even suggest to the Arabs that peace through negotiations is possible are considered to be traitors for undermining the only possible path to peace, which is to terrorize the Palestinians until they either submit to Israel’s terms or become refugees. This is the Israeli “Iron Wall” strategy, formulated by Zionist folk hero Wolf Jabotinsky. There are to be no negotiations, but instead, the liberal application of enough force to make life unbearable. The Palestinians must be made to fear the consequences of not giving in to Israeli demands more than they hate giving up their homeland.

“A voluntary reconciliation with the Arabs is out of the question either now or in th. If you wish to colonize a land in which people are already living, you must provide a garrison for the land, or find some rich man or benefactor who will provide a garrison on your behalf. Or else-or else, give up your colonization, for without an armed force which will render physically impossible any attempt to destroy or prevent this colonization, colonization is impossible, not difficult, not dangerous, but IMPOSSIBLE! . . . Zionism is a colonization adventure and therefore it stands or falls by the question of armed force. It is important . . . to speak Hebrew, but, unfortunately, it is even more important to be able to shoot – or else I am through with playing at colonizing.” Vladimir Jabotinsky, founder of Revisionist Zionism (precursor of Likud), The Iron Wall, 1923.

Because the Israeli leaders have been true to the tenets of Zionism, the “Peace Process” has never had a chance to succeed. If negotiations begin to show promise the Zionists will do everything that they can to derail any conceivable peace agreement. This is how it has always been. This is the same with America’s radical right wing, which has always staked its fortunes on destroying arms control treaties.

Entering into peace talks which you intend to make fail is hypocrisy, even though pretending to negotiate in good faith does bring immediate rewards, if the negotiator is careful not to give anything away in the process. The political parties in the Israeli government play separate parts in the ongoing psycho-drama called “The Peace Talks,” with the left taking charge of the negotiations at Annapolis, playing the role of reasonable Israelis, while the right-wing Likud party elements prepare to defend Israel by demolishing whatever the talks produce and finishing the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. This two-faced image of Israel feigns negotiations in order to placate their American benefactors, who arm them to kill Palestinians.

If the US and Israel were serious about pursuing peace in the Middle East, they would pursue policies that sought to bring extremists into the system as a means of civilizing their actions, instead of seeking to bomb them out of existence. They must learn that peace cannot be won by “pacifying” the world. All the bombs in the world will not destroy the will to resist; they will only strengthen it. The way must be made clear for the orderly transition of extremist Muslim militias into political parties, in the same way that the militant Zionist militias of Menachem Begin transitioned from their era of gangsterism to become Israel’s political parties. Hamas and Hezbollah are legitimate political forces that provide a great deal of aid to their embattled populaces. We asked the Arabs to try democracy and they rarely choose the parties we support. It is time that we get over it, and find a new way to look at the Middle East. If hatred of America and Israel is the cause of the war on terror, then ending that war means breaking with the policies that caused that hatred, not multiplying the causes themselves.

In order to break free from the chains that bind us to permanent war in the Middle East, we have to separate religion from government, to put an end to America’s efforts to fulfill Biblical prophecy. It is this tendency of American leaders to see themselves as messianic figures which causes them to think that they can usher in a religious utopia by re-creating events from ancient prophecies. We have been speculating about the real reasons behind America’s rapid moral decay into fascism, when the answer has been laying right there in front of us all along. The insanity of the “Christian Right” is the insanity that has overwhelmed this nation. Their absolute dedication to Israel has opened the door to the power play by the “devourers of worlds.”

We go to elaborate lengths to identify the brainwashers of the American majority in the government or to name names in the great conspiracy. Perhaps we misjudge the political power wielded by a radical religious movement in our lazy society, where barely 50 percent ever bother to vote. The reason for the enormous power of the New Right is that they have merely walked into the gap left by the American majority, which has given up on Democracy, abdicating their rights to lead their own government. These hyper-political “Christian” leaders who have promised their followers that they were going to intervene in America’s history, to inject Christian principles into American government, have been conspiring to takeover the Republic since they first rose-up to elect Ronald Reagan. Since then, they have been pretty effective at rousing a politicized and divided American majority to empower the Republicans under the guise of the “war on terror” to do whatever they have wanted to do to us, but allegedly “for us” until today. The one thing that they consistently do, is promote the interests of Israel.

According to CNN correspondent Christiane Amanpour, “A recent poll found that 59 percent of American evangelicals believe Israel is the fulfillment of biblical prophecy . . . The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs estimates 85 million evangelicals believes God tells them to support Israel — more than six times the world’s Jewish population.”

American Christians overwhelmingly believe that to support the state of Israel is to support God’s work. On this belief, the new neoconservative foreign policy of mass-murder has been grafted. Israeli political Zionists and politicized Christian Zionists both support killing as many Palestinians as is necessary to transmute Palestine into Israel. This religious deception that masquerades as “Christianity” likes to lay claim to the birthright of Jesus Christ, even though its most prominent spokesmen like John Hagee go so far as to deny that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah. Congressmen, like former Rep. Richard Armey, have openly stated that “my number one priority in foreign policy is to protect Israel,” when it should obviously be to protect America first. People like these are so dedicated to carrying-out the political will of Israel in the United States that they should register as agents of a foreign government.

With so much overwhelming political and economic power being brought to bear behind such an all-consuming nihilistic vision, what can rational American patriots do to stop them? Which of the three identified groups of “Armageddonists” is susceptible to reason? The neocons cannot be persuaded to change their treasonous ways because they are in the plot too deep. We know that the Christian Zionists are impervious to reason, because they believe Jesus promised to send magic clouds (or spaceships in the clouds) to save them. That leaves us with the Israeli government, to focus all our efforts upon. We have to persuade them that Israel will not benefit from any world war waged for them by America.

We must escalate our efforts to confront Israel, no matter how often we are slammed as “anti-Semites.” After all, the Zionists we confront have always followed Theodor Herzl’s admonition that “anti-Semitism . . . is a deeply imbedded force in the subconscious mind of the [Gentile] masses.”

If Herzl is saying that all Gentiles are anti-Semitic, isn’t that Jewish racism?

peter.chamberlin@hotmail.com

The Endless Fantasy of American Power

The Endless Fantasy of American Power

A U.S. soldier taking a break in the Pesh valley in Kunar Province, Afghanistan, August 2009
Carlos Barria / Reuters

In this year’s presidential election campaign, candidates have largely sidestepped the role of armed force as an instrument of U.S. policy. The United States remains the world’s preeminent and most active military power, but Republicans and Democrats find other things to talk about.

Ever since the end of the Cold War, successive administrations have enthusiastically put U.S. military might to work. In the last three decades, the flag of the United States Army has accumulated 34 additional streamers—each for a discrete campaign conducted by U.S. troops. The air force and navy have also done their share, conducting more than 100,000 airstrikes in just the past two decades.

Unfortunately, this frenetic pace of military activity has seldom produced positive outcomes. As measured against their stated aims, the “long wars” in Afghanistan and Iraq have clearly failed, as have the lesser campaigns intended to impart some approximation of peace and stability to Libya, Somalia, and Syria. An equally unfavorable judgment applies to the nebulous enterprise once grandly referred to as the “global war on terrorism,” which continues with no end in sight.

And yet there seems to be little curiosity in U.S. politics today about why recent military exertions, undertaken at great cost in blood and treasure, have yielded so little in the way of durable success. It is widely conceded that “mistakes were made”—preeminent among them the Iraq war initiated in 2003. Yet within establishment circles, the larger implications of such catastrophic missteps remain unexplored. Indeed, the country’s interventionist foreign policy is largely taken for granted and the public pays scant attention. The police killing of Black people provokes outrage—and rightly so. Unsuccessful wars induce only shrugs.

THE CHIMERA OF “AMERICAN LEADERSHIP”

With something approaching unanimity, Americans “support the troops.” Yet they refrain from inquiring too deeply into what putting the troops in harm’s way has achieved in recent decades. Deference to the military has become a rote piety of American life. In accepting the Democratic Party’s nomination for the presidency, for example, Joe Biden closed his remarks with an appeal to the Divine on behalf of the nation’s soldiers: “And may God protect our troops.” Yet nowhere in his 24-minute address did Biden make any reference to what U.S. troops were currently doing or why in particular they needed God’s protection. Nor did he offer any thoughts on how a Biden administration might do things differently.

Americans don’t particularly want to hear about war or the possibility of war in the present season of overlapping and mutually reinforcing crises. And Biden obliged them in the most important speech of his career. The famously garrulous politician mentioned recent U.S. wars only in passing, briefly referring to his late son, who served in Iraq, and excoriating U.S. President Donald Trump for not responding more aggressively to revelations that Russia put bounties on U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan.

This aversion to taking stock of recent U.S. wars is by no means unique to Biden or confined to the Democratic Party. It is a bipartisan tendency. It also inhibits a long overdue reexamination of basic national security policy.

Protracted wars are not making Americans freer or more prosperous.

Between the fall of the Berlin Wall and the 2016 presidential election, leaders of both political parties collaborated in trying to demonstrate the efficacy and necessity of what they habitually referred to as “American global leadership.” Embedded in that seemingly benign phrase was a grand strategy of militarized primacy. Unfortunately, the results achieved by this assertion of global leadership proved to be anything but benign, as turmoil in Afghanistan and Iraq attest. Although the defense industry and its allies have profited from American wars, the American people have done less well. Protracted wars are not making Americans freer or more prosperous. They have instead saddled the nation with enormous debt and diverted attention and resources from neglected domestic priorities.

In 2020, further occasions for bristling, militarized U.S. leadership beckon. China offers the most obvious example for hawks, with demands that the United States confront the People’s Republic growing more insistent by the day. Many in Washington appear to welcome the prospect of a Sino-American cold war. Other prospective venues for demonstrating assertive U.S. leadership include in operations against Iran, Russia, and even poor benighted Venezuela, with prominent figures in the Beltway eager to have a go at regime change in Caracas.

To cling to this paradigm of U.S. global leadership is to perpetuate the assumptions and habits defining post–Cold War U.S. national security policy—and above all the emphasis on amassing and employing military might. The United States grants itself prerogatives allowed to no other country to remain, in its own estimation, history’s “indispensable nation.” To judge by the results achieved in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other recent theaters of war, this imperative will only continue to wreak havoc in the name of freedom, democracy, and humane values.

THE GLOBAL OVER THE GEOPOLITICAL

An alternative path exists. Proponents of this path, most of them anti-interventionist progressives, propose to reframe politics as global rather than merely international. That is an important distinction. A global political ethos highlights problems affecting all nations, whether strong or weak, rich or poor, as opposed to emphasizing geopolitical competition, which sees the United States preoccupied with fending off any and all challengers to its preeminence. Those shared problems are not difficult to identify. They include communicable diseases such as COVID-19, the danger of nuclear conflict, the deterioration of the global commons, and, perhaps above all, climate change.

A second Trump administration will never acknowledge the existence of this alternative path. And regrettably, a Biden administration will probably pay little more than lip service to it. Despite the Biden campaign’s nod toward climate change—a crisis but also, in Biden’s words, “an enormous opportunity”—his own record and his choice of advisers suggest an administration less interested in real change than in restoring the status quo ante Trump.

Trump won the presidency in 2016 in no small part because a considerable number of Americans had lost confidence in establishment policies that left the United States mired in what he and other critics of a militarized U.S. policy called “endless wars.” He offered himself as the fixer who would put “America first.” But he has fixed nothing—and broken a great deal more. With monumental ineptitude, Trump has inflicted massive damage on U.S. credibility while the wars he inherited continue.

Take at face value Biden’s acceptance speech for the Democratic nomination and it suggests that he is intent on pursuing what is in effect an “America first” agenda without resorting to that radioactive phrase. Biden presents himself as an agent of domestic renewal, promising to save “the soul of America.” He is not promising to redeem the world.

But saving the United States’ soul will require an honest reckoning with post–Cold War U.S. foreign policy and, above all, with the reckless misuse of military power that forms its abiding theme. Biden proposes as president to build a United States that is “generous and strong, selfless and humble.” Achieving this lofty goal will require more than simply repudiating Trump and all his works. It will demand an approach to statecraft that is itself generous and strong, selfless and humble, qualities that recent administrations have displayed only intermittently.

What should this kind of statecraft look like? It would emphasize multilateral collaboration rather than unilateral action. It would use force only as a last resort. It would honor treaty commitments. It would adhere to respected norms—for example, the prohibition on preventive war. It would encourage allies capable of defending themselves to do so. It would work to strengthen, rather than undermine, international institutions. It would cease to define the size of the Pentagon’s budget as the ultimate measure of national security.

Washington should cease to define the size of the Pentagon’s budget as the ultimate measure of national security.

Given his priorities, Biden’s reluctance to talk about foreign wars is understandable. Yet if his administration reverts to the militarized definition of American global leadership that for decades has been the establishment’s default position, he will find the subject difficult to avoid. That path will lead to more war, inevitably clouding Biden’s rhetorical vision of light overcoming darkness.

If Biden is serious about transforming U.S. foreign policy, he will prioritize matters that pose an immediate threat to the safety and well-being of the American people. Terrorism still poses a nagging problem and always will. Aggressive actions by adversaries such as China, Russia, and Iran serve to remind Americans of the permanence of geopolitics. But in terms of proximate danger, all of these supposed threats pale in comparison with the death toll caused by the coronavirus pandemic or the havoc caused annually by climate-enhanced storms and wildfires. None of these actual threats will yield to a military solution.

War is the nemesis that will prevent Biden from achieving what he promises to do. A first step toward building the virtuous United States he desires is to avoid needless and futile armed conflicts. That will require a radical reorienting of U.S. national security policies to prioritize the safety and well-being of the American people at home, not the pursuit of phantasmagoric foes abroad.

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views and editorial stance of the SOHR.

Source: The Endless Fantasy of American Power | Foreign Affairs

25,150 Posts On No Sunglasses…some good friend is reading every single one

25,150 Posts On No Sunglasses

3,868,631 views

President Trump Warns About Pentagon Pushing Unwanted Permanent Wars

Trump Draws Eisenhower Comparisons After Criticizing Military-Industrial Complex

President Donald Trump’s difficult week with the military got a little worse on Monday, when the commander in chief accused the Pentagon leadership of pushing for conflicts in order to keep defense contractors profitable.

The president later shared tweets comparing himself to former President Dwight Eisenhower, who warned Americans about the rising power of the military-industrial complex in a 1961 speech marking the end of his time in office.

Trump has long framed himself as a staunch ally of the military and claimed enduring support among service members for his administration. The president has pushed to expand America’s gargantuan military budget and repeatedly bragged about the strength of the U.S. armed forces.

But the president has also grappled with multiple military controversies, accused of using service members as political props, criticized for maligning prominent veterans, putting troops in harm’s way unnecessarily and, according to an Atlantic report last week, dismissing U.S. war dead as “losers.”

Trump rejected the allegations, though multiple reports at outlets including the Associated Press, The Washington Post, and even Fox News—which has been largely deferential to the president—confirmed the Atlantic story in part or in full.

On Monday, Trump took aim at the Pentagon top brass during a press conference at the White House. “I’m not saying the military’s in love with me,” Trump told reporters.

“The soldiers are, the top people in the Pentagon probably aren’t because they want to do nothing but fight wars so that all of those wonderful companies that make the bombs and make the planes and make everything else stay happy.”

The remarks prompted a flurry of reports and social media comments describing Trump’s attack as unprecedented and politically unwise, given the president’s recent struggle to maintain his pro-military image.

Trump then retweeted multiple posts comparing him to Eisenhower, who in 1961 said: “This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience.”

Though he acknowledged the “imperative need for this development,” Eisenhower warned of the “grave implications” of its growth. “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist.”

Trump retweeted a post from Mollie Hemingway, a senior editor at the right-wing Federalist website, who said: “You are free to dislike and hysterically respond to any and all criticism of the military-industrial complex. You are not free to claim that it’s unprecedented for a president to critique it.”

Trump also retweeted a thread from reporter Glen Greenwald, now of The Intercept, who said Eisenhower “had 16 minutes on TV to warn Americans of what he thought they most needed to know, and used it primarily to emphasize the dangers of Pentagon growth, weapons spending, and the threats of Endless War.”

Trump seemingly wants to claim Eisenhower’s legacy in his latest spat with the military, but the president has been happy to sell American weapons around the world. Major deals between U.S. manufacturers and foreign nations have become a key element of his foreign diplomacy.

When Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman visited the White House, for example, Trump had posters made detailing the value of Saudi arms purchases and how many American jobs the contracts supported. The president has also publicly lauded American weapon deals with India, which he framed as a key element in bilateral ties with New Delhi.

The president has filled his administration with officials who have worked in or for major private sector companies, including prominent players in the military-industrial complex.

Defense Secretary Mark Esper, for example, was a long-time lobbyist for the Raytheon defense contractor, which has sold weapons to the Saudis that have been used to kill civilians in Yemen.

The president also has ties to Eric Prince, the founder of the notorious Blackwater private security company that was accused of a range of crimes during the occupation of Iraq. Prince has more recently pushed for his mercenaries to be deployed to replace U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

Prince’s sister is Betsy DeVos—Trump’s education secretary—and both are major GOP donors. Prince reportedly also tried to establish a secret back channel between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The Chaos Election Plan, Whether Trump Wins Or Loses

[The following tells it like it is far better than I ever could, even in my younger, more energetic days…Whitney Webb describes the nightmare election that is upon us, detailing the many secret plans of bipartisan traitors willing to sabotage their own country for a lost political cause…America is no longer a Democracy, but a dictatorship of the self-appointed “ruling class.”]

“Bipartisan” Washington Insiders Reveal Their Plan For Chaos If Trump Wins The Election

Authored by Whitney Webb

A group of “bipartisan” neoconservative Republicans and establishment Democrats have been “simulating” multiple catastrophic scenarios for the 2020 election, including a simulation where a clear victory by the incumbent provokes “unprecedented” measures, which the Biden campaign could take to foil a new Trump inauguration.

A group of Democratic Party insiders and former Obama and Clinton era officials as well as a cadre of “Never Trump” neoconservative Republicans have spent the past few months conducting simulations and “war games” regarding different 2020 election “doomsday” scenarios. 

Per several media reports on the group, called the Transition Integrity Project (TIP), they justify these exercises as specifically preparing for a scenario where President Trump loses the 2020 election and refuses to leave office, potentially resulting in a constitutional crisis. However, according to TIP’s own documentseven their simulations involving a “clear win” for Trump in the upcoming election resulted in a constitutional crisis, as they predicted that the Biden campaign would make bold moves aimed at securing the presidency, regardless of the election result.

This is particularly troubling given that TIP has considerable ties to the Obama administration, where Biden served as Vice President, as well as several groups that are adamantly pro-Biden in addition to the Biden campaign itself. Indeed, the fact that a group of openly pro-Biden Washington insiders and former government officials have gamed out scenarios for possible election outcomes and their aftermath, all of which either ended with Biden becoming president or a constitutional crisis, suggest that powerful forces influencing the Biden campaign are pushing the former Vice President to refuse to concede the election even if he loses.

This, of course, gravely undercuts the TIP’s claim to be ensuring “integrity” in the presidential transition process and instead suggests that the group is openly planning on how to ensure that Trump leaves office regardless of the result or to manufacture the very constitutional crisis they claim to be preventing through their simulations.

Such concerns are only magnified by the recent claims made by the 2016 Democratic presidential candidate and former Secretary of State under Obama, Hillary Clinton, that Biden “should not concede under any circumstances.”

“I think this is going to drag out, and eventually I do believe he will win if we don’t give an inch, and if we are as focused and relentless as the other side is,” Clinton continued during an interview with Showtime a little over a week ago. The results of the TIP’s simulations notably echo Clinton’s claims that Biden will “eventually” win if the process to determine the election outcome is “dragged out.”

The Uniparty’s “war games”

Members of the TIP met in June to conduct four “war games” that simulated “a dark 11 weeks between Election Day and Inauguration Day” in which “Trump and his Republican allies used every apparatus of government — the Postal Service, state lawmakers, the Justice Department, federal agents, and the military — to hold onto power, and Democrats took to the courts and the streets to try to stop it,” according to a report from The Boston Globe. However, one of those simulations, which examined what would transpire between Election Day and Inauguration Day in the event of a “clear Trump win,” shows that the TIP simulated not only how Republicans could use every option at their disposal to “hold onto power”, but also how Democrats could do so if the 2020 election result is not in their favor.

While some, mostly right-leaning media outlets, such as this article from The National Pulse, did note that the TIP’s simulations involved the Biden campaign refusing to concede, the actual document from TIP on the exercises revealed the specific moves the Biden campaign would take following a “clear win” for the Trump campaign. Unsurprisingly, these moves would greatly exacerbate current political tensions in the United States, an end result that the TIP claims they were created to avoid, gravely undercutting the official justification for their simulations as well as the group’s official reason for existing.

In the TIP’s “clear Trump win” scenario (see page 17), Joe Biden – played in the war game by John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign manager and chief of staff to former President Bill Clinton – retracted his election night concession and subsequently convinced “three states with Democratic governors – North Carolina, Wisconsin and Michigan – to ask for recounts.” Then, the governors of Wisconsin and Michigan “sent separate slates of electors to counter those sent by the state legislature” to the Electoral College, which Trump had won, in an attempt to undermine, if not prevent, that win.

Next, “the Biden campaign encouraged Western states, particularly California but also Oregon and Washington, and collectively known as “Cascadia,” to secede from the Union unless Congressional Republicans agreed to a set of structural reforms. (emphasis added)” Subsequently, “with advice from [former] President Obama,” the Biden campaign laid out those “reforms” as the following:

  1. Give statehood to Washington, DC and Puerto Rico
  2. Divide California into five states “to more accurately represent its population in the Senate”
  3. Require Supreme Court justices to retire at 70
  4. Eliminate the Electoral College

In other words, these “structural reforms” involve the creation of what essentially amounts to having the U.S. by composed 56 states, with the new states set to ensure a perpetual majority for Democrats, as only Democrat-majority areas (DC, Puerto Rico and California) are given statehood. Notably, in other scenarios where Biden won the Electoral College, Democrats did not support its elimination.

Also notable is the fact that, in this simulation, the TIP blamed the Trump campaign for the Democrats’ decision to take the “provocative, unprecedented actions” laid out above, asserting that Trump’s campaign had “created the conditions to force the Biden campaign” into taking these actions by doing things like giving “an interview to The Intercept in which he [Trump] stated that he would have lost the election if Bernie Sanders had been nominated” instead of Biden as the Democratic presidential candidate.

The TIP also claimed that the Trump campaign would seek to paint these “provocative, unpredecented actions” as “the Democrats attempting to orchestrate an illegal coup,” despite the fact that that is essentially what those actions entail. Indeed, in other simulations where the Trump campaign behaved along these lines, the TIP’s rhetoric about this category of extreme actions is decidedly different.

Yet, the simulated actions of the Biden campaign in this scenario did not end there, as the Biden campaign subsequently “provoked a breakdown in the joint session of Congress [on January 6th] by getting the House of Representatives to agree to award the presidency to Biden,” adding that this was “based on the alternative pro-Biden submissions sent by pro-Biden governors.” The Republican party obviously did not consent, noting that Trump had won the election through his Electoral College victory. The “clear Trump win” election simulation ended with no president-elect being inaugurated on January 20, with the TIP noting “it was unclear what the military would do in this situation.”

Of course, some TIP members, including its co-founder Rosa Brooks – a former advisor to the Obama era Pentagon and currently a fellow at the “New America” think tank, have their preference for “what the military would do in this situation.” For instance, Brooks, writing less than 2 weeks after Trump’s inauguration in 2017, argued in Foreign Policythat “a military coup, or at least a refusal by military leaders to obey certain orders” was one of four possibilities for removing Trump from office prior to the 2020 election.

Who is behind the TIP?

The TIP was created in late 2019, allegedly “out of concern that the Trump Administration may seek to manipulate, ignore, undermine or disrupt the 2020 presidential election and transition process.” It was co-founded by Rosa Brooks and Nils Gilman and its current director is Zoe Hudson. Brooks, as previously mentioned, was an advisor to the Pentagon and the Hillary Clinton-led State Department during the Obama administration. She was also previously the general counsel to the President of the Open Society Institute, part of the Open Society Foundations (OSF), a controversial organization funded by billionaire George Soros. Zoe Hudson, who is TIP’s director, is also a former top figure at OSF, serving assenior policy analyst and liaison between the foundations and the U.S. government for 11 years.

OSF ties to the TIP are a red flag for a number of reasons, namely due to the fact that OSF and other Soros-funded organizations played a critical role in fomenting so-called “color revolutions” to overthrow non-aligned governments, particularly during the Obama administration. Examples of OSF’s ties to these manufactured “revolutions” include Ukraine in 2014 and the “Arab Spring,” which began in 2011 and saw several governments in the Middle East and North Africa that were troublesome to Western interests conveniently removed from power.

Subsequent leaked emails revealed the cozy ties between Soros and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, including one email where Soros directed Clinton’s policy with respect to unrest in Albania, telling her that two things need to be done urgently,” which were to “bring the full weight of the international community to bear on Prime Minister Berisha” and appoint a senior European official as mediator.” Both “urgent” tasks were subsequently performed by Clinton, presumably at Soros’ behest.

In addition to her ties to the Obama administration and OSF, Brooks is currently a scholar at West Point’s Modern War Institute, where she focuses on “the relationship between the military and domestic policing” and also Georgetown’s Innovative Policing Program. She is a currently a key player in the documented OSF-led push to “capitalize” off of legitimate calls for police reform to justify the creation of a federalized police force under the guise of defunding and/or eliminating local police departments. Brooks’ interest in the “blurring line” between military and police is notable given her past advocacy of a military coup to remove Trump from office and the TIP’s subsequent conclusion that the military “may” have to step in if Trump manages to win the 2020 election, per the group’s “war games” described above.

Brooks is also a senior fellow at the think tank New America. New America’s mission statement notes that the organization is focused on “honestly confronting the challenges caused by rapid technological and social change, and seizing the opportunities those changes create.” It is largely funded by Silicon Valley billionaires, including Bill Gates (Microsoft), Eric Schmidt (Google), Reid Hoffman (LinkedIn), Jeffrey Skoll and Pierre Omidyar (eBay). In addition, it has received millions directly from the U.S. State Department to research “ranking digital rights.” Notably, of these funders, Reid Hoffman was caught “meddling” in the most recent Democratic primary to undercut Bernie Sanders’ candidacy during the Iowa caucus and while others, such as Eric Schmidt and Pierre Omidyar, are known for their cozy ties to the Clinton family and even ties to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign.

The Never Trumpers

Aside from Brooks, the other co-founder of TIP is Nils Gilman, the current Vice President of Programs at the Berggruen Institute and, prior to that, worked for Salesforce, a major tech company and government contractor. Gilman is particularly focused on artificial intelligence and transhumanism, recently telling the New York Times that his work at the Berggruen Institute is focused on “building [a] transnational networks of philosophers + technologists + policy-makers + artists who are thinking about how A.I. and gene-editing are transfiguring what it means to be human.” Nicholas Berggruen, for whom the Berggruen Institute is named, is part of the billionaire-led faction, alongside Blackstone’s Steve Schwarzman and Eric Schmidt, who seek to develop A.I. and the so-called “Fourth Industrial Revolution” in conjunction with the political leaders and economic elite of China.

They are critics and rivals of those in the “nationalist” camp with respect to A.I. and China, who instead prefer to aggressively “leapfrog” China’s A.I. capabilities in order to maintain U.S. global hegemony as opposed to a “new order” promoted by Berggreun, Schmidt, Schwarzman and Henry Kissinger, another key member of the “cooperation” faction. The battle over the U.S.’ future A.I. policy with respect to China appears to be a major yet widely overlooked reason for some of the antipathy towards Trump by those in the “cooperation” faction, including those who employ TIP’s founders, given Trump’s tendency to, at least publicly, support “America First” policies and increased tensions with China. In contrast, the Biden family is invested in Chinese A.I. companies, suggesting that Biden would be more willing to pursue the interests of the “cooperation” faction than Trump.

While the identities of the TIP’s founders and current director have been made public, the full member list of the TIP has not. However, the TIP’s “sister” organization, called The National Task Force on Election Crises (NTFEC), does have a public membership list and several of its members are also known to be part of the TIP. Some of these overlapping members include Michael Chertoff, former head of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Michael Steele, former chairman of the RNC and Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to former Secretary of State, Colin Powell. Chertoff, Steele and Wilkerson, though Republicans, are part of the so-called “Never Trump” Republican faction, as are the TIP’s other known Republican members. Thus, while the “bipartisan” nature of TIP may be accurate in terms of party affiliation, all of known TIP’s members – regardless of party – are united in their opposition to another term for the current president.

Other known members of the TIP include David Frum (the Atlantic), William Kristol (Project for a New American Century, The Bulwark), Max Boot (the Washington Post), Donna Brazile (ex-DNC), John Podesta (former campaign manager – Clinton 2016), Chuck Hagel (former Secretary of Defense), Reed Galen (co-founder of the Lincoln Project) and Norm Ornstein (American Enterprise Institute).

Of their known members, the most outspoken is Lawrence Wilkerson, who has fashioned himself the group’s “unofficial” spokesperson, having done the majority of media interviews promoting the group and its “war games.” In an interview in late June with journalist Paul Jay, Wilkerson notes that the TIP lacks transparency and that, aside from their “war games,” their other activities are largely confidential.

He specifically stated that:

“There is some confidentiality about what we agreed to, and what we’ve put out publicly, and who’s responsible for that, and other aspects of our doing that. The Transition Integrity Project is to this point very, very close, whole, and confidential.”

In that same interview, Wilkerson also noted that the current “combination of events” involving the recent unrest in several U.S. cities, the coronavirus crisis, the national debate over the future of policing, the economic recession and the 2020 election was the foundation for a revolution in the U.S. He told Jay that:

“I want to say this is how things like 1917 and Russia, like 1979 and Tehran, and like 1789 in France. This is how these sorts of things get started. So we’ve got to be very careful about how we deal with these things. And that worries me because we don’t have a very careful individual in the White House.”

Pre-planned chaos – who benefits?

While it certainly is possible that, in the event of a clear Biden win, President Trump could refuse to leave the White House or take other actions that would challenge the faith of many Americans in the national election system. However, while the TIP claims to be specifically concerned about this eventuality and about “safe guarding” democracy without favoring either candidate, that is clearly not the case, as their simulation of a clear Trump win shows that extreme, “undemocratic” behavior, in their view, is permissible if it prevents another four years of Trump. Yet, this clear double standard reveals that an influential group of “bipartisan” insiders are intent on creating a “constitutional crisis” if Trump wins and are planning for such a crisis regardless of the 2020 election’s results.

Well before the TIP or any of their affiliated groups emerged to conduct these doomsday election simulations, other groups were similarly engaged in “war games” that predicted complete chaos in the U.S. on election day as well as the imposition of martial law in the U.S. following the emergence of unprecedented unrest and disarray in the country.

Several of these I detailed in a series earlier this year, which mainly focused on the “Operation Blackout” simulationsconducted by the U.S.-Israeli company, Cybereason. That company has considerable ties to the U.S. and Israeli intelligence and its largest investor is Softbank. Notably, Softbank is named by the Eric Schmidt-led National Security Commission on AI (NSCAI) as forming the “backbone” of a global framework of A.I.-driven companies favored by the “cooperation” faction as a means of enacting the “Fourth Industrial Revolution” in cooperation with China’s economic and political elite.

In addition to Cybereason, several mainstream media reports and a series of suspect “predictions” from U.S. intelligence and other federal agencies released last year had seeded the narrative that the 2020 election would not only fail spectacularly, but that U.S. democracy “would never recover.” Now, with the TIP’s simulations added to the mix and the advent of the previously predicted chaos throughout the country with the 2020 election just two months away, it is clear that the November 3rd election will not only be a complete disaster, but a pre-planned one.

The question then becomes, who benefits from complete chaos on and following the 2020 election? As the TIP suggested in several of their simulations, the post-election role of the military in terms of domestic policing, incidentally the exact expertise of the TIP’s co-founder Rosa Brooks, looms large, as most of the aforementioned doomsday election simulations ended with the imposition of martial law or the military “stepping in” to resolve order and oversee the transition.

The domestic framework for imposing martial law in the U.S., via “continuity of government” protocols, was activated earlier this year under the guise of the coronavirus crisis and it remains in effect. Now, a series of groups deeply tied to the Washington establishment and domestic and foreign intelligence agencies have predicted the exact ways in which to engineer a failed election and manipulate its aftermath.

Who would stand to benefit the most from the imposition of martial law in the United States? I would argue that one need look no further than the battle within Washington power factions over the future of AI, which has been deemed of critical importance to national security by the public sector, the private sector and prominent think tanks. The Schmidt-led NSCAI and other bodies determining the country’s AI policy plan to implement a series of policies that will be deeply resisted by most Americans – from the elimination of individual car ownership to the elimination of cash as well as the imposition of an Orwellian surveillance system, among other things.

All of these agendas have advanced under the guise of combatting coronavirus, but their advance can only continue to use that justification for so long. For groups like the NSCAI, Americans must welcome these AI-driven advances or else, even if it means Americans face losing their jobs or their civil liberties. Otherwise, these groups and their billionaire backers argue, the U.S. will be “left out” and “left behind” when it comes time to set the new global standards for AI technology, as the U.S. will then be left in the dust by China’s growing AI industry, which is fed by its own implementation of these technologies.

By keeping Americans angry and distracted by the partisan divide through pre-planned election chaos, a “New America” waits in the wings – one that is coming regardless of what happens on election day. That is, of course, unless Americans quickly wake up to the ruse…

Preventing a Disrupted Presidential Election and Transition

 

August 3, 2020

Executive Summary

In June 2020 the Transition Integrity Project (TIP) convened a bipartisan group of over 100 current and

former senior government and campaign leaders and other experts in a series of 2020 election crisis scenario

planning exercises. The results of all four table-top exercises were alarming. We assess with a high

degree of likelihood that November’s elections will be marked by a chaotic legal and political landscape.

We also assess that the President Trump is likely to contest the result by both legal and extra-legal means,

in an attempt to hold onto power. Recent events, including the President’s own unwillingness to commit

to abiding by the results of the election, the Attorney General’s embrace of the President’s groundless

electoral fraud claims, and the unprecedented deployment of federal agents to put down leftwing protests,

underscore the extreme lengths to which President Trump may be willing to go in order to stay in office.

In this report, TIP explains the basis for our assessment. Our findings are bolstered by the historical experience

of Bush v. Gore (2000) and other U.S. electoral dysfunctions. The closest analogy may be the election

of 1876, a time of extreme partisanship and rampant disenfranchisement, where multiple states proffered

competing slates of electors, and the election was only resolved through a grand political bargain

days before Inaugurationone that traded an end to Reconstruction for electoral peace and resulted in a

century of Jim Crow, leaving deep wounds that are far from healed today.

Among the findings we highlight in the report:

The concept of “election night,” is no longer accurate and indeed is dangerous. We face a period

of contestation stretching from the first day a ballot is cast in mid-September until January

20. The winner may not, and we assess likely will not, be known on “election night” as officials

count mail-in ballots. This period of uncertainty provides opportunities for an unscrupulous candidate

to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the process and to set up an unprecedented assault on the

outcome. Campaigns, parties, the press and the public must be educated to adjust expectations

starting immediately.

A determined campaign has opportunity to contest the election into January 2021. We anticipate

lawsuits, divergent media narratives, attempts to stop the counting of ballots, and protests

drawing people from both sides. President Trump, the incumbent, will very likely use the executive

branch to aid his campaign strategy, including through the Department of Justice. We assess

that there is a chance the president will attempt to convince legislatures and/or governors to take

actions including illegal actions to defy the popular vote. Federal laws provide little guidance

for how Congress should resolve irregularities when they convene in a Joint Session on January

6, 2021. Of particular concern is how the military would respond in the context of uncertain election

results. Here recent evidence offers some reassurance, but it is inconclusive.

The administrative transition process itself may be highly disrupted. Participants in our exercises

of all backgrounds and ideologies believed that Trump would prioritize personal gain and

self-protection over ensuring an orderly administrative handoff to his successor. Trump may use

pardons to thwart future criminal prosecution, arrange business deals with foreign governments

that benefit him financially, attempt to bribe and silence associates, declassify sensitive documents,

and attempt to divert federal funds to his own businesses.

These risks can be mitigated; the worst outcomes of the exercises are far from a certainty. The purpose of

this report is not to frighten, but to spur all stakeholders to action. Our legal rules and political norms

don’t work unless people are prepared to defend them and to speak out when others violate them. It is

2

incumbent upon elected officials, civil society leaders, and the press to challenge authoritarian actions in

the courts, in the media, and in the streets through peaceful protest. Specific recommendations include:

Plan for a contested election. If there is a crisis, events will unfold quickly, and sleep-deprived

leaders will be asked to make consequential decisions quickly. Thinking through options now will

help to ensure better decisions. Approach this as a political battle, not just a legal battle. In the

event of electoral contestation, sustained political mobilization will likely be crucial for ensuring

transition integrity. Dedicated staff and resources need to be in place at least through the end of

January.

Focus on readiness in the states, providing political support for a complete and accurate count.

Governors, Secretaries of State, Attorneys General and Legislatures can communicate and reinforce

laws and norms and be ready to confront irregularities. Election officials will need political

and public support to see the process through to completion.

Address the two biggest threats head on: lies about “voter fraud” and escalating violence. Voting

fraud is virtually non-existent, but Trump lies about it to create a narrative designed to politically

mobilize his base and to create the basis for contesting the results should he lose. The potential

for violent conflict is high, particularly since Trump encourages his supporters to take up

arms.

Anticipate a rocky administrative transition. Transition teams will likely need to do two things

simultaneously: defend against Trump’s reckless actions on his way out of office; and find creative

solutions to ensure landing teams are able to access the information and resources they need

to begin to prepare for governing.

3

About the Transition Integrity Project

The Transition Integrity Project (TIP)1 was launched in late 2019 out of concern that the Trump Administration

may seek to manipulate, ignore, undermine or disrupt the 2020 presidential election and transition

process. TIP takes no position on how Americans should cast their votes, or on the likely winner of

the upcoming election; either major party candidate could prevail at the polls in November without resorting

to “dirty tricks.” However, the administration of President Donald Trump has steadily undermined

core norms of democracy and the rule of law and embraced numerous corrupt and authoritarian practices.

This presents a profound challenge for those from either party who are committed to ensuring free and

fair elections, peaceful transitions of power, and stable administrative continuity in the United States.

The American people have the right to choose their next president without intimidation or interference in

the normal electoral process. Believers in democracy and the rule of law should therefore be prepared to

take action to ensure that the results of the 2020 presidential election reflect the will of the American people.

Like many authoritarian leaders, President Trump has begun to lay the groundwork for potentially

ignoring or disrupting the voting process, by claiming, for instance, that any mail-in ballots will be fraudulent

and that his opponents will seek to have non-citizens vote through fraud. Similarly, he has frequently

expressed the view that he is entitled to additional time in office and that his opponents are seeking

to steal the election. If President Trump’s future actions violate long-standing legal and ethical norms

relating to presidential elections, there is also a risk that they will push other actors, including, potentially,

some in the Democratic Party, to similarly engage in practices that depart from traditional rule of law

norms, out of perceived self-defense.

The goal of TIP is to highlight these various electoral and transition-related risks and make recommendations

to all actors, individual and institutional, who share a commitment to democracy and the rule of

law.2 The recommendations shared here reflect input from both Republicans and Democrats committed to

these values. However, because the primary threat to the integrity of the election and transition appears to

come from the Trump Administration, most of the recommendations in this memo focus on how actors

committed to the rule of law can restrain or counter anti-democratic actions the Trump Administration

and its supporters may take in connection with the 2020 election.

That TIP’s concerns are widely shared is reflected in the media attention which this project has already

begun to garner. (For a list of articles as of late July 2020, see Appendix A.)

About the Scenario Exercises

In June 2020, TIP organized four scenario exercises to identify risks to the rule of law or to the integrity

of the democratic process in the period between Election Day (November 3, 2020) and Inauguration Day

(January 20, 2021), with an eye toward mitigation and/or prevention of worst-case outcomes.

At this point it seems possible that either candidate may achieve a decisive electoral victory, but the goal

of TIP’s scenario exercises was to gain a better understanding of the tests our democratic institutions

1 Rosa Brooks and Nils Gilman launched the Transition Integrity Project in December 2019 to focus on identifying

and mitigating threats to democracy and administrative continuity in the period between Election Day and Inauguration.

TIP has received advice and input from dozens of experts representing both major political parties. TIP is directed

by Zoe Hudson. Inquires can be sent to info@transitionintegrityproject.org.

2 TIP recognizes and shares the view that the Electoral College is profoundly anti-democratic, and that numerous

long-standing practices also function to create structural biases in our voting system. For present purposes, however,

these constraints are treated as givens.

4

could face in the event that candidates defy the norms that have underpinned American political practice

for decades. Specifically, TIP wanted to examine some of the unknowns: How far might candidates go in

contesting negative electoral outcomes or disrupting the normal transition process? How well would

American institutions hold up if one or both candidates refused to “play by the rules”?

The four scenarios were developed after a consultative process involving outreach to experts on elections

and transitions, political violence and instability, governance, and scenario planning and game design.

Each of the four scenarios developed was different. (See Appendix B for a summary of the scenarios and

key actions.) In one scenario, the exercise posited that the winner of the election was not known as of the

morning after the election and the outcome of the race was too close to predict with certainty; in another,

the exercise began with the premise that Democratic party candidate Joe Biden won the popular vote and

the Electoral College by a healthy margin; and in a third, the exercise assumed that President Trump won

the Electoral College vote but again lost the popular vote by a healthy margin. The fourth exercise began

with the premise that Biden won both the popular vote and the Electoral College by a narrow margin.

Sixty-seven people participated as active “players” in one or more of the scenario exercises, while dozens

more participated in the exercises as observers and offered feedback during debriefing sessions. Participants

included members of both major political parties, former high-ranking government officials (including,

for example, two former governors), senior political campaigners, nationally prominent journalists

and communications professionals, social movement leaders, and experts on politics, national security,

democratic reform, election law, and media.

Each simulation exercise involved seven teams, each composed of 2-3 people. The teams were constructed

to allow players considerable flexibility to adopt different identities at different points in the

game. Using a “matrix game”3 format, the teams were: (1) The Trump Campaign [“Team Trump”]; (2)

The Biden Campaign [“Team Biden”]; (3) Republican Elected Officials; (4) Democratic Elected Officials;

(5) Career Federal Government employees (civilian and military) and political appointees; (6) Media

(right wing, left wing and mainstream); and (7) the Public (this team consisted of polling experts).

Teams were made up of participants with “real life” experience in the types of roles they were asked to

play. Under the rules of the matrix game, teams presented with the initial scenario could take any action

they wanted. The chances of success of each team action were determined based on robust argumentation

among all teams and the adjudication of a White Cell, as well as a randomizing factor based on dice rolls.

It is important to note that the exercises were not designed to model or simulate legal strategy, but rather

to better understand the potential political mobilization and media dynamics surrounding potential electoral

contestation, and how candidates might exercise political power to achieve a win.

Key Insights from the Scenario Exercises

The scenario planning exercises were conducted in June 2020. Developments since then have only confirmed

that there is every reason to be concerned that our electoral rules and norms are under threat. In an

interview with Chris Wallace, President Trump suggested that he might not abide by the results of the

election if he loses. The President deployed agents from Homeland Security to Portland to suppress racial

3 A “matrix game” approach emphasizes and facilitates creativity and dynamic interaction between teams representing

major stakeholder groups. Participants make multifaceted, competitive arguments about not only their own intended

actions, but also the actions of each of their allies, partners, and competitors. The iterative “contest of ideas”

design forces players to interrogate and critique actions in real-time which provides insight not only into what

could happen, but also the reactions those actions may elicit. The gameplay focuses on players’ intentions, which

makes this modality useful for analyzing competing strategies.

5

justice protestors, a move that outraged many, including the Republican former head of Homeland Security,

and indicates President Trump’s appetite to deploy federal agents even against the will of local

elected officials. He has announced plans to expand this deployment to blue cities in swing states, raising

the specter of electoral intimidation. President Trump has speculated about whether the election should be

postponed and Attorney General Bill Barr expressed confusion about whether the date of the election

could be moved. (As a legal matter, only Congress can move the day of the Presidential election.) Trump

also demanded that the election results be called immediately on Election Day, e.g. before all mail-in ballots

can be counted. And the director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center in the Office

of the Director of National Intelligence issued a statement warning that foreign countries are again

trying to interfere in the US election.

Two words of caution about the findings from the exercises. First, TIP intentionally did not game legal

strategies in any detail. Litigation will be an important part of the strategy for both sides, but we did not

attempt to pass judgement on whether any particular claims or tactics would prevail. One question is

whether a candidate is able to convince the state legislature to send a package of electoral college votes

inconsistent with the certified popular vote. Even if a court disapproved of this action, Congress might

nonetheless consider those votes on January 6.

Second, the exercises were not able to fully capture the ways in which the media will shape and drive

public opinion, or how specific media outlets would cover events differently and drive increasingly partisan

responses. Social media in particular will undoubtedly play a heavy role in how the public perceives

the outcome of the election. Political operatives, both domestic and foreign, will very likely attempt to use

social media to sow discord and even move people to violence. Social media companies’ policy and enforcement

decisions will be consequential, and this merits further exploration and consideration.

The topline findings are here. While not directly the subject of the scenario planning exercises, in debriefings

our participants almost all raised questions about whether “Trumpism” would survive a Trump loss.

We include a summary of that discussion in Appendix C.

1. Campaign decisions about whether to contest the election are likely to be political calculations,

rather than calculations based on legal rules alone.

Election lawyers use the term “margin of litigation” to describe the range of reported vote tallies that

would provoke legal action. Thinking about the upcoming Presidential election, the more important concept

might be the “margin of contestation.”4 In other words, what combination of factors might lead a

candidate to conclude that contesting the election is (or is not) in his interest? This is a dynamic and unpredictable

calculation because the outcome is likely to be fought not only in court or by counting ballots,

but possibly also in state legislatures, in Congress, and on the streets.

What happens before Election Day will, to a large extent, determine the margin of contestation. Reporters,

pollsters, pundits, political parties, and many others will communicate confidence or concern about

the legitimacy of the election. Viral social media memes will play a role as well.

During the exercises, winning “the narrative” emerged as a potentially decisive factor. Either side can expand

or contract the “margin of contestation” if they succeed in substantially changing how key decision

makers and the public view the “facts,” the risks of action or inaction, or external events such as civil unrest.

An integrated strategy of legal contestation, political leadership, mass mobilization, and messaging is

4 This observation comes from Ohio State University law professor Edward B. Foley, author of Presidential Elections

and Majority Rule (Oxford University Press, 2020) and Ballot Battles: The History of Disputed Elections in the

United States (Oxford University Press, 2016).

6

much stronger, and Team Trump often had the advantage because they could rely on Fox News, a significant

and committed base, and loyalties from law enforcement agencies. Team Biden often had the majority

of the public on its side, and the ability to mobilize resentment about the structural disenfranchisement

in the way we conduct presidential elections.

TIP’s exercises suggest that President Trump may expand the margin of contestation primarily by contesting

the legality of votes cast (e.g., by alleging fraudulent mail-in ballots, voting by ineligible voters, etc.).

Meanwhile, former Vice President Biden may expand the margin of contestation by highlighting voter

suppression by the GOP (purges of voter rolls, shutting down of polling places, failure to fund election

administration, ID and other verification requirements, intimidation of voters, etc.). Biden may also be

able to expand the margin of contestation by questioning the overall legitimacy of a system that doesn’t

require the winner to get a majority of the popular vote or by decrying how President Trump uses the

power of the presidency to manipulate the process. Both sides may expand the margin of contestation by

questioning the credibility of reported results, if, for example, they believe (or merely assert) that foreign

interference or other factors compromised the integrity of the vote count.

The conditions and mood of the country will also inform whether and how candidates assess the window

of contestation. We could be facing an alarming second wave of COVID-19, rising unemployment, a cratering

stock market, growing evictions, civil unrest, and even political violence. President Trump may be

seen as an asset or as a liability to down-ballot Republican candidates. The political commitment (or desperation)

of rank and file members of each party will not just reflect the actions of leadership but may

drive those actions as well. A close election will by definition be a fluid situation.

2. A close and contested election may be resolved through the exercise of power, not through

the courts.

The scenario exercises developed by TIP were designed to encourage both the Biden and Trump teams to

pursue plausible but aggressive actions in order to win. The exercises demonstrated that the very first

“move” by each campaign was often decisive; it established a narrative and the overall strategy. In all

four of the exercises TIP conducted, Team Trump immediately adopted a strategy of casting doubt on the

official election results, even in the one scenario where he later accepted a loss. Team Trump also encouraged

chaos and violence in the streets and aimed to provoke Team Biden into subverting norms even

as Team Trump itself sabotaged traditional norms so that Team Biden could be accused of hypocrisy or

illegality.

During the exercises, Team Trump and GOP elected officials took the following steps:

Calling for recounts in all states in which victory was not already apparent.

Launching coordinated investigations at the state and federal levels into alleged “voting irregularities”

in an effort to undermine public confidence in results that did not go Trump’s way and/or

alter the results.

Attempting to halt the counting of mail-in ballots by filing cases in state court or leaning on Republican

leaders to stop vote counting or to certify a result early, without waiting for the certified

results from the Secretary of State.

Turning out their well-organized and committed base to take to the streets in Trump’s favor, in

part by disseminating disinformation about the danger posed by pro-Biden demonstrators (e.g., by

suggesting likely Antifa violence, etc.).

Relying on both FOX News and right-wing social media to echo and amplify pro-Trump messages

and facilitate the harassment and bullying of election officials, to cause chaos and delay

and/or to intimidate officials into taking actions that benefited Team Trump.

7

Using federal agencies to justify or support Trump campaign tactics. In one of the more aggressive

moves undertaken in one of the TIP exercises, Team Trump had Attorney General Bill Barr

order the seizure of mail-in ballots to ensure that vote counting would stop.

In TIP’s exercises, when Team Trump was behind in the popular vote, they moved quickly to try to shift

the narrative and alter the standards of proof. Their strategy was to force Team Biden to “prove a negative”:

that there was not election fraud. The exercises suggest that Trump and his supporters are likely to

engage in an orchestrated disinformation campaign to shape the public’s perception in fact, misperception

of the “facts” underpinning a dispute over electoral results. In TIP’s exercises, once a narrative

took hold casting the election results into doubt, Team Trump was able to successfully convince GOPcontrolled

state legislatures to submit separate slates of electors declaring Trump the winner.5

Biden’s strategic assets include Democratic governors and Secretaries of State in swing states (notably in

North Carolina, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin); a broadly shared sense in the Democratic Party

that current voting systems, as well as the electoral college, are structurally anti-democratic; and a widespread

and deeply-held desire, on the part of Democrats nationwide, to move on from the chaos of the

Trump administration. In all the scenarios examined in TIP’s exercises, even as votes were still being

counted, Team Biden moved quickly to try to project an ability to govern, by announcing cabinet nominees,

an agenda for the first 100 days, and bipartisan support for its administration.

During the exercises, Team Biden and Democratic elected officials took the following steps:

Organizing 1,000 “influencers” to denounce efforts to steal the election.

Organizing all living presidents to stand with Biden and denounce Trump administration efforts

to subvert the democratic process.

Recruiting moderate Republican Governors such as Baker (MA) and Hogan (MD) to form an

“Election Protection” Coalition.

Working with local Democratic elected officials to call on the Adjutant General of the National

Guard, along with representatives from the technology sector, to monitor vote counting.

Organizing a bipartisan “National Day for Restoration of Democracy” and a “National Day of

Unity,” both including faith leaders.

Attempting a capital strike and a work stoppage as part of an overall effort to push corporate

leaders to insist that all ballots to be counted.

During TIP’s exercises, these moves had limited ability to stop Team Trump’s push to discredit or contest

the results. The one exception was in the scenario, described in more detail later, where Biden won the

popular vote by a large margin but still lost the electoral college, and the response was aggressive and coordinated.

Team Trump was consistently more ruthless than Team Biden more willing to ignore existing

democratic norms, to make use of disinformation, to deploy federal agencies to promote Trump’s personal

and electoral interests, and to engage in intimidation campaigns. Team Biden generally felt constrained

by a commitment to norms and a desire to tamp down violence and reduce instability.

At the same time, the scenario exercises also revealed that for many Democrats and key Democratic constituencies,

this election represents an existential crisis, the last chance to stop a rapid and potentially irreversible

US decline into authoritarianism and unbridled nativism. Some participants in the exercises observed

that if former Vice President Biden wins the popular vote but loses the Electoral College, there

will be political pressure from the Democratic Party’s rank and file and from independent grassroots

5 This move and others would certainly be contested in court; we don’t mean to imply that every action taken is

strictly legal. Teams were given considerable flexibility in the actions taken.

8

organizations to prevent a second Trump term. In the scenario that most closely mirrored the 2016 election

results (e.g., the Democratic candidate wins the popular vote but loses the Electoral College), Team

Biden pushed to overturn certified results in states with Democratic Governors and negotiated hard for

permanent structural reforms in exchange for recognition of a Trump victory. To take this more robust

action, Team Biden had to deliver a united Democratic front, which meant coordinating effectively with

state party officials as well as with grassroots and activist organizations. While most participants believed

that the Trump campaign has the real-life capacity to mobilize and, to a significant extent, steer and control

the actions of Trump supporters, several participants expressed serious doubt about the ability of the

Biden campaign to either mobilize or control left-wing activists. (They also expressed doubt about Team

Trump’s future willingness to honor any agreements made during the election period.)

The period from November 4th to December 14th sets the stage for a potential fight in the Congress on

January 6th, 2021. The scenario exercises did not have adequate representation from individual states to

adequately understand how the full range of state-based institutions and actors would likely conduct

themselves. Teams were often able to convince state legislatures or governors to submit a slate of electors

contrary to the popular vote, but it isn’t clear how realistic this political possibility is, or if it is being actively

considered by either campaign.

3. As an incumbent unbounded by norms, President Trump has a huge advantage.

TIP’s scenario exercises underscored a basic truth: an incumbent running for re-election can use the powers

of the presidency to great advantage, particularly if traditional norms are viewed as unimportant and

the incumbent is willing to take the risk that a court will eventually rule his actions to be unlawful. The

exercise identified the following presidential powers as most likely to be misused to manipulate electoral

outcomes or disrupt the transition: the President’s ability to federalize the national guard or invoke the

Insurrection Act to deploy active duty military domestically; his ability to launch investigations into opponents;

and his ability to use Department of Justice and/or the intelligence agencies to cast doubt on

election results or discredit his opponents. The President and key members of his administration can also

reference classified documents without releasing them, manipulate classified information, or selectively

release classified documents for political purposes, fueling manufactured rumors. Participants noted that

additional presidential powers subject to misuse include the ability to the freeze assets of individuals and

groups the president determines to be a threat, and his ability to restrict internet communications in the

name of national security.

Many participants expressed concern that the Department of Justice has been politicized and would be

used to provide legal cover for the President’s actions. In one TIP simulation, the teams playing the Department

of Justice and the Postmaster General took action to seize ballots going through the mail, allegedly

to “safeguard” the ballots pursuant to a fraud investigation. The elections also demonstrated that

there is considerable room to use foreign interference, real or invented, as a pretext to cast doubt on the

election results or more generally to create uncertainty about the legitimacy of the election.

The scenario exercises revealed very few meaningful checks on Team Trump’s executive authorities from

GOP members of Congress or from political appointees in federal agencies.6 During the TIP exercises,

teams playing GOP elected officials and political appointees most often acted in lockstep to support Team

Trump. Where the GOP broke ranks, it could be decisive. There was one instance where four GOP

6 This did not feature in the scenario planning exercises, but when President Trump has suggested that the date of the

election should be moved, GOP leaders, including Majority Leader McConnell have been quick to clarify that the

date cannot be moved. See “Trump encounters broad pushback to his suggestion to delay the Nov. 3 election,”

Washington Post, July 30, 2020.

9

Senators broke with Trump when the Congress considered the slate of electors, handing the victory to

Biden. The one area of genuine uncertainty related to whether Team Trump could convince the military to

deploy active duty troops domestically. In the scenario, the military refused to support Team Trump, but

there was concern that this reflected “recency bias” given that the exercises were run shortly after participants

observed the military’s cautiousness in the wake of the June 1, 2020 events in Lafayette Square.

4. A show of numbers in the streets- and actions in the streets- may be decisive factors in determining

what the public perceives as a just and legitimate outcome.

During TIP’s exercises, Team Biden almost always called for and relied on mass protests to demonstrate

the public’s commitment to a “legitimate” outcome, with the objective of hardening the resolve of Democratic

elected officials to fight and take action, and to dramatize the stakes. As a practical matter, however,

participants in the exercise noted that racial justice activists and others will likely act independently

of the Biden campaign players repeatedly cautioned that these social movements are independent, not

beholden to, or a tool of, the Democratic party. Their support or Biden’s ability to mobilize them cannot

be taken for granted. (Note: leaders of these grassroots movements were not well represented in the simulation

exercises, so the scenario exercises did not robustly test their likely receptivity to a Biden call to

take to the streets, or to the Biden campaign’s ability to control these actors once mobilized.) If anything,

the scale of recent demonstrations has increased the stakes for the Democratic Party to build strong ties

with grassroots organizations and be responsive to the movement’s demands.

In addition, the exercises suggest that there is a significant possibility of simultaneous street mobilizations

by both Trump and Biden supporters, in which case the possibility for violence will increase significantly,

and the actions of law enforcement will become critical. Of note here: TIP’s scenario exercise suggest

that President Trump and his more fervent supporters have every incentive to try to turn peaceful pro-

Biden (or anti-Trump) protests violent in order to generate evidence that a Democratic victory is tantamount

to “mob rule.” In the recent past, President Trump has on numerous occasions called on “Second

Amendment people” to defend their rights and has called on his supporters to “liberate” states with restrictive

COVID-19-related rules. Trump can rely on surrogates to embed operatives inside protests to encourage

violent action, and he can mobilize a range of law enforcement actors (including National Guard

troops, whether federalized or under the control of GOP governors) who might, without proper training or

if led by politicized actors, escalate matters. In some scenarios examined by TIP, Team Trump succeeded

in invoking the Insurrection Act and sending active duty military troops into US cities to “restore order,”

“protect” voting places, or confiscate “fraudulent” ballots.

5. Trump is likely to prioritize his personal interests in the transition period.

TIP constructed scenarios intended to illuminate issues in the transition period, but during the exercise,

the active teams spent most of their time contesting the election results. As a result, the insights on the

formal transition are somewhat limited. Nevertheless, a few themes emerged:

Take the money and run. Participants in the scenario exercises universally believed that selfpreservation

for President Trump and his family will be Trump’s first and possibly only priority if

he is forced to concede electoral defeat. Before he leaves office he might maximize the flow of

federal money into Trump businesses (moves played: direct COVID-19 relief package for Trump

hotels; relocate to Mar-a-Lago for the final months of his presidency); negotiate business deals

with foreign countries; and purge documents that might incriminate foreign governments and

business partners (for example, documents related to Jamal Khashoggi’s murder). President

Trump could also launch his next business venture from the White House (speculations include

“MAGA TV,” possibly headed by Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner).

Pardon everyone. In almost every TIP scenario, Team Trump executed or prepared for the pardons

of relatives, campaign associates, and himself. Players took different approaches in each of

the scenarios; in one scenario Trump resigned on January 19, 2021, trusting that Pence would

sign the pardons. In another scenario, Trump executed his own pardon. In the debrief, participants

noted that the pardons could be challenged only after he leaves office and someone files charges.

Even with an expansive understanding of pardon powers, Trump can’t absolve himself of state

crimes. He could, however, impugn the character of state officials, including, for instance, the

character of New York State Attorney Leticia James, who has publicly threatened legal action

against President Trump when he leaves office. He will certainly try to establish the narrative in

advance that any efforts to hold him or his allies accountable for wrong-doing and illegality is politically

motivated revenge.

Wag the Dog/spark a foreign adventure. There was quite a bit of speculation that Trump might

himself initiate a foreign crisis shortly after the election or during the transition, perhaps to

change the media narrative around a contested election, attempt to rally nationalist feelings to

himself, or placate foreign leaders to whom he may feel beholden, such as Vladimir Putin. Some

participants noted that in the event of political chaos in the United States, certain US adversaries

might be emboldened to act opportunistically, especially if electoral contestation was generating

uncertainty about who precisely was acting as Commander in Chief. From a national security

perspective, participants expressed concern about US vulnerability during a contested election.

Destroy evidence. In an effort to preserve the President’s legacy and thwart future criminal investigations,

Team Trump ordered numerous documents destroyed in several of the exercises. Team

Trump also classified many more documents as top secret and expanded the use of non-disclosure

agreements.

Disrupt the transition process. In several of the TIP exercises, Team Trump refused to provide

clearances or briefings for proposed members of the incoming Biden administration, offering

only what is already in the public domain. Team Trump attempted to discredit the transition team

(“We’re cooperating, but not with Democrat Antifa agents”). In a debrief, one participant expressed

concern that Attorney General Barr could launch a bogus investigation into “terrorist

ties” of the Biden transition team in order to justify surveillance, and/or facilitate a false flag operation

before the election or when the election is still being contested. Others voiced the concern

that if Trump loses badly, he could quit on the spot, making Vice President Pence interim president

during the transition period. Few participants found it plausible to envision a defeated Trump

gracefully engaging in the customary rite of passing the baton to the next President on Inauguration

Day.

During several of the TIP exercises, Team Biden attempted to enter into negotiations with Team Trump

about a pardon and graceful transition, but those overtures were consistently rejected. In multiple instances,

Team Biden offered to talk about pardons. In one instance, Team Biden’s strategy in anticipation

of an ultimate loss was to strengthen its hand in order to negotiate a package of structural reforms

to the democratic system (including making DC and Puerto Rico states, abolishing the Electoral College,

and requiring Supreme Court justices to retire at 70).

It is not clear whether the failure to compromise during these scenario exercises should be viewed as predictive

of likely future behavior by Trump and his representatives, or whether the game structure of the

scenario exercises rewarded partisan actions. What is clear is that, if he is faced with having to negotiate

an “exit package” with the incoming Biden team, President Trump has incentives to increase the chaos or

damage to the institutions during the transition process, in order to improve his negotiating leverage regarding

that exit package.

11

Recommendations to Avoid a Crisis

The recommendations below are preliminary, and TIP is actively seeking feedback on these recommendations,

which will be revised as needed based on input received. Some of these recommendations are already

being contemplated and implemented by independent organizations.

TIP has no role in advising campaigns on strategy, and the campaigns will take independent actions. The

draft recommendations below are directed at government officials, civil society actors, and other stakeholders

concerned with safeguarding the integrity of the 2020 election and transition process.

1. Plan for a contested election.

There will likely not be an “election night” this year; unprecedented numbers of voters are expected to

use mail-in ballots, which will almost certainly delay the certified result for days or weeks. A delay provides

a window for campaigns, the media, and others to cast doubt on the integrity of the process and for

escalating tensions between competing camps. As a legal matter, a candidate unwilling to concede can

contest the election into January.

Everyone interested in protecting the legitimacy of the election and transition planning processes needs to

make plans now for how to respond in the event of a crisis.

If there is a crisis, events will unfold quickly, and sleep-deprived leaders will be asked to make

consequential decisions quickly. Thinking through options now will help to ensure better decisions.

Planners need to take seriously the notion that this may well be a street fight, not a legal battle;

technocratic solutions, courts, and a reliance on elites observing norms are not the answer here.

Dedicated staff and resources need to be in place at least through the end of January.

The news media has a particular responsibility to ready the public for the possibility that results

will not be known on Election Night, to communicate election results accurately, and to plan to

cover a contested election in a manner that reduces, rather than inflames, tensions.

2. Focus on readiness in the states, providing political support for a complete and accurate count.

Get it right here to avoid a crisis.

Our decentralized elections system places great power in the hands of state actors, including Governors,

Secretaries of State, Attorneys General and Legislatures. Election officials will need political and public

support to see the process through to its conclusion.

State and local election officials need to communicate with the public ahead of time, clarifying

how ballots will be counted, when results might be known, and how disputes will be resolved.

State actors should understand and use the legal remedies available under state law to address

confusion and questions about the count.

State actors, particularly those in swing states, should ask: What are specific political incentives

for certain actions in the post-electoral period in their state? What is the risk that the state legislature

or the governor would certify a result at odds with the popular vote? What are the risks that a

complete count would be thwarted? What is the history of hate crimes and other acts of targeted

violence? Who are the key influencers in the media and among local activists who can affect political

perceptions, and mobilize political action? Can they be approached and briefed on these

issues now, to establish pre-commitments to playing a constructive role in the event of a contested

election?

12

Groups, coalitions, and networks should be preparing now to establish the necessary communications

and organizing infrastructure to support mass mobilization. If there is a crisis, almost every

strategy to protect the democratic process is dependent on mass mobilization, and in particular, on

people taking peacefully to the streets in large numbers, potentially for an extended period. Large,

base-building groups on the progressive side will need to anchor this strategy, but their success

will likely depend on supporting and resourcing new and emerging racial justice leaders, many of

whom are not affiliated with formal institutions and coalitions.

3. Name the elephant in the room: President Trump is not running a normal re-election campaign.

There is a difference between running for re-election and attempting to stay in power through any means

possible. A norm-disregarding incumbent has assets that can influence the outcome. President Trump’s

actions and statements over the course of his presidency raise serious concerns about whether he will observe

the norms of our electoral system. Everyone particularly the media and non-partisan actors

should avoid “both side-ism,” the instinct to appear neutral by positing false equivalencies between major

and minor norm breaches or illegalities.

Of particular concern are the President’s ability to federalize the national guard; to deploy the military domestically;

to launch investigations into opponents and to freeze their assets; and even to control communication

in the name of national security. The politicization of the Department of Justice adds an additional

worrying dimension, including whether and how the agency could provide legal cover for the President’s

actions. In July, the Department of Homeland Security deployed federal agents to Portland, Oregon

under questionable legal authority and against the will of local officials. Agents detained people, and used

tear gas, rubber bullets and acoustic weapons on protestors. This follows the well-publicized and broadly

condemned actions in Lafayette Square in June where National Guard troops and U.S. Park Police used

tear gas on protestors in order to allow President Trump to have a photo op in front of a church.

Congressional leaders should conduct oversight hearings, set clear expectations ahead of time

about the conduct of the election, and seek advance assurances from the military and agency

heads about their plans and conduct. The Department of Homeland Security should be pushed to

more vigorously investigate and publicize evidence of foreign interference.

Military and law enforcement leaders need to be particularly attuned to the possibility that partisan

actors will seek to manipulate or misuse their coercive powers for inappropriate political

ends. Concretely, at both the state and federal level, partisan actors (including President Trump

himself) may seek to deploy law enforcement, national guard troops and potentially active duty

military (under the Insurrection Act) to “restore order” in a manner that primarily benefits one

candidate, or to participate in efforts that interrupt the process to count ballots. Military and law

enforcement leaders need to plan now for these possibilities to avoid becoming unwitting pawns

in a partisan battle.

Civil servants should be educated about their legal obligations to uphold the constitution. Those

who speak out about abuses of power may need political protection and support, and legal assistance,

as they may face retaliation.

Journalists and independent watch dogs can begin to cultivate sources and research stories now so

that they are positioned to sound the alarm should actors inside or outside of government attempt

to discredit the legitimate results of the election.

4. Address the two biggest threats head on: lies about “vote fraud” and escalating violence.

13

Despite overwhelming evidence that voting fraud is extremely rare, falsely claiming fraud is a common

tactic to undermine voter confidence in election results, and Trump is using it already. Another significant

concern is that if both Trump and Biden supporters take to the streets, it will increase the risk of violent

conflict, particularly since President Trump has repeatedly encouraged his supporters to take up arms.

Foreign intelligence operations are also likely to attempt to stoke domestic discord. Extremists can use

social media platforms and communications tools like Facebook Messenger to quickly and broadly disseminate

lies and to organize people to take extreme action. (We have seen this already, e.g., through

hoaxes aimed at encouraging armed right-wing activists to assemble against non-existent threats.)

Trusted leaders and the media should publicly challenge President Trump’s claims of fraud, including

that all mail-in ballots are fraudulent. This should be described as the first step of a strategy

to interrupt or disregard the official results. Election officials and others in a position to

launch large public information campaigns need to explain the long tradition of absentee voting

as well as the safeguards in place to secure mail-in ballots and protect the results.

Public officials and law enforcement need to plan for large-scale protests, provide support for

peaceful demonstrations that are protected by the First Amendment, and think carefully about

how to deal quickly with violent elements, some of whom may be agents provocateurs.

Peaceful protestors will need specialized training on de-escalation and non-violent techniques

and on how to document the non-violent nature of their protests, given the likelihood that agitators

will attempt to blame any violence on them.

Media outlets, organizers and campaigns need to develop strategies to both promote accurate reporting

with trusted leaders and to interrupt and limit disinformation campaigns.

Social media platforms should take a leadership role in ensuring, at a minimum, the safety of

election workers and others involved in counting ballots by, for example, keeping personal information

and accounts secure. Social media platforms should also elevate trustworthy officials and

accurate information, remove lies and disinformation, and refuse to give voice to those provoking

or organizing violent action.

5. Anticipate a rocky administrative transition.

As is required by law, the formal transition process has already started. There are rules that ensure transition

teams have access to government resources and are being briefed even if the election is still contested.

But these legal protections do not guard against the potential for the reckless, self-serving actions

that President Trump might take if he is on his way out of office.

Transition teams will need to plan to do two things simultaneously: possibly defend against

Trump’s disruptive actions on his way out of office; and find creative solutions to ensure landing

teams are able to access the information and resources they need to begin to prepare for governing.

Here too civil servants will need independent legal guidance and possibly whistle-blower protections.

They need to know what information they can and can’t disclose to transition teams, how to

preserve government documents, what constitutes an unlawful instruction, and how to sound the

alarm.

Congressional leaders and lawyers need to anticipate that Trump will make strategic use of pardons

to thwart future criminal prosecution, arrange business deals with foreign governments that

benefit President Trump and his family, attempt to bribe and silence associates, declassify sensitive

documents, and attempt to divert federal funds to Trump’s businesses.

14

Appendix A: Press Coverage of TIP through late July 2020

David Frum, “Where the System May Break,” The Atlantic, January 31, 2020:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/how-2020-election-could-go-wrong/614842/

Paul Egan, “Granholm issues controversial warning about potential Trump election interference,” Detroit

Free Press, July 31, 2020: https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/

2020/07/31/trump-election-granholm-ballot-boxes/5553878002/

“Experts Game Out What Might Happen if the Election Goes Off the Rails,” All Things Considered,

July 30, 2020: https://www.npr.org/2020/07/30/897345056/experts-game-out-what-might-happen-ifthe

election-goes-off-the-rails

“This ‘War Game’ Maps Out What Happens if the President Contests the Election,” WBUR, July 28,

2020: https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2020/07/28/election-war-games-trump-scenario

Paul Steinhauser, “Group is Quietly Planning for What Happens if Trump-Biden Election is Contested,”

Fox News, July 27, 2020: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/group-is-quietly-planning-forwhat

happens-if-trump-biden-election-is-contested

Jess Bidgood, “A bipartisan group secretly gathered to game out a contested Trump-Biden election. It

wasn’t pretty,” Boston Globe, July 26, 2020: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/07/25/nation/bipartisan

group-secretly-gathered-game-out-contested-trump-biden-election-it-wasntpretty/?

event=event12

Jason Lemon, Bipartisan Group Predicts Violence If Trump Loses Election and Refused to Leave

White House, Newsweek, July 26, 2020: https://www.newsweek.com/bipartisan-group-predicts-violence

if-trump-loses-election-refuses-leave-white-house-1520561

“Election Gaming Scenario: Is this what 2020 has been about?” Augusta Free Press, July 26, 2020:

https://augustafreepress.com/election-gaming-scenario-is-this-what-2020-has-been-about/

Ben Riley-Smith, “Revealed: Republicans and DC veterans fear Donald Trump won’t accept election

defeat,” The Telegraph, July 7, 2020: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/07/07/revealed-republicans

dc-veterans-fear-donald-trump-wont-accept/

Max Boot, “What if Trump loses but insists he won,” The Washington Post, July 6, 2020:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/07/06/what-if-trump-loses-insists-he-won/

Ed Luce, “How America could fail its democracy test,” The Financial Times, July 2, 2020:

https://www.ft.com/content/250c79f3-f1e8-4251-a224-ee819c6a1f6b

Peter Nicolas, “Trump could still break democracy’s biggest norm,” The Atlantic, June 16, 2020:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/06/when-does-trump-leave-white-house/613060/

Reid Epstein, “Trump Sows Doubt on Voting. It Keeps Some People Up at Night,” New York Times,

May 24, 2020 https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/24/us/politics/trump-2020-election-votingrights.

html

15

Appendix C: Game Summaries

TIP hosted four separate games. Key actions and insights from each turn in each game are outlined below.

Turns Two and Three are combined in these descriptions as all games reached a logical concluding point

either at the end of Turn Two or early in Turn Three. Parts of Turn Three were also used to summarize

key game take-aways. These are not comprehensive descriptions, but they note important moves and

strategies from each game.

Game One: Ambiguous Result

The first game investigated a scenario in which the outcome of the election remained unclear from election

night and throughout gameplay. The election outcome turned on results of three states: North Carolina,

Michigan and Florida. Different combinations of outcomes from those states could result in a range

of final election results including a 269-269 Electoral College tie. A ‘blue shift’ occurred during the

game whereby what initially looked like a likely Trump win shifted in the second turn to looking like a

Biden win.

Turn One (November 3 November 10)

The Trump Campaign began the game by calling on Biden to concede based on the election night

in-person voting returns, which skewed toward President Trump and the GOP. The Trump Campaign

also used the “bully pulpit” of the Presidency and its influence with right wing media to

lock in the election night returns, call into question mail-in ballots or the legitimacy of post-election

day vote counts, and enlist the support of Republican officials in several states to immediately

halt further vote counting.

The Trump Campaign team asked the Department of Justice (DoJ) to deploy federal agents across

the nation to “secure” voting sites and prepare the National Guard for possible deployment to

maintain order against potential protests. Attorney General Barr instructed the DoJ to support litigation

that would prevent further counting of mail-in ballots.

On election night, the Biden Campaign declared that victory was imminent and called for every

vote to be counted. The team mobilized a network of influential bipartisan elites, elected officials,

and retired military officers to speak to the press and denounce any effort to suppress counting the

vote. The Biden Campaign also called for peaceful rallies, echoing a call to count every vote.

GOP Elected Officials publicly supported Trump’s victory and claims of voter fraud but stopped

short of supporting the deployment of military forces. Democratic Elected Officials were proactive

in the states where they held offices to ensure votes would be counted and to build bipartisan

coalitions to oversee and protect the count.

Game

One

Ambigious

Result

Game

Two

Clear Biden

victory

Game

Three

Clear Trump

win

Game

Four

Narrow

Biden win

16

Turn Two and Three

The Trump Campaign team again attempted to federalize the National Guard to end further vote

counting and called on supporters to turn out in large numbers. The Biden Campaign established

a bipartisan transition team and mobilized supporters to ensure vote counting was completed thoroughly.

Officials from both parties sought to block or overturn results in key states, including seeking to

use friendly state legislatures and governors to send alternate or additional sets of electors. After

dice-rolls, most of these efforts failed.

As the scenario played out, North Carolina went to Biden and Florida to Trump, leaving Michigan

as the deciding state. There, a rogue individual destroyed a large number of ballots believed

to have supported Biden, leaving Trump a narrow electoral win. The Governor of Michigan used

this abnormality as justification to send a separate, pro-Biden set of electors to DC.

Neither campaign was willing to accept the result, and called on their supporters to turn out in the

streets to sway the result. The Trump Campaign team attempted to coerce or influence the individual

electors. President Trump also invoked the Insurrection Act.

The outcome of the scenario hinged on how the elected officials from the two parties addressed

the separate slate of electors from Michigan. GOP officials asserted that as the President of the

Senate, Vice President Pence could legally choose to accept or reject electors as he wished.

There was no clear resolution of the conflict in the January 6 joint session of Congress; the partisans

on both sides were still claiming victory, leading to the problem of two claims to Commander-

in-Chief power (including access to the nuclear codes) at noon on January 20.

Game Two: Clear Biden Victory

In this scenario, Biden won outright in the Electoral College and the popular vote. The Trump Campaign

initially contested the outcome of the vote. Once it became clear that efforts to overturn that outcome

were unlikely to succeed, the Trump Campaign pivoted to a strategy of self-preservation and limiting future

legal liability.

Turn One

The Trump Campaign initially alleged massive fraud and called for joint DNI-DOJ investigations

into the election results. These allegations were reinforced by GOP elected officials. Both the

Trump Campaign and GOP team called on media to cast doubt on the outcomes. (Unlike in other

scenarios, they never attempted to get state legislatures to repudiate the certified popular vote in

the states, or to thwart the state-law processes for counting ballots.)

The Trump Campaign maximized federal funding for Trump businesses by temporarily relocating

the President and his staff to Mar-A-Lago and pursuing murky overseas business deals.

GOP-controlled Senate pushed through outstanding judicial nominations.

The Trump Campaign sought to shield President Trump and his team from any future criminal

jeopardy by preparing pardons for all individuals connected to the administration regardless of

admitted or perceived guilt.

The Biden Campaign successfully secured the election result and also worked to forge coalitions

with elected GOP officials which the dice rolls granted to a limited extent – while taking public

steps to ‘heal the country’ through public rallies and addresses.

The Democratic Elected Representatives team also pushed for a bipartisan alliance through an

Election Protection Coalition as a way to insulate results from the DOJ/DNI investigations. They

also sought to enlist ‘faithless electors’, though the game play did not grant this. (Since the game

was played, SCOTUS has unanimously ruled against faithlessness.)

17

Turns Two and Three

The Biden Campaign team emphasized standing up a credible transition process. The Trump

Campaign sought to hinder this, but the Federal Government Team confirmed that a number of

civil servants would seek to enable it regardless of directions from the White House.

The Trump team issued pardons for Trump family members, political allies, and cabinet officials,

along with prominent Democrats, including Hunter Biden and Hillary Clinton, for unspecified

crimes.

The Trump Campaign took steps to position either Donald Trump or his son Donald Trump Jr. to

run for reelection in 2024. The Trump Campaign announced the new “MAGA TV” station, featuring

documentary footage from Trump’s final weeks in office.

The Trump Campaign team also sought to install close allies in positions of influence in the RNC

and to distract public attention from the President’s efforts at self-preservation and continued influence

in the party by escalating rhetoric with Iran.

The Biden Campaign remained focused on the transition and laying the groundwork for governing.

The Democratic Elected Representatives team supported the Biden effort, but also began the

process of preparing for investigation into Trump, his family, and his associates.

GOP elected officials re-focused on state responses to COVID-19, while the Federal Government

saw a mass exodus of Trump aligned political appointees.

Game Three: Clear Trump Win

The third scenario posited a comfortable Electoral College victory for President Trump 286-252 but

also a significant popular vote win52% – 47%–for former Vice President Biden. The game play ended

in a constitutional crisis, with threats of secession, and the potential for either a decline into authoritarianism

or a radically revamped set of democratic rules that ensure the popular will prevails (abolishment of

the Electoral College, making DC and Puerto Rico states, and other changes). Key moves and actions include:

Turn One

The Trump Campaign had two main objectives at the outset of the scenario. The first priority was

to legitimize the Electoral College results by pushing narratives that cast doubt on former Vice

President Biden’s popular vote victory and portraying wide-spread protests of President Trump as

anti-American, undemocratic, and promoting mob rule. The Trump Campaign planted agent provocateurs

into the protests throughout the country to ensure these protests turned violent and

helped further the narrative of a violent insurrection against a lawfully elected president.

The second Trump Campaign priority was to consolidate power to reduce or eliminate the “Deep

State” and broader institutional resistance to President Trump’s agenda for his second term. Specific

measures included selective promotions of military personnel with “pro-American views”,

rushing judicial nominations, increasing financial incentives to big business, and working with

states to maximize GOP control through redistricting.

The GOP Elected Officials team was supportive of Trump’s efforts to crack down on protests.

Establishing “law and order” and defeating the “anarchists” was a unifying call. But they pressed

President Trump to “slow down” on the campaign’s more aggressive and overt efforts to consolidate

power, partly out of concern that they would lose the support of moderate Democrats needed

to publicly declare Trump’s victory legitimate.

The most consequential action of the first turn was the Biden Campaign’s retraction of its election

night concession. It capitalized on the public’s outrage that for the third time in 20 years a candidate

lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College. They also capitalized on concern about

widespread voter suppression before and on Election Day. The Biden Campaign began the game

18

by encouraging three states with Democratic governorsNorth Carolina, Wisconsin, and Michigan

to ask for recounts. As the game developed, governors in two of the three (Wisconsin and

Michigan) sent separate slates of electors to counter those sent by the state legislature.

The GOP failed to convince moderate Democrats in the House to break ranks with the Democratic

resistance and support Trump’s electoral victory, much to the GOP’s surprise. Part of the

strategy here was to attack the Electoral College and to claim that the certified popular votes in

these states were questionable because of voter suppression.

At the end of the first turn, the country was in the midst of a full-blown constitutional crisis characterized

by: 1) Political chaos; 2) Widespread threats of violence, and sporadic actual violence in

the streets; and 4) A hostile, dangerous, highly-partisan, and frequently unconstrained information

and media environment.

Turns Two and Three:

The Biden Campaign encouraged Western states, particularly California but also Oregon and

Washington, and collectively known as “Cascadia,” to secede from the Union unless Congressional

Republicans agreed to a set of structural reforms to fix our democratic system to ensure

majority rule. With advice from President Obama, the Biden Campaign submitted a proposal to 1)

Give statehood to Washington, DC and Puerto Rico; 2) Divide California into five states to more

accurately represent its population in the Senate; 3) Require Supreme Court justices to retire at

70; and 4) Eliminate the Electoral College, to ensure that the candidate who wins to the popular

vote becomes President.

As the scenario evolved, the Trump Team focused its efforts on driving a wedge into the disparate

and, in the view of many participants, fragile Democratic coalition. For example, during the

second turn, Trump gave an interview to The Intercept in which he stated that he would have lost

the election if Bernie Sanders had been nominated.

The Trump Team’s approach in turns two and three also emphasized creating the conditions to

force the Biden Campaign into taking provocative, unprecedented actionssuch as supporting

California’s secession or sending a second slate of electorsthat played into a broader narrative

of the Democrats attempting to orchestrate an illegal coup. The team also tried to position President

Trump as a “unifier”working with top CEOs, holding a unifying event at the Lincoln Memorial,

offering to establish a commission to review electoral rulesand as prioritizing safety

and security in the face of radical groups supporting Joe Biden and trying to destroy America.

One of the most consequential moves was that Team Biden on January 6 provoked a breakdown

in the joint session of Congress by getting the House of Representatives to agree to award the

presidency to Biden (based on the alternative pro-Biden submissions sent by pro-Biden governors).

Pence and the GOP refused to accept this, declaring instead that Trump was reelected under

the Constitution because of his Electoral College victory. This partisan division remained unresolved

because neither side backed down, and January 20 arrived without a single presidentelect

entitled to be Commander-in-Chief after noon that day. It was unclear what the military

would do in this situation.

Game Four: Narrow Biden Win

The final scenario explored a narrow Biden win where he leads with less than 1% of the popular vote the

day after the election, and is predicted to win 278 electoral votes. Fox News is among the major networks

that called the election for Biden, though the Trump campaign does not concede, setting up an intense

competition that concludes with an uneasy and combative but ultimately successful transition.

19

Turn One:

The Trump Campaign began the game by encouraging the state legislatures in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin

and Michigan to certify a separate slate of electors in support of President Trump. Despite

opposition from the Biden Campaign and Democrats, both Michigan’s and Pennsylvania’s legislatures

agree to send two sets of electors in support of Trump.

The Trump Campaign engaged in a large and coordinated disinformation campaign primarily focused

on the legitimacy of the mail-in ballots. This campaign used the media to amplify “stolen

election” and “voter fraud” narratives, and launched noisy DoJ investigation into voter fraud. Attorney

General Barr also took action to stop ballot counting. Trump Campaign surrogates released

false information that Joe Biden had suffered a heart-attack in an attempt to undermine perceptions

of Biden’s fitness to hold office. The Biden Campaign quickly dispelled this information,

but Facebook kept posts about the heart-attack up.

Despite all of these moves during the first week after the election, dice rolls confirmed that the

Biden Campaign maintained a narrow lead.

The Trump Campaign understood that its most effective strategy was not just to create more

doubt about the validity of votes for Biden, but also to sew more chaos and disruption so that

President Trump could position himself as the only one capable of ensuring law and order. The

Trump Campaign stoked chaos and mayhem by urging local police forces to break up Black

Lives Matter and pro-Biden demonstrations and encouraging Alt Right / Boogaloo supporters to

confront liberal protestors.

Turns Two and Three

The Biden Campaign framed Trump’s actions as ugly and divisive; engaging independents and

moderate Republicans to speak out against this threat. Mitt Romney tried to convince Republican

senators to support the Biden victory. After first failing, Romney prevailed and convinced three

other GOP Senators to recognize Biden as the President-elect.

As it became evident that the Biden victory would be certified, Senator Majority Leader Mitch

McConnell privately signaled to several Republicans they could support Romney’s cross-the-aisle

effort, recognizing that moderate Republicans are more likely to prevail in 2022.

The Biden Campaign organized massive protests across the country. A dice roll determined that

over four million Americans took to the streets across the country in support of Biden, enabling

his campaign to gain momentum in the battle for public opinion. Violent skirmishes and vandalism

took place during these demonstrations.

A critical moment in the game play was the Joint Chiefs of Staff leaking that internal discussions

had taken place about how to handle the escalating situation, including the consideration of resigning

in protest of Trump’s continued efforts to sow unrest. The leak indicated that the Joint

Chiefs’ commitment was to the Constitution rather than to the President or to a particular party.

Once the Senate voted in agreement with the House on January 6, the military made it clear that it

was ready to support Biden as the newly inaugurated president on January 20.

Sensing the election slipping away, right-wing media pursued particularly aggressive and provocative

strategies. Infowars published a list of addresses, phone numbers, and other personal information

of electors pledged to vote for Joe Biden. The announcement included spurious claims

linking 88 of these electors to Soros and 14 to child sex trafficking. Rush Limbaugh and others

accused the Biden campaign of accepting help from China, a message picked up by the mainstream

media. Right-wing meme pages, which have a 340% greater reach than any other piece of

content on Facebook, saturated the on-line landscape with appeals to defend the Constitution

from enemies both foreign AND DOMESTIC.”

Biden’s electoral victory was certified but Trump refused to leave the White House. He began to

burn documents and potentially incriminating evidence, and continued to launch attacks against

the legitimacy of the election. President Trump released a series of pardons for members of his

administration as well as himself before the Secret Service escorted him out of the White House.

But the Secret Service demonstrated its “culture of professionalism” (as one member of the Federal

Government Team indicated) by indicating that it would be “loyal to the office, not to the

person” and therefore it would escort Trump out of the White House on January 20.

Trump transitions into running TRUMP TV, a new media outlet that immediately upon its founding

calls for the impeachment of President Biden.

By early January 2021, Biden has begun the tasks of uniting the country and trying to pull America

out of its lingering COVID-19 related economic and public health crisis. He articulates a series

of packages focused on infrastructure and healthcare / COVID-19 and actively seeks to involve

Senate Republicans in the process. The Biden Campaign also announces that moderate Republican

governors Larry Hogan and Charlie Baker will be nominated to serve in his cabinet. The

President-Elect also establishes a joint investigation from the House and Senate Intelligence

Committees to examine all forms of foreign interference in the 2020 election.

The Biden Campaign had originally sought to create a “way out” for Trump to concede the election

during early turns. By the end of the game, though, the Democratic Party had begun investigations

into the criminal activities of President Trump and his family.

21

Appendix C: Will “Trumpism” Survive a Trump Loss?

While it was not squarely in the scope of TIP’s investigation, almost all of the debriefings included some

discussion about whether “Trumpism” is likely to survive Trump after he leaves office. President Trump

has cultivated and mobilized a significant base; many believe it won’t easily be demobilized after Trump

leaves office (“Trumpiness is built in now,” said one participant). There are immediate implications for an

incoming Administration.

Many observers expect President Trump to try to extend his norm-disrupting influence after he leaves office

through an independent media company or partnerships. Participants predict that in the event of a

Biden victory, Trump will attack President Biden early and consistently, blaming all problems in the

country on a combination of the stolen election and the incompetence of the Biden administration; the

message will be clear, consistent, and relentlessly hammered in: “If only the election hadn’t been stolen

from me, everything in the country would be great again.” Such a message could fuel political violence.

QAnon could play a role in electing far-right candidates to Congress, providing an anchor for ex-President

Trump’s proposals.

A minority view was that once Trump is a “big loser,” he’ll lose face with the GOP base and Republicans

will move on. If he tries to look like a martyr, these participants suggest, he may come across as merely

pathetic. However, if the pandemic and the economy continue to get worse after the 2020 election, it may

become more likely that Trump (or a Trump-like figure) will again be a serious contender for the presidency

in 2024.

How should anti-authoritarian interests respond? A number of participants urged Democrats to embrace a

new playbook. President Obama’s working assumption was that “the fever would break on the back of

electoral defeat,” but this proved to be mistaken; throughout the Obama administration, Republicans refused

to compromise or engage in customary negotiations over policy, counting instead on blocking every

possible Democratic initiative and waiting for their chance to regain the presidency. These participants

cautioned that Democrats should not rely on litigation, moral suasion, or merely hoping that Republicans

in Congress or state elected office will “come to their senses.” Instead, they should focus on building

more authentic relationships with the left’s base, including by publicly supporting the peaceful protest

movement that has emerged since late May, rather than continuing to seek conciliation and compromise

with the GOP.

There was near universal agreement that in the event of a Trump loss, the GOP’s strategy will be to create

trouble for the incoming Biden administration, in order to regain ground in 2022 and retake the White

House in 2024. GOP activists (possibly encouraged by Trump himself and by far-right media) may seek

to create ongoing street-level chaos and conflict. Meanwhile, GOP party leaders will likely focus on postcensus

redistricting. Senate Republicans are also likely to try to block one or more Biden cabinet or court

nominees as a show of political nerve. If the GOP holds the Senate, even more dramatic blocking actions

will be contemplated, tempting the Biden Administration to continue President Trump’s approach of appointing

“acting” appointees, thus institutionalizing the nullification of the “advise and consent” role of

the Senate in executive branch appointments.

Republicans will likely also push hard on judicial nominations, trying to seat as many nominees as possible

before President Trump leaves office. This could potentially include a Supreme Court nomination,

which would further undermine the legitimacy of the Court in the eyes of many Democrats and heighten

demands from the left for “court packing.” Conversely, it is also possible that if the GOP holds the Senate,

Majority Leader McConnell could refuse to hold any votes on any Biden court nominees, allowing

the vacancies to pile up until a Republican president is again in place to make the appointments.

22

Some exercise participants noted, however, that there are conflicting interests for the GOP and, in particular,

for Republicans running in 2022 in states where moderates have an advantage, as well as for Republican

leaders with Presidential ambitions for 2024. Some GOP presidential hopefuls might define their candidacy

as anti-Trump (Rubio, Johnson, Toomey), while some Republican Governors might quickly shift

back to state priorities such as COVID-19. An early defining battle between approaches will likely take

place over choosing the party chair.

TIP offers these preliminary recommendations based on the input from participants in the scenario planning

exercises:

There was no agreement among participants in the scenario planning exercises about what specific

actions should be taken with regard to pursuing investigations and possible charges against

President Trump and members of his Administration. A new Administration, in partnership with

a broad range of stakeholders, could consider a range of options including those used by other

countries, such as truth and reconciliation commissions.

One question is whether to continue the tradition of offering legal immunity or pardons to Trump

and his family. There was a lively debate about whether any short-term gain from this diplomatic

effort was worth a longer-term risk that corrupt or criminal practices would continue. This may

come up during the transition itself, if Trump decides to negotiate an “exit package” for himself.

More broadly, there needs to be a robust, intentional, and specific strategy to challenge the white

supremacist and extremist networks that enabled Trump’s rise to power and were in turn enabled

by Trump’s administration. This base will not automatically demobilize if and when Trump

leaves office, and it is inimical to the kind of pluralist democracy the founders intended.

Finally, it is imperative that Congress take decisive action to limit executive power, as happened

with in the wake of President Nixon’s abuses of power in the early 1970s. One of the key findings

of these scenario exercises is the extraordinary degree of de facto power that a President unbounded

by norms or human decency can wield. No president should be able to use the executive

branch to settle political scores, damage perceived adversaries, or pursue personal financial gain.

Principles of political decency that had been maintained through norms will have to be codified

through law.

The US, Israel and Beirutshima

The US, Israel and Beirutshima

Wherever there is mass murder in the Middle East, there you find the Israeli fingerprint. And it was always forever thus.

Time and time again, since 1948, Israel has demonstrated that it solves all its regional problems with violent terroristic solutions that change the political and geostrategic equation in its favor. Time and time again, there is always a major Western government that benefits from and supports this Israeli terrorism, and in the case of the recent horrific explosion at the Beirut Port, now otherwise known as ‘Beirutshima’, it is the US who greatly benefits as well as Tel Aviv.

Since 1948, the Beirut Port has long been a target marked for destruction by Israel. It has long been Israel’s wet dream to destroy this busy and industrious port, originally built by the ancient Phoenicians. This is because the Beirut Port poses the biggest trade competition to Israel’s Haifa Port, therefore a constant threat to Israel’s lucrative marine economy. Also, the Beirut Port is a well-established and crucial lifeline to Lebanon’s daily energy and sustenance needs, therefore destroying it renders the Lebanese government vulnerable and open to a practical siege of all its economic and political decision-making: a virtual colonization of political Lebanon by its more affluent enemy and neighbor. Not forgetting here also that Lebanon’s militarized resistance groups being the biggest immediate threat to the very existence of the Jewish state itself, Israel fears the port being used to transfer unchecked weapons into the hands of Palestinian resistors residing in Lebanon, as well as into the hands of various other Lebanese resistance groups at war with Israel.

Moreover, the Port of Beirut also poses the biggest geostrategic threat for the US’s eastward-bound power projection where China and its new Silk Road operation is fast creeping westwards and is attempting to land at the eastern coastal strip of the Mediterranean, right where the Beirut Port docks. The US having recently forced Israel to cancel its Haifa contact with China has somewhat dampened the Chinese advance in the eastern Mediterranean, and what remains now in the path of the US is the Beirut Port. The US must either invade it to block the Chinese geostrategic mission creep, or else destroy it.

Evidently, the US has chosen the latter option – with Israel assigned the task of accomplishing the destruction of Beirut Port. After all, for different reasons, both benefit greatly from Beirutshima.

And so very timely is this destruction of the Beirut Port as the Lebanese government has very recently been in official talks with the Chinese over their offer to vastly invest in and develop the Beirut Port: a much needed gateway port and bridge into Europe for China, which represents an absolutely intolerable equation for the US’s hegemony in Europe. The Beirut Port’s rebuilding to its previous standard of activity will be contingent on strict conditions imposed by the US and Israel on the Lebanese government, if the port is allowed to be rebuilt at all, that is. Most certainly, the US is determined not to allow the Chinese any executive, investment or managerial access to it.

Furthermore, unable to overcome the Lebanese Resistance’s muscle on the battlefield, as demonstrated again recently by Israel’s hysteria and fear of Hezbollah’s retaliation over Israel killing one of its fighters in Syria, the Israeli terrorist attack on the Port of Beirut shakes off, to a degree, Israel’s own domestic sense of cowardice and military weakness in the face of Hezbollah; while simultaneously dealing a massive blow to the currently anorexic economic belly of its Lebanon enemy.

Dear reader, this article is not concerned with the ‘whodunit’ aspect of the Beirut Port bombing – it’s a fait accompli that this is the work of Lebanon’s enemy and its agents of chaos. Yes, there was gross negligence involved on behalf of the Lebanese port authorities and some politicians, but it was not the port authorities or politicians whose fingers triggered the gigantic port explosion, it was Israel taking advantage of this neglect and corruption and setting it up for an explosive false flag op against the unarmed Lebanese citizens themselves. A typical Israeli behavior: strike at unarmed civilians when unable to strike at an enemy’s army or armed resistors. And no, Hezbollah does not have an arms depot in the port: this is a ludicrous posit that should be immediately dismissed as it falsely demotes Hezbollah’s intelligence and renders their superior weapons strategists into inferior port gangsters. There is zero reason for the Hezbollah to use the busy and exposed thoroughfare of Beirut Port for a secret weapon storage when it already has several mountains and an endless string of remote hills for safe weapons storage. Certainly, Hezbollah is present at the Beirut Port, but only for Intel gathering, not for weapon storing.

This article is not concerned with establishing whodunit and whatnot forensics gathered in slo-mo. It is already clear to all discerning minds who exactly benefits from the false flag attack on the Beirut Port. This article is concerned with the geostrategic why’s and wherefores of the terrorist attack against the Lebanon, and concerned especially with the target itself and the timing. The pertinent questions here being why the Beirut Port and why now? Therefore, let us look at the wider geostrategic meaning of this terrorist attack on Beirut. After all, such a gigantic event does not just suddenly materialize out of the blue. Such a gigantic and consequential event is never for nothing. It is not an unfortunate accident that occurred by happenstance due to neglect and gross incompetence. Indeed, it is a trigger for a larger regional and global project, in the same way that the 9/11 attack was a trigger for a larger project whose ultimate beneficiaries remain Israel and the US’s MIC.

And this larger US project has everything to do with the current US war on China, albeit presently a non-military war, but a war nevertheless, a war that the Pentagon is militarily preparing for – hence the ever increasing and breathtakingly high defense budget that Congress has been allocating to the US military throughout the terms of the last three Presidents.

The US having lost Pakistan to the China sphere of influence, thus losing an attack dog bordering China, and having recently assigned Turkey as its new enforcer in the middle east, it now behooves the US to use its Mideast allies of both Turkey and Israel, two infamous terrorist states who regularly break international law with impunity: use them as spoilers and saboteurs against an advancing China and against any of Beijing’s Mideast regional allies. Beirutshima is clearly an apparent US endeavor to push-back the Chinese advance in the highly strategic eastern Mediterranean, as the US attempts to simultaneously pivot eastwards itself through secured territories wherever China is successfully backtracked by the US and its regional henchmen.

But, can this grand geostrategic plan really work for the benefit of the US? Can the US really succeed at remaining the only superpower in the world by the incessant knee-capping of China’s new Silk Road project?

This is yet to be determined. But judging by the deep budgetary and societal crisis engulfing the US homeland, with no sign whatsoever of its deepening troubles abating, analysts doubt that the US has lungs large enough to last the whole race through with China. Here I will add that the US-China fight over the Beirut Port is not yet over. One wonders what went through the mind of the wily Chinese ambassador in Lebanon to witness the Beirut Port exploding as it shockingly did: to witness his pet project and assignment be destroyed right before his eyes and right before a signed agreement was made between him and the Lebanese government of Diab. And knowing the Chinese, they will see this as an opportunity to entrench their feet even further in Lebanon by offering both a rebuilding and a security deal to the Beirut Port, whereas the deal on the table before Beirutshima was smaller and only for expansion and renovation. And here lies the crunch: is Diab’s government brave enough to face further US and Israeli terrorism in order to align with China who is offering to save Lebanon from its current intractable financial double-crisis? I estimate that sooner or later, Diab’s mettle will be tested in this regard.

Here, I will remind readers that within our living memory, little Lebanon has actually humiliated and evicted both the US and Israel’s military forces from its territory. But can it do it politically too? I say yes, so long as Hezbollah’s sophisticated weapons remain intact, coupled with a united society that gives its PM a clear mandate to go forward with a China deal. The first condition is guaranteed, no one can touch Hezbollah’s arms. But, will the US and Israel succeed at creating another sectarian war in Lebanon after numerous failures at this these past 30 years? The 7th of August (tomorrow) is the date of the official verdict release for the assassinated Rafic Hariri case – the nation of Lebanon has anxiously waited some 15 years for it. Local analysts are predicting a finger falsely pointing at Hezbollah. If this is the case, a sectarian gunpowder keg may very well be lit. Or it may not, as Lebanon since the night of the port explosion has been under Marshall Law, therefore security on the street is in the hands of the military, not in the hands of government security apparatuses and their sectarian alliances. And even though the US has its own agents inside of the Lebanese army, they are a minority who would be risking the breakdown and breakup of the Lebanese army itself – an outcome that the US desires the least because should this army breakup happen, then Hezbollah will be forced to step in so as to take over the task of securing the streets of Lebanon. And nobody wants this scenario, not even Hezbollah.

All Hezbollah cares about is spending its energy on confronting and defeating Israel.

And despite Israel’s successful terrorist attack on Beirut Port, all that Israel cares about is finding someone else to face Hezbollah on the battlfield in its place.

Thus, post Beirutshima, Israel remains hostage to Hezbollah’s missiles. And China sees added opportunities to land bigger feet and currency in a devastated Lebanon.

(Republished from Plato’s Guns by permission of author or representative)