T-Room

The Best in Alt News

  • Home
  • News Archive
  • Visit the New Website

This site holds the archives from the original T-Room website. Click here to visit the New T-Room or use the search box below.

March 5, 2015

SPECIAL REPORT: Was Clinton's Personal Email System Courtesy of Soros's Techies?…

March 5, 2015

by Wayne Madsen
Wayne Madsen Report

There is no question that Hillary Clinton and George Soros are very close politically and socially. However, did Mrs. Clinton’s tight relationship with Soros result in the multi-billionaire mogul instructing his army of tech-savvy social networking gurus to install the private e-mail server at the Clinton home in Chappaqua, New York that the then-Secretary of State used to communicate privately and outside the purview of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Federal Records Act (FRA) with her closest advisers, many of whom previously worked for Soros’s NGOs?

As more details are revealed about the nature of Clinton’s email network, these and other questions are being asked about the true nature of Clinton’s decision to have her staff, just two months ago, cherry pick through hundreds of thousands of emails and release only 50,000 of those which she and her staffers deemed compliant with the FARA.

Aside from Clinton skirting the intent of the FARA and FRA, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest could not say whether Clinton’s use of a private email system resulted in a security vulnerability. Earnest even directed a question whether Mrs. Clinton linked her private email system to the State Department’s classified email system back to the State Department.

Clinton’s private email system at her New York residence was registered by an aide named Eric Hothem. However, Internet registration records list his name as Eric Hoteham. The original clintonemail.com domain name was registered by another aide named Justin Cooper. Cooper now works for Teneo Holdings, a firm that advises corporate clients that was co-founded by former Bill Clinton personal assistant Doug Band. Mr. Clinton’s and Band’s names appeared on the passenger manifests of several flights made with convicted underage sex offender Jeffrey Epstein on his private Boeing jetliner.

Those who defend Clinton’s use of the private system claim that it was already in place when she became Secretary of State. However, Internet domain registration records for clintonemail.com show that there domain was registered on January 13, 2009, eight days before she was confirmed as Secretary of State by the U.S. Senate. Obama announced his selection of Clinton as Secretary of State at a December 1, 2008 press conference in Chicago.

The registration records also indicate that updates of the Whois database record for clintonemail.com were made on February 26 and March 5, 2015 just prior to and after the story about the private email broke in The New York Times. Clinton’s service provider is Perfect Privacy LLC, a private domain registration firm listing its address in Jacksonville, Florida although its website claims its headquarters is in Atlanta, Georgia. Florida Secretary of State corporation records contain no record for Perfect Privacy LLC of Jacksonville.

Domain Name: CLINTONEMAIL.COM
Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC.
Sponsoring
Registrar IANA ID: 2
Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com
Referral URL:
http://networksolutions.com
Name Server: NS15.WORLDNIC.COM
Name Server:
NS16.WORLDNIC.COM
Status: clientTransferProhibited
http://www.icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited
Updated Date:
14-nov-2013
Creation Date: 13-jan-2009
Expiration Date: 13-jan-2017

Last update of whois database: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 16:27:03 GMT


Domain Name: CLINTONEMAIL.COM
Registry Domain ID: 1537310173_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.networksolutions.com
Registrar URL: http://networksolutions.com
Updated Date: 2015-01-29T00:44:01Z
Creation Date: 2009-01-13T20:37:32Z
Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2017-01-13T05:00:00Z
Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC.
Registrar IANA ID: 2
Registrar Abuse Contact Email: abuse@web.com
Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +1.8003337680
Reseller: 
Domain Status: 
Registry Registrant ID: 
Registrant Name: PERFECT PRIVACY, LLC
Registrant Organization: 
Registrant Street: 12808 Gran Bay Parkway West
Registrant City: Jacksonville
Registrant State/Province: FL
Registrant Postal Code: 32258
Registrant Country: US
Registrant Phone: +1.5707088780
Registrant Phone Ext: 
Registrant Fax: 
Registrant Fax Ext: 
Registrant Email: kr5a95v468n@networksolutionsprivateregistration.com
Registry Admin ID: 
Admin Name: PERFECT PRIVACY, LLC
Admin Organization: 
Admin Street: 12808 Gran Bay Parkway West
Admin City: Jacksonville
Admin State/Province: FL
Admin Postal Code: 32258
Admin Country: US
Admin Phone: +1.5707088780
Admin Phone Ext: 
Admin Fax: 
Admin Fax Ext: 
Admin Email: kr5a95v468n@networksolutionsprivateregistration.com
Registry Tech ID: 
Tech Name: PERFECT PRIVACY, LLC
Tech Organization: 
Tech Street: 12808 Gran Bay Parkway West
Tech City: Jacksonville
Tech State/Province: FL
Tech Postal Code: 32258
Tech Country: US
Tech Phone: +1.5707088780
Tech Phone Ext: 
Tech Fax: 
Tech Fax Ext: 
Tech Email: kr5a95v468n@networksolutionsprivateregistration.com
Name Server: NS15.WORLDNIC.COM
Name Server: NS16.WORLDNIC.COM
DNSSEC: Unsigned
URL of the ICANN WHOIS Data Problem Reporting System: http://wdprs.internic.net/
>>> Last update of whois database: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 12:37:45 GMT <<<

It has been reported by The New York Times that those who used the private Clinton email system represented Mrs. Clinton’s inner circle of family, friends, and close advisers. They included daughter Chelsea Clinton, who used the pseudonym “Diane Reynolds,” and Mrs. Clinton’s personal assistant Huma Abedin, the wife of disgraced New York congressman Anthony Weiner who resigned after “sexting” photographs of his genitals to unknown women using the pseudonym “Carlos Danger.” Questions are being asked about Mrs. Clinton’s use of the private system to help raise money from foreign sources for her and her husband’s and daughter’s Clinton Foundation, which has been mired in controversy over receiving generous donations from foreign governments.


Was Hillary’s high-tech email system provided and funded by George Soros to conduct a private foreign policy?

There are also credible reports that Mrs. Clinton’s deputy Secretary of State, James Steinberg, also used the private e-mail along with other top aides at the State Department. After Mrs. Clinton took over the reins at Foggy Bottom, she appointed current Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew as her deputy secretary of State for resources and management. Neither Lew nor Steinberg have commented on what knowledge they had of the private email system although it would have been Lew’s responsibility to manage Mrs. Clinton’s email usage of the official unclassified and classified email networks.

WMR has learned that the private email system used by Mrs. Clinton is similar to those installed with funding by Soros’s Open Society Institute in countries targeted for internal subversion. These private systems, such as the one being installed for Cuba’s Jewish community by State Department/U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) contractor Alan Gross, jailed by Cuba for espionage, were developed by Soros’s technical personnel as part of his “Internet Training and Access Program (ITAP).” ITAP was designed to permit activists in certain countries to bypass government restrictions on Internet access and communicate between themselves domestically and internationally with foreign colleagues.  The ITAP project was underwritten by funding from USAID, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and other State Department programs.

It is believed by some observers of State Department operations that Mrs. Clinton’s private system may have been used by her top echelon, including then-spokesperson Victoria Nuland, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman, Steinberg, and Lew to foment “themed” revolutions, some of which led to civil wars, in the Arab world. The focus of congressional investigators examining clintonemail.com, WMR is told, should be on the other possible users of the system, which, in addition to Steinberg, Nuland, Feltman, and Lew, may also include Bill Clinton, Doug Band, Soros, and NED president Carl Gershman.

# # #

About Wayne Madsen – Investigative journalist, author and syndicated columnist. Has some twenty years experience in security issues. As a U.S. Naval Officer, he managed one of the first computer security programs for the U.S. Navy. He has been a frequent political and national security commentator on Fox News and has also appeared on ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera, and MS-NBC. He has been invited to testify as a witness before the US House of Representatives, the UN Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and an terrorism investigation panel of the French government. A member of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) and the National Press Club. Lives in Washington, D.C.

Filed Under: Opinion Tagged With: Color Revolutions, Cuba, Emails, George Soros, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton Personal Emails, ITAP, national security, NED, The Clinton Foundation, Theme Revolutions, US State Department, USAID, Victoria Nuland, wayne madsen

January 25, 2015

REPORT: Epstein Plea Deal With Feds Protected Bill Clinton and the House of Bush…

January 23, 2015

by Wayne Madsen 
Wayne Madsen Report dot com

WMR obtained the heretofore sealed Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) struck between lawyers for billionaire Florida registered sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and George W. Bush-era federal prosecutors. Epstein received the NPA after he was charged with soliciting sex from an alleged “prostitute.” However, the so-called “prostitute” was actually a 14-year old girl who was recruited by a network of Epstein’s employees who basically served as child sex traffickers and pimps.

Lawyers for Epstein attempted to block federal judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida Kenneth Marra from unsealing the NPA as per the wishes of attorneys for four child sex trafficking victims known as Jane Does 1 through 4. However, Marra decided to unseal the NPA on January 21 and WMR was present at the Paul G. Roberts Federal Building to obtain a copy of the NPA. However, it was also discovered that the publicly-accessible case database maintained in the court’s clerk’s office has been malfunctioning recently and court records are difficult to retrieve. An employee for the clerk’s office told WMR that the computer system was to have been fixed but that no steps have been taken to restore ease of access to court records.

The NPA was agreed to on October 30, 2007 by U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta. Although Acosta later criticized the plea deal in an open letter, he did not respond to WMR’s request for an interview on the current case in which four of Epstein’s victims are suing the U.S. government claiming that the NPA violated their rights under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act. The victims, who are now adults, claim that the federal government’s NPA with Epstein violated the 2004 CVRA. The government argues that because Epstein was never charged with a federal crime, the victims have no rights under the CVRA. In their request to Marra to unseal the NPA, the attorneys for the Jane Does, said that the federal government and Epstein colluded “to avoid a firestorm of public controversy that would have erupted if the sweetheart plea deal with a politically-connected billionaire had been revealed.”

The NPA was signed on behalf of Acosta by A. Marie Villafana, the then-Assistant U.S. Attorney for Southern Florida who is now the U.S. Attorney under Attorney General Eric Holder. The plea deal with Epstein was concluded after the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Miami and the FBI investigated Epstein separately from the investigation conducted by the Palm Beach County Police Department and the Florida Attorney’s Office.  The deal cut between Acosta and Villafana and the state of Florida, which was then under the governorship of then-Republican Governor Charlie Crist and Republican Attorney-General Bill McCollum stated that the federal government would defer to Florida the prosecution of Epstein. Acosta has gone on to become the dean of the law school of Florida International University in Miami.

The NPA also stipulated that a list of individuals who the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Miami and the FBI has identified as victims of Epstein’s sexual abuse and trafficking would be provided to Epstein’s attorneys who included Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz. Jane Doe 3, identified as Virginia Roberts, has claimed that Dershowitz has sex with her while she was a minor. Dershowitz has vigorously denied the allegations and he has cited a “conspiracy” against him by anti-Semites who are getting even for his longtime support for Israel. Unsubstantiated conspiracy theories by Dershowitz aside, the fact remains that the NPA immunized all of Epstein’s co-conspirators, who allegedly include Dershowitz, former President Bill Clinton, and Prince Andrew of Britain from future federal prosecution. The NPA states: “. . . the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, Lesley Goff, or Nadia Marcinkova.” The NPA also suspended the federal Grand Jury investigation against Epstein and held ion abeyance all federal Grand Jury subpoenas in the case against Epstein. These subpoenas presumably included those directed to witnesses in the case, individuals that likely include Dershowitz, Clinton, and Andrew.

Flight manifests of Epstein’s Gulfstream jet and Boeing 727 indicate that Epstein’s passengers were often a mix of underage sex traffic victims and some of the world’s most powerful politicians and businessmen. These include Clinton, Dershowitz, former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, Chicago Pritzker family chieftain and Hyatt Hotels executive chairman Thomas Pritzker (the first cousin of U.S. Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker), and failed Palm Beach mayoral candidate Gerry Goldsmith.

Epstein’s Gulfstream II-B (N909JE) has, along with his Boeing 727, been spotted at Paris’s Le Borguet Airport in frequent occasions. Epstein’s Sikorsky S-76B helicopter has been seen flying between Palm Beach International and Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport. Epstein’s Cessna 172-XP has flown to and from Double Eagle II Airport outside of Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Epstein’s Boeing 727-31 on ground at Prague’s Vaclav Havel International Airport in May 2004. Tail number N908JE. It’s the same plane that Bill Clinton flew on.

Also appearing on the flight manifests are the names of some of the alleged victims of Epstein’s sex trafficking: Virginia Roberts, Cindy Lopez,   Other passengers are only listed by their first names: Colleen, Tatianna, Margarita, Carolina, Lisa, Margaret, Dana, Julie, and Jessica. Epstein’s two major pimps are also frequent flyers on Epstein’s “Pederast Airlines” — Ghislaine Maxwell, the daughter of the late publishing tycoon and Mossad asset Robert Maxwell, and Sarah Kellen (now Sarah Kensington), the girlfriend of NASCAR driver Brian Vickers.


Alan Dershowitz’s name appears on Epstein flight manifests on flights from Bedford, Massachusetts to Teterboro Airport, New Jersey (Feb. 5, 2004) and Pierre Trudeau International in Montreal (Nov. 17, 2005). “AD” appears to be Alan Dershowitz on a Nov. 17, 2005 flight from Teterboro to Palm Beach International Airport along with”JE” (Jeffrey Epstein) and “SE” (Sarah Kellen) and another flight from Bedford to Teterboro with Epstein (“JE”), Tatianna, and an “AM.”


Larry Summers’s name appears on a Sep. 14, 2005 flight with Epstein from Bedford, Massachusetts to Westchester County Airport, New York.


Bill Clinton flew on Epstein’s Boeing 727 from Miami to Westchester, New York on February 9, 2002 with Epstein, four Secret Service agents (has the recent prosecution of Secret Service agents for liaising with prostitutes been an attempt to intimidate them if they ever decide to speak out about Clinton on Epstein’s flights?), “2 males” (unidentified), “1 female” (unidentified), Ghislaine Maxwell, Sarah Kellen, and a “BP.”

It is noteworthy that Charlie Crist, who became a Democrat after leaving the Republican Party and becoming an independent, received the enthusiastic backing of Bill Clinton in Crist’s failed bid to oust GOP Governor Rick Scott last year. It now appears that Clinton may have owed Crist more than a political favor as details begin to emerge of the Crist administration’s deal with Acosta in Miami to immunize Clinton from any future prosecutions in the Epstein case. Although the NPA with Epstein was agreed upon during the Crist and McCollum tenure, Epstein’s 2005 arrest for having sex with a 15-year old and the onset of his attorneys’ back-and-forth with the government occurred during the Jeb Bush administration and his Attorney General Crist. The U.S. Attorney General from 2005, when Epstein was first charged with having sex with an underage minor, to October 2007, when the plea deal was signed with Epstein, was Alberto Gonzales, President George W. Bush’s former chief counsel. The Epstein case, therefore, tarnishes both the Clintons and the Bushes.

Up to 40 women have been identified as being the victims of sexual abuse by Epstein. Court records indicate the number may be higher with one reference to a Jane Doe 103.

Epstein’s 97-page address book, called the “Holy Grail,” contains the personal phone numbers and email addresses for some of the world’s most rich and famous, which, in addition to Clinton, includes Prince Andrew, John Kerry, Donald Trump (also a resident of Palm Beach), Tony Blair and his chief spokesman Alastair Campbell, Ehud Barak, Michael Bloomberg, Richard Branson, George Mitchell, Henry Kissinger, Andrew Cuomo, Itzhak Perlman, Dustin Hoffman, Tea party financier David Koch, former newspaper tycoon and convicted felon Conrad Black and his extreme pro-Israel wife Barbara Black, Andrew’s former girlfriend and porn actress Koo Stark, and Mick Jagger. Epstein is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission. Prince Andrew used the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland as a platform where he denied allegations that he was involved in Epstein’s underage sex ring. Virginia Roberts  (Jane Doe 3) alleges that she had sex with Andrew when she was still a minor.
'Met three times': Prince Andrew with 17-year-old Virginia Roberts, centre, and Ghislaine Maxwell in 2001
Andrew [far left] with 17-year old Virginia Roberts (Jane Doe 3) [center] and Ghislaine Maxwell [right] in 2001.

WMR also obtained from federal court records unsealed on January 21 a partially-released transcript of an April 7, 2011 telephone conversation between attorneys Brad Edwards, who is representing Roberts and other Jane Does, and Jack Scarola, who was representing Edwards. In the conversation, Roberts recounts that Epstein was presented with two 12-year old girls from France as a “birthday gift.” The two girls were said to be from poor families in France. Roberts recalled how Epstein sent her when she was 19 to Thailand to learn Thai-style massages. However, in Thailand, Roberts said she met an Australian kick boxer, fell in love with and married him, and moved to Australia. Before that Epstein asked Roberts to bear his child and sign it over to him and Maxwell. Epstein offered Roberts a mansion and a monthly allowance if she agreed to the terms. Roberts opted instead to move to Australia with her husband.

Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement with Bush-era Justice Department with connivance of Florida Governor Charlie Crist and Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum:

Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page10
Page11
Page12

The victims of Epstein’s sex slave ring may never see justice or adequate compensation. Attorneys for the victims, who are scattered from West Palm Beach to Fort Lauderdale, and Miami, appear as interested in grabbing hefty contingency fees in the event of successful suits against Epstein as much as Epstein’s well-paid attorneys are interested in limiting Epstein’s financial drain.

# # #

Wayne Madsen – Investigative journalist, author and syndicated columnist. Has some twenty years experience in security issues. As a U.S. Naval Officer, he managed one of the first computer security programs for the U.S. Navy. He has been a frequent political and national security commentator on Fox News and has also appeared on ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera, and MS-NBC. He has been invited to testify as a witness before the US House of Representatives, the UN Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and an terrorism investigation panel of the French government. A member of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) and the National Press Club. Lives in Washington, D.C.

Filed Under: Opinion Tagged With: Bill Clinton, Case 1:10-cv-21586-ASG, Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM, Epstein Non Prosecution Agreement, Epstein NPA, Exhibit 1 Jane Doe #3 Affidavit, FLSD, House of Bush, Jane Doe's, Jeffrey Epstein, Kenneth Marra, NPA, Plea deal, Pres. Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew, Virginia Roberts, wayne madsen

November 24, 2014

#MichaelBrown Family Asks for 4 and Half Minutes of Silence Following the Reading of GJ Decision…

STATEMENT FROM THE FAMILY OF MICHAEL BROWN

________________________________________________________________________________

“After the Grand Jury’s decision, we are asking for 4 1/2 minutes of silence to remember why we lift our voices. We are not here to be violent. We are here in memory of our son. We are here for protection of all children. We are here to support justice and equality for all people. We lift our voices to ensure black and brown men, women, and children can live in this country without being devalued because of the color of our skin.”

_________________________________________________________________________________

@THEAPJOURNALIST

 

Filed Under: Opinion Tagged With: #MichaelBrown, Brown Family asks for 4 and a half minutes of silence, Darren Wilson, Ferguson, Grand Jury Decision, Moment of Silence, St. Louis

November 21, 2014

Open Letter From the Students Who Vandalized the Phi Psi House…

9587_vandalso

FROM: Anonymous Students

TIME: Thursday, Nov. 20 at 4:02 p.m.

We wish that the recent Rolling Stone article regarding the culture of rape in the University’s Greek system had come as a shock. Unfortunately, as students, we are all too familiar with the rape and assault that is ubiquitous on Rugby Road.

We have been assaulted, our friends have been assaulted, and the University––students and administrators alike––continue to minimize the problem. The administration has consistently failed to take the drastic steps that are necessary to halt the epidemic, and the students go about their lives complacently, tolerating the abuse. Rapists go unpunished and wander our campus––our campus, where they haunt their victims and even openly mock them. We are fed up with it. We applaud the bravery of those who have shared their stories, and we promise that their bravery will not be in vain. This situation is just beginning. We will escalate and we will provoke until justice is achieved for the countless victims of rampant sexual violence at this University and around the nation.

To that end we list the following short-term demands:

– An immediate revision of University policy mandating expulsion as the only sanction for rape and sexual assault.

– The immediate suspension of UVA’s Phi Kappa Psi chapter, and a thorough review of the entire fraternity system.

– A thorough overhaul of the University’s Sexual Misconduct Board and the resignation of Dean Nicole Eramo.

– The immediate implementation of harm reduction policies at fraternity parties, such as policing, University supervision, or permission for parties to be held in safer environments such as sorority houses.

Rape is not a political issue to be negotiated and discussed with an eye towards gradual improvement. It is a criminal act of violence that cannot be tolerated. Inaction on the part of anyone––students, faculty, and administrators––allows more young victims to be raped every weekend. Rolling Stone discussed UVA’s culture of rape, and it is pervasive. But we are UVA students too, and we reject that culture. The silent majority of this University cannot remain silent: change will be made on this campus only if we force it. We appeal for action to President Sullivan, who has shown promise as a strong and progressive administrator, but we will no longer confine ourselves to working through a bureaucratic and ineffective system.

UVA will not be the same after this––we will not allow it.

Sincerely,
The students who vandalized the Phi Psi house

Filed Under: Opinion Tagged With: A Rape on Campus, Dean Eramo, Gang Rape, Greek system, Phi Kappa Psi, Pres. Sullivan, Rolling Stone, Rugby Road, Sexual Assault, University of Virginia, UVA, UVA Phi Kappa Psi Chapter

August 27, 2014

Global Post, the employer of freelancer James Foley, fails to pass smell test

August 22, 2014

by Wayne Madsen
WayneMadsenReport dot com

National news media operations based in Boston are almost like musicals that run “off Broadway.”

We can add Global Post to the off-Broadway journalistic hit parade. Global Post is the Boston-based website that employed freelance photo journalist James Foley in Syria, recently beheaded by his Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) guerrillas in Iraq, appears to be a subsidized operation with an agenda that matches up nicely with that of international hedge fund tycoon George Soros.

National media operations not based in New York or Washington, DC are usually subsidized by interests with agendas. One Boston-based media operation that has a clear agenda is The Christian Science Monitor, a church-owned operation, which has become increasingly neo-conservative in its coverage since it scrapped its print edition and became an exclusively web-based operation. The other Boston-based national media operation is CAMERA  – the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America — which serves as the Israel Lobby’s often rabid media watchdog.

Foley, who was kidnapped on November 22, 2012 in northern Syria, near Idlib, by Syrian guerrillas who were not members of ISIL for the simple reason that ISIL did not yet exist. Foley was originally captured by an Islamist group that took its orders from the Central Intelligence Agency-organized and trained Free Syrian Army (FSA), whose leaders led their “army” not from the battlefield but from posh Istanbul hotel suites paid for by the Turkish, Saudi, and Qatari governments.

In early 2013, ISIL took over the rebel group holding Foley and other kidnap victims. Foley, like other journalists, was offered up for ransom by ISIL, which is now said to have some 4000 members who are Europeans, Australians, North Americans, and even a few Japanese, who have no Muslim or Middle Eastern familial backgrounds. In fact, the British citizen who beheaded Foley on video is said to go by the first name of “John,” which is certainly not a Muslim name.

Ransom payments for kidnap victims like Foley have turned into a big business for ISIL and other terrorist groups. France, Italy, and Spain have paid large ransom amounts for its nationals taken hostage in Syria, West Africa, and Somalia. It is stated U.S. and British policy not to pay ransoms for hostages, however, as witnessed in the Iran-contra scandal, the U.S. is known to have traded arms to Iran for the release of hostages held by Shi’a groups in Lebanon.

In the case of Foley, ISIL had been in email communication with his family and Global Post to work out a ransom deal. However, ISIL said it beheaded Foley in retaliation for U.S. air strikes against ISIL guerrillas who were advancing toward the Kurdish capital of Erbil in northern Iraq.

There are reports that ISIL has even purchased kidnapped Westerners from other groups as far afield as Kashmir, Somalia, and Yemen in order to trade them for cash. Al Qaeda’s reputed leader, Dr. Ayman al Zawahiri, is said to have called for Islamist groups to seize Western hostages in return for freeing Islamists held in prisons around the world.

The focus on Global Post yields some interesting connections. Foley had previously covered other U.S.-led wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. Foley was always embedded with U.S. troops, as was the case in Iraq and Afghanistan, or U.S.-supported militias in Libya and Syria. During the 2011 CIA-initiated Libyan rebellion against Muammar Qaddafi’s government, Foley was taken captive by Qaddafi army loyalists and held for 44 days.  Foley preferred being embedded with those fighting on the side of the United States rather than cover wars from different perspectives. Such wartime journalism would lead some believe that Foley was performing non-journalistic tasks on U.S.-created battlefields, that is, espionage.

President Obama interrupted his summer vacation on Martha’s Vineyard to condemn Foley’s beheading. Obama also phoned Foley’s parents who live in New Hampshire. Subsequently, it was reported officially that U.S. Special Forces had attempted a rescue mission in Syria to free Foley and other American hostages but it failed. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said that normally such operations would not be revealed but that in the case of Foley an exception had been made because the information on the failed rescue operation had already been “leaked” to the press. One could ask why an administration that is intent on putting some journalists in prison for publishing leaks of classified information would make such an exception, itself involving classified special forces operations, for Foley?

There has long been a debate within the U.S. intelligence community as to whether it is proper to use intelligence agents operating abroad under journalistic cover. Past administrations, including those of Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford, banned the use of journalists and missionaries by the CIA. Others, including the Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush administrations were not so adamant against the use of journalists as spies. The Obama administration’s leeway given to the CIA for all sorts of operations previously prohibited or inhibited opens the door for journalists, once again, being used as agents in hot spots like Syria, Libya, and Iraq.

Which brings us back to Global Post. The media operation has not been around long. It was initiated on January 12, 2009, a week before the inauguration of Barack Obama as president, by two Boston businessmen, Charles Sennott and Philip Balboni. The new website claimed it was going to “redefine international news for the digital age.” Originally charging an annual subscription of $199 a year, Global Post cut its annual rate to $30 a year, which has been WMR’s unchanged annual subscription rate since 2005. However, Global Post’s subscribers’ base only stood at around 400. Yet, Global Post could boast of 65 worldwide correspondents, albeit, many of whom, like Foley, were freelancers. But how does an on-line media with subscribers only in the hundreds manage to finance reporters in war zones like Syria and Libya while maintaining a worldwide network of correspondents?

Global Post, with its lackluster business revenues, was able to cut syndication agreements with the Public Broadcasting System (sometimes mockingly referred to as the “Pentagon Broadcasting System”), the Sumner Redstone-owned CBS, and the Mort Zuckerman-owned New York Daily News. Oddly, just two years after its start-up, Global Post had garnered Peabody, Polk, and Edward R. Murrow awards for its “On Location” video coverage. Clearly, someone wanted to increase Global Post’s street credentials through an “award washing” campaign.

Owned by Global News Enterprises, LLC and headquartered on Boston’s affluent waterfront, Global Post’s board of directors and management includes those who have had only a glancing encounter with actual journalism: former cable television executives, a former chairman of C-SPAN, a former member of the board of The Boston Globe, a former publisher of The Boston Globe, an assistant to the CEO of the Hearst Corporation, a public relations flack for PBS, and a board member of the Boston public television station WGBH.

But even more suspicious is the presence on the staff of Global Post of two former editors for The Cambodia Daily, a CIA-connected publication officially owned by Cambodian orphanage “aficionado” Bernard Krisher; a former senior correspondent for the CIA- and Soros-linked Radio Free Europe in Prague; a graduate of the CIA-linked Sasin Business Institute in Bangkok; a former Boston Globe Jerusalem bureau chief, a former editor for the CIA-connected Tico Times of Costa Rica, and a former editor for the hard-neocon publication The Atlantic. Global Post’s team of international correspondents are steeped in neocon credentials, from The Daily Beast and Kyiv Post to The New Republic and The Daily Telegraph.

While the White House and journalists mourn the death of Foley, it is important to point out that his photo reporting seldom departed from the confines of U.S. military units or irregular rebel forces supported by the CIA. It is tragic that one of those CIA rebel forces ultimately would subject Foley to a gruesome videotaped beheading. However, as much blame for that rests with those who supported the rebellion against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, individuals like CIA director John Brennan and national security adviser Susan Rice, as with the rebel executioners themselves.

# # #

Wayne Madsen is a Washington, DC-based investigative journalist, author and columnist. He has written for The Village Voice, The Progressive, Counterpunch, Online Journal, CorpWatch, Multinational Monitor, News Insider, In These Times, and The American Conservative. His columns have appeared in The Miami Herald, Houston Chronicle, Philadelphia Inquirer, Columbus Dispatch, Sacramento Bee, and Atlanta Journal-Constitution, among others.

Madsen is the author of The Handbook of Personal Data Protection (London: Macmillan, 1992), an acclaimed reference book on international data protection law; Genocide and Covert Operations in Africa 1993-1999 (Edwin Mellen Press, 1999); co-author of America’s Nightmare: The Presidency of George Bush II (Dandelion, 2003); author of Jaded Tasks: Big Oil, Black Ops & Brass Plates; Overthrow a Fascist Regime on $15 a Day; The Manufacturing of a President: the CIA’s Insertion of Barack H. Obama, Jr. into the White House; L’Affaire Petraeus; National Security Agency Surveillance: Reflections and Revelations; and, The Star and the Sword.

Filed Under: Opinion Tagged With: George Soros, Global Post, IS, ISIL, ISIS, James Foley, wayne madsen, WMR

August 26, 2014

CEASEFIRE DEAL REACHED BETWEEN ISRAEL AND PALESTINIAN UNITY GOVERNMENT

Gazan Twitter Reactions to extended ceasefire deal reached between Israel & Palestines Unified Government –

I can breath for the first time. A ceasefire has been declared and my family is safe and unharmed. Endless gratitude to the resistance — 48Refugee (@48Refugee) August 26, 2014

confirmed information, ALL of the Palestinian leadership backs call to join ICC, the ICC themselves want Pal to join. Only exception: Abbas.

— Jalal (@JalalAK_jojo) August 26, 2014

— kholoud Diab (@kholoudEllouh) August 26, 2014

Khaled Mashaal reportedly forced by Hamas’ Gaza leadership to accept Egypt’s ceasefire. Apparently he’s not a happy camper right now.

Key elements of ceasefire deal –

  • Opening of the borders and freedom of movement between Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
  • Extension of fishing waters from six to 12 miles.
  • Start of rebuilding process in Gaza

I wish i could hug every mom who lost her child and cry with her

— Ziad Bakri (@ZiadBGaza) August 26, 2014

@Lamis_Deek @MaxBlumenthal the deal was put on hold by resistance for 1 word: lifting or easing the siege. Today’s deal says: lifting siege — Raja Abdulhaq (@Raja48) August 26, 2014

Big winners: proponents of the status quo ante.

— Jonathan Schanzer (@JSchanzer) August 26, 2014

Live blog: Thousands of people have taken to the streets of the #Gaza Strip to celebrate the start of the #ceasefire http://t.co/bKPI68Esvh — Middle East Eye (@MiddleEastEye) August 26, 2014

 

Gazan's celebrate ceasefire August 29, 2014_3

MiddleEastEye Live Blog reporting – “Senior Israeli cabinet members are opposed to the ceasefire agreement, reports Haaretz correspondent Barak Ravid.” “Naftali Bennett, Avigdor Lieberman and Yitzhak Aharonovitch have said they are opposed to the deal agreed with Hamas – no vote was held on the agreement.”   — Daniel Nisman (@DannyNis) August 26, 2014

Everybody is happy EVERYBODYYY #Gaza — Guess what (@Farah_Gazan) August 26, 2014

Embedded image permalink

The end of a stupid, cruel, pointless conflict. Thousands dead, tens of thousands maimed, hundreds of thousands homeless. For nothing. — Tom Gara (@tomgara) August 26, 2014

  More than 2133 Palestinians killed, 11K wounded… 51 days of #GazaUnderAttack: The Israeli assault on #Gaza is over, but occupation is NOT. — Rania Zabaneh (@RZabaneh) August 26, 2014

This is pissing me off! STOP THE DAMN FUCKING SPORADIC GUNFIRE IN THE AIR! #Gaza #ceasefire — Omar Ghraieb (@Omar_Gaza) August 26, 2014

“Palestine’s Interior Ministry has warned people not to shoot in the air in celebration, after reports of injuries. The Interior Ministry demands that citizens immediately stop shooting in the air, and find other methods of celebrating out of concern for their lives.”     

Palestinians in #Gaza are now flooding the streets to celebrate the ceasefire after 51 of ongoing carnage and destruction. #Love   — Maha Rezeq – مها رزق (@GazaInAndOut) August 26, 2014

 

Long live Palestine, long live Gaza. pic.twitter.com/Gw7AO31DbQ — Gaza Youth Break Out (@GazaYBO) August 26, 2014

Reminder, Mahmoud Abbas had ZERO EXCUSED not to ratify the Rome Statute, and now he has -1 excuses http://t.co/6BxeVF1eie #ICC4Israel NOW! — Jalal (@JalalAK_jojo) August 26, 2014

Ceasefire is official. Cheers and gunfire erupt throughout Gaza City. pic.twitter.com/h31vbYPc18 — Dan Cohen (@dancohen3000) August 26, 2014

Abbas now: supplies will enter & we’ll continue negotiations tosatisy all parties, Qatar has helped with this, Kerry was in regular contact — Lamis Deek لميس ديك (@Lamis_Deek) August 26, 2014

  Abbas now says he wants to avoid “useless negotiations,” says terms must be clear. Has he ever abided by his own guidance? — Max Blumenthal (@MaxBlumenthal) August 26, 2014

Gag order on discussion of details of three kidnapped Israeli teens supposedly component of vague Israel-Hamas deal http://t.co/W1MQeNxk6N — Max Blumenthal (@MaxBlumenthal) August 26, 2014

Embedded image permalink

“Together we will rebuild our free country”, said Mahmoud Abbas in Cairo, right before requesting an Israeli permit to return to Ramallah.

— Jareer Kassis (@JareerKassis) August 26, 2014

Filed Under: Opinion Tagged With: #BDS, #FreePalestine, #GazaResists, Abbas, Extended Ceasefire, Gaza, Gazan Twitter reactions, Israel, Netanyahu, Palestine Unity government, Twitter

August 14, 2014

President Obama’s Citizenship Bona Fides — The Controversy Continues

August 14, 2014

by Helen Tansey
The T-Room dot us

Seeking restitution of $90 in injuries and settling the question of Obama’s citizenship bona fides is what Petitioner Christopher John Rudy is asking the Supreme Court to address in Rudy v Lee. The William J. Olson law firm issued the the following press release today detailing their recent filing of a friend-of-the-court brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, on behalf of Mr. Rudy –

Amicus Brief in U.S. Supreme Court

On August 13, 2014, our firm filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the U.S. Supreme Court, supporting a patent attorney’s claim that a law mandating an increase in patent application fees was invalid because it was signed into law by President Obama who does not meet the constitutional requirement to be a “natural born citizen.” The lower courts in the case ruled that the question of President Obama’s citizenship is a “political question” and thus an issue for Congress — not the courts — to decide.

Until now, the question of President Obama’s qualifications as a “natural born citizen” has been dodged by the judiciary because those challenging his eligibility had not suffered any personal injury compensable by a court — and thus lacked “legal” standing. There is no such barrier in this case because the patent attorney suffered an out-of-pocket loss of $90.00 because of the new law signed by President Obama.

Also, until now, no one has questioned the validity of a law signed by the President. Rather, previous cases have sought the removal of President Obama from the presidential ballot or from office altogether. In this case, however, the complaining patent attorney is not seeking President Obama’s removal from office, but simply a refund of his $90.00 and a declaration that, unless he is a “natural born citizen,” President Obama does not have the constitutional authority to sign a bill into law. Yet, the courts are attempting to avoid declaring what the law is based on the judge-made expedient of labeling the issue a “political question.”

In addition to possessing the standing that prior challengers lacked, Mr. Rudy’s case comes at an opportune time — just two months after the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held in National Labor Relations Board v. Canning that an Order of the NLRB was invalid because three members of the board were constitutionally ineligible to serve.

Our amicus brief in Rudy argued that if the U.S. Supreme Court can decide whether members of the NLRB meet the constitutional requirements of their office, it can also decide whether the President of the United States meets the constitutional requirements of his office.

Further, as our brief demonstrated, the requirement that a President be a “natural born citizen” is a fixed legal principle prescribed by the Constitution, with the purpose to insulate the office from foreign influences that would compromise the President’s sworn oath to “defend, preserve, and protect” the Constitution of the United States.

Many object to any challenge to the eligibility of a president, or presidential aspirant, but if the law is to apply equally to every person, Presidents cannot be deemed to be above the law based on vague tests such as whether the case presents “political question.” Indeed, demonstrating that the term “natural born citizen” is a constitutional requirement that has continuing political significance which needs resolution are questions not just about President Obama, but also about Republicans Marco Rubio, Rick Santorum, Ted Cruz, and others.

Our brief was filed on behalf of U.S. Justice Foundation, Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, Abraham Lincoln Foundation, U.S. Border Control, U.S. Border Control Foundation, Institute on the Constitution, Policy Analysis Center, and Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund.

The Supreme Court is currently in recess returning in September. There is no guarantee SCOTUS will hear this case, so don’t get your hopes up, however, after reading the exceptionally strong arguments put forth in the Olson friend-of-the-court brief (see below), the Court would be hard pressed to simply ignore Rudy’s complaint. After all, they only recently ruled appointments made by Obama to the NRLB to be unconstitutional, he has standing and all he wants is a simple “refund of his $90.00 and a declaration that, unless he is a “natural born citizen,” President Obama does not have the constitutional authority to sign a bill into law.”

From the beginning, when thousands upon thousands of voters were questioning and challenging Mr. Obama’s citizenship status, this very question was asked ad naseum “if he’s not a natural born citizen then how can the legislation he signs be legal?” But no one, then nor now, who has been given the trust to serve the People, has ever provided an unequivocal answer. Instead all that is heard is silence with the only exception being the paid for crazy choir of birther obots.

It is unfathomable that in six years not one governor, not one state attorney general, not one secretary of state, not one representative, not one senator, not one judge has once settled the most basic of questions for the most powerful position in the world – what is the definitive definition of a ‘natural born citizen?’  Sure the People know, we’ve always known, but ask any in authority and they turn into quivering nannies? No offense to nannies intended.

Just my opinion, but if SCOTUS refuses this case, especially after reading the Olson brief, then the People indeed have their answer, that is Mr. Obama’s citizenship status is, unequivocally, something other than natural born.

Rudy v Lee USJF Amicus Brief (2)

Filed Under: Opinion Tagged With: Article II, Herb Titus, natural born citizen, Obama's citizenship bona fides, presidential qualifications, rudy v lee, wm. j. olson law firm

July 29, 2014

Senior U.S. Intelligence Officers: Obama Should Release Ukraine Evidence

Preface:  With the July 17 shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over Ukraine turning a local civil war into a U.S. confrontation with Russia, former U.S. intelligence veterans urge President Obama to release what evidence he has about the tragedy and silence the hyperbole.

MEMORANDUM FOR: The President

FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

SUBJECT: Intelligence on Shoot-Down of Malaysian Plane

Executive Summary

U.S.–Russian intensions are building in a precarious way over Ukraine, and we are far from certain that your advisers fully appreciate the danger of escalation. The New York Times and other media outlets are treating sensitive issues in dispute as flat-fact, taking their cue from U.S. government sources.

Twelve days after the shoot-down of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17, your administration still has issued no coordinated intelligence assessment summarizing what evidence exists to determine who was responsible – much less to convincingly support repeated claims that the plane was downed by a Russian-supplied missile in the hands of Ukrainian separatists.

Your administration has not provided any satellite imagery showing that the separatists had such weaponry, and there are several other “dogs that have not barked.” Washington’s credibility, and your own, will continue to erode, should you be unwilling – or unable – to present more tangible evidence behind administration claims. In what follows, we put this in the perspective of former intelligence professionals with a cumulative total of 260 years in various parts of U.S. intelligence:

We, the undersigned former intelligence officers want to share with you our concern about the evidence adduced so far to blame Russia for the July 17 downing of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17. We are retired from government service and none of us is on the payroll of CNN, Fox News, or any other outlet. We intend this memorandum to provide a fresh, different perspective.

As veteran intelligence analysts accustomed to waiting, except in emergency circumstances, for conclusive information before rushing to judgment, we believe that the charges against Russia should be rooted in solid, far more convincing evidence. And that goes in spades with respect to inflammatory incidents like the shoot-down of an airliner. We are also troubled by the amateurish manner in which fuzzy and flimsy evidence has been served up – some it via “social media.”

As intelligence professionals we are embarrassed by the unprofessional use of partial intelligence information. As Americans, we find ourselves hoping that, if you indeed have more conclusive evidence, you will find a way to make it public without further delay. In charging Russia with being directly or indirectly responsible, Secretary of State John Kerry has been particularly definitive. Not so the evidence. His statements seem premature and bear earmarks of an attempt to “poison the jury pool.”

Painting Russia Black

We see an eerie resemblance to an earlier exercise in U.S. “public diplomacy” from which valuable lessons can be learned by those more interested in the truth than in exploiting tragic incidents for propaganda advantage. We refer to the behavior of the Reagan administration in the immediate aftermath of the shoot-down of Korean Airlines Flight 007 over Siberia on August 30, 1983. We sketch out below a short summary of that tragic affair, since we suspect you have not been adequately briefed on it. The parallels will be obvious to you.

An advantage of our long tenure as intelligence officers is that we remember what we have witnessed first hand; seldom do we forget key events in which we played an analyst or other role. To put it another way, most of us “know exactly where we were” when a Soviet fighter aircraft shot down Korean Airlines passenger flight 007 over Siberia on August 30, 1983, over 30 years ago. At the time, we were intelligence officers on “active duty.” You were 21; many of those around you today were still younger.

Thus, it seems possible that you may be learning how the KAL007 affair went down, so to speak, for the first time; that you may now become more aware of the serious implications for U.S.-Russian relations regarding how the downing of Flight 17 goes down; and that you will come to see merit in preventing ties with Moscow from falling into a state of complete disrepair. In our view, the strategic danger here dwarfs all other considerations.

Hours after the tragic shoot-down on Aug. 30, 1983, the Reagan administration used its very accomplished propaganda machine to twist the available intelligence on Soviet culpability for the killing of all 269 people aboard KAL007. The airliner was shot down after it strayed hundreds of miles off course and penetrated Russia’s airspace over sensitive military facilities in Kamchatka and Sakhalin Island. The Soviet pilot tried to signal the plane to land, but the KAL pilots did not respond to the repeated warnings. Amid confusion about the plane’s identity – a U.S. spy plane had been in the vicinity hours earlier – Soviet ground control ordered the pilot to fire.

The Soviets soon realized they had made a horrendous mistake. U.S. intelligence also knew from sensitive intercepts that the tragedy had resulted from a blunder, not from a willful act of murder (much as on July 3, 1988, the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian civilian airliner over the Persian Gulf, killing 290 people, an act which President Ronald Reagan dismissively explained as an “understandable accident”).

To make the very blackest case against Moscow for shooting down the KAL airliner, the Reagan administration suppressed exculpatory evidence from U.S. electronic intercepts. Washington’s mantra became “Moscow’s deliberate downing of a civilian passenger plane.” Newsweek ran a cover emblazoned with the headline “Murder in the Sky.” (Apparently, not much has changed; Time’s cover this week features “Cold War II” and “Putin’s dangerous game.” The cover story by Simon Shuster, “In Russia, Crime Without Punishment,” would merit an A-plus in William Randolph Hearst’s course “Yellow Journalism 101.”)

When KAL007 was shot down, Alvin A. Snyder, director of the U.S. Information Agency’s television and film division, was enlisted in a concerted effort to “heap as much abuse on the Soviet Union as possible,” as Snyder writes in his 1995 book, “Warriors of Disinformation.”

He and his colleagues also earned an A-plus for bringing the “mainstream media” along. For example, ABC’s Ted Koppel noted with patriotic pride, “This has been one of those occasions when there is very little difference between what is churned out by the U.S. government propaganda organs and by the commercial broadcasting networks.”

“Fixing” the Intelligence Around the Policy

“The perception we wanted to convey was that the Soviet Union had cold-bloodedly carried out a barbaric act,” wrote Snyder, adding that the Reagan administration went so far as to present a doctored transcript of the intercepts to the United Nations Security Council on September 6, 1983.

Only a decade later, when Snyder saw the complete transcripts — including the portions that the Reagan administration had hidden — would he fully realize how many of the central elements of the U.S. presentation were false.

The intercepts showed that the Soviet fighter pilot believed he was pursuing a U.S. spy aircraft and that he was having trouble in the dark identifying the plane. Per instructions from ground control, the pilot had circled the KAL airliner and tilted his wings to order the aircraft to land. The pilot said he fired warning shots, as well. This information “was not on the tape we were provided,” Snyder wrote.

It became abundantly clear to Snyder that, in smearing the Soviets, the Reagan administration had presented false accusations to the United Nations, as well as to the people of the United States and the world. In his book, Snyder acknowledged his own role in the deception, but drew a cynical conclusion. He wrote, “The moral of the story is that all governments, including our own, lie when it suits their purposes. The key is to lie first.”

The tortured attempts by your administration and stenographers in the media to blame Russia for the downing of Flight 17, together with John Kerry’s unenviable record for credibility, lead us to the reluctant conclusion that the syndrome Snyder describes may also be at work in your own administration; that is, that an ethos of “getting your own lie out first” has replaced “ye shall know the truth.” At a minimum, we believe Secretary Kerry displayed unseemly haste in his determination to be first out of the starting gate.

Both Sides Cannot Be Telling the Truth

We have always taken pride in not shooting from the hip, but rather in doing intelligence analysis that is evidence-based. The evidence released to date does not bear close scrutiny; it does not permit a judgment as to which side is lying about the shoot-down of Flight 17. Our entire professional experience would incline us to suspect the Russians – almost instinctively. Our more recent experience, particularly observing Secretary Kerry injudiciousness in latching onto one spurious report after another as “evidence,” has gone a long way toward balancing our earlier predispositions.

It seems that whenever Kerry does cite supposed “evidence” that can be checked – like the forged anti-Semitic fliers distributed in eastern Ukraine or the photos of alleged Russian special forces soldiers who allegedly slipped into Ukraine – the “proof” goes “poof” as Kerry once said in a different context. Still, these misrepresentations seem small peccadillos compared with bigger whoppers like the claim Kerry made on Aug. 30, 2013, no fewer than 35 times, that “we know” the government of Bashar al-Assad was responsible for the chemical incidents near Damascus nine days before.

On September 3, 2013 – following your decision to call off the attack on Syria in order to await Congressional authorization – Kerry was still pushing for an attack in testimony before a thoroughly sympathetic Senate Foreign Affairs Committee. On the following day Kerry drew highly unusual personal criticism from President Putin, who said: “He is lying, and he knows he is lying. It is sad.”

Equally serious, during the first week of September 2013, as you and President Vladimir Putin were putting the final touches to the deal whereby Syrian chemical weapons would be given up for destruction, John Kerry said something that puzzles us to this day. On September 9, 2013, Kerry was in London, still promoting a U.S. attack on Syria for having crossed the “Red Line” you had set against Syria’s using chemical weapons.

At a formal press conference, Kerry abruptly dismissed the possibility that Bashar al-Assad would ever give up his chemical weapons, saying, “He isn’t about to do that; it can’t be done.” Just a few hours later, the Russians and Syrians announced Syria’s agreement to do precisely what Kerry had ruled out as impossible. You sent him back to Geneva to sign the agreement, and it was formally concluded on September 14.

Regarding the Malaysia Airlines shoot-down of July 17, we believe Kerry has typically rushed to judgment and that his incredible record for credibility poses a huge disadvantage in the diplomatic and propaganda maneuvering vis-a-vis Russia. We suggest you call a halt to this misbegotten “public diplomacy” offensive. If, however, you decide to press on anyway, we suggest you try to find a less tarnished statesman or woman.

A Choice Between Two

If the intelligence on the shoot-down is as weak as it appears judging from the fuzzy scraps that have been released, we strongly suggest you call off the propaganda war and await the findings of those charged with investigating the shoot-down. If, on the other hand, your administration has more concrete, probative intelligence, we strongly suggest that you consider approving it for release, even if there may be some risk of damage to “sources and methods.” Too often this consideration is used to prevent information from entering the public domain where, as in this case, it belongs.

There have been critical junctures in the past in which presidents have recognized the need to waive secrecy in order to show what one might call “a decent respect for the opinions of mankind” or even to justify military action.

As senior CIA veteran Milton Bearden has put it, there are occasions when more damage is done to U.S. national security by “protecting” sources and methods than by revealing them. For instance, Bearden noted that Ronald Reagan exposed a sensitive intelligence source in showing a skeptical world the reason for the U.S. attack on Libya in retaliation for the April 5, 1986 bombing at the La Belle Disco in West Berlin. That bombing killed two U.S. servicemen and a Turkish woman, and injured over 200 people, including 79 U.S. servicemen.

Intercepted messages between Tripoli and agents in Europe made it clear that Libya was behind the attack. Here’s an excerpt: “At 1:30 in the morning one of the acts was carried out with success, without leaving a trace behind.”

Ten days after the bombing the U.S. retaliated, sending over 60 Air Force fighters to strike the Libyan capital of Tripoli and the city of Benghazi. The operation was widely seen as an attempt to kill Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, who survived, but his adopted 15-month-old daughter was killed in the bombing, along with at least 15 other civilians.

Three decades ago, there was more shame attached to the killing of children. As world abhorrence grew after the U.S. bombing strikes, the Reagan administration produced the intercepted, decoded message sent by the Libyan Peoples Bureau in East Berlin acknowledging the “success” of the attack on the disco, and adding the ironically inaccurate boast “without leaving a trace behind.”

The Reagan administration made the decision to give up a highly sensitive intelligence source, its ability to intercept and decipher Libyan communications. But once the rest of the world absorbed this evidence, international grumbling subsided and many considered the retaliation against Tripoli justified.

If You’ve Got the Goods…

If the U.S. has more convincing evidence than what has so far been adduced concerning responsibility for shooting down Flight 17, we believe it would be best to find a way to make that intelligence public – even at the risk of compromising “sources and methods.” Moreover, we suggest you instruct your subordinates not to cheapen U.S. credibility by releasing key information via social media like Twitter and Facebook.

The reputation of the messenger for credibility is also key in this area of “public diplomacy.” As is by now clear to you, in our view Secretary Kerry is more liability than asset in this regard. Similarly, with regard to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, his March 12, 2013 Congressional testimony under oath to what he later admitted were “clearly erroneous” things regarding NSA collection should disqualify him. Clapper should be kept at far remove from the Flight 17 affair.

What is needed, if you’ve got the goods, is an Interagency Intelligence Assessment – the genre used in the past to lay out the intelligence. We are hearing indirectly from some of our former colleagues that what Secretary Kerry is peddling does not square with the real intelligence. Such was the case late last August, when Kerry created a unique vehicle he called a “Government (not Intelligence) Assessment” blaming, with no verifiable evidence, Bashar al-Assad for the chemical attacks near Damascus, as honest intelligence analysts refused to go along and, instead, held their noses.

We believe you need to seek out honest intelligence analysts now and hear them out. Then, you may be persuaded to take steps to curb the risk that relations with Russia might escalate from “Cold War II” into an armed confrontation. In all candor, we see little reason to believe that Secretary Kerry and your other advisers appreciate the enormity of that danger.

In our most recent (May 4) memorandum to you, Mr. President, we cautioned that if the U.S. wished “to stop a bloody civil war between east and west Ukraine and avert Russian military intervention in eastern Ukraine, you may be able to do so before the violence hurtles completely out of control.” On July 17, you joined the top leaders of Germany, France, and Russia in calling for a ceasefire. Most informed observers believe you have it in your power to get Ukrainian leaders to agree. The longer Kiev continues its offensive against separatists in eastern Ukraine, the more such U.S. statements appear hypocritical.

We reiterate our recommendations of May 4, that you remove the seeds of this confrontation by publicly disavowing any wish to incorporate Ukraine into NATO and that you make it clear that you are prepared to meet personally with Russian President Putin without delay to discuss ways to defuse the crisis and recognize the legitimate interests of the various parties. The suggestion of an early summit got extraordinary resonance in controlled and independent Russian media. Not so in “mainstream” media in the U.S. Nor did we hear back from you.

The courtesy of a reply is requested.

Prepared by VIPS Steering Group

William Binney, former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military Analysis, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)

Larry Johnson, CIA & State Department (ret.)

Edward Loomis, NSA, Cryptologic Computer Scientist (ret.)

David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)

Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.)

Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East (ret.)

Coleen Rowley, Division Counsel & Special Agent, FBI (ret.)

Peter Van Buren, U.S. Department of State, Foreign Service Officer (ret)

Ann Wright, Col., US Army (ret); Foreign Service Officer (ret.)

h/t Washingtonsblog.com

Filed Under: Opinion Tagged With: Bill Binney, Blaming Russia, Colleen Rowley, Larry Johnson, Malaysia MH17, MH017, MH17, NATO, Obama administration, Peter van Buren, putin, Ray McGovern, Russia, Senior US Intelligence Officers, Ukraine, US, US War Against Russian, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, VIPS

July 24, 2014

"The Israeli army used ten families as human shields. They took over their homes and wouldn't let them escape."

Who is it exactly using Gazan’s as human shields? Any who are believing a word out of any official gov spokesperson’s mouth needs to read the firsthand account, posted below, of a Gazan who lived through pure hell today just trying to get him and his family to safety. No part of me can imagine the depth of the fear he, his family, his friends, his neighbors experienced.  All I can do is bear witness via social media to the most abominable, horrific, intentional, evil destruction of a people, entire families mind you, and their teeny sliver of a life. That is if you can call it a life – imagine a million plus people living in a cage barely 25 miles in length, two miles wide everyday, every single fucking day of their existence.

Bother yourself and read Mohammad Alsaafin’s eyewitness account to the slaughter of his family, neighbors and friends today, July 24, 2014 –

Eyewitness acct of Israeli Massacre in Khuza July 23, 2014_1

 

Eyewitness acct of Israeli Massacre in Khuza_2 July 23, 2014

 

Filed Under: Opinion Tagged With: #GazaUnderAttack, Eyewitness to Israel using families as human shields, Gaza, Human Shields, Israel, slaughter in Khuza'a

July 10, 2014

BUSTED: Germany's Chairman of NSA Inquiry Phone Tapped by NSA

TRANSLATED: http://www.swr.de/landesschau-aktuell/bw/ulm/kiesewetter-offenbar-abgehoert/-/id=1612/did=13735756/nid=1612/1hqz7ou/index.html

Chairman of the NSA Committee of Inquiry Kiesewetter apparently bugged

The Aalen Member of Parliament Roderich Kiesewetter (CDU) has apparently been spied by intelligence services. Brisant: He is also Coordinator of the NSA investigation committee. In SWR he has now demanded by the Bundestag better protection for MPs.

Roderich Kiesewetter (CDU), Unions Coordinator on the NSA committee of inquiry is on 08.05.2014 before the meeting of the NSA investigation committee of the Bundestag in Berlin a statement from.

Roderich Kiesewetter (CDU) has been apparently bugged

Russian and U.S. intelligence agencies would certain MPs who have “interesting work” a watch, Roderich Kiesewetter said SWR. Technicians of the Bundestag have found that third parties have access to his mobile phone. However, it was not clear what exactly foreign services skim.

Kiesewetter since April chairman of the Union Group in the NSA investigation committee. The committee will examine the eavesdropping activities of the United States and Britain as well as the role of the federal government there.
Kiesewetter for better protection of MPs

The Bundestag must finally make better arrangements for MPs. Kiesewetter was particularly critical that the U.S. company Verizon was commissioned as provider by the Bundestag – although it is known that Verizon was working closely with the NSA.
Spying may all Stewards

He therefore called for, that the Bundestag touting the new telecommunications services. Not only the cheapest supplier might come into play, and data security must be ensured. Kiesewetter said he had evidence that the chairmen of all four parties had been intercepted on the NSA investigation committee.

The Bundestag has set up a Committee of NSA affair on March 20, 2014. The Committee, chaired by Mr Prof. Dr. Patrick Sensburg (CDU / CSU) to clarify the extent and background of the Ausspähungen by foreign secret services in Germany. The Committee has eight members of the Bundestag: Four of the CDU / CSU, the SPD and two each from the left and from the Greens.

Filed Under: Opinion Tagged With: Bundestag, GCHQ, Germany, NSA, NSA surveillance inquiry, Poderich Kiesewetter

June 16, 2014

UPDATE #NET NEUTRALITY: FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler Promises He's Not a Dingo

Following HBO’s John Oliver’s spectacular takedown of the FCC’s proposed changes to internet access aka #Net Neutrality a couple of weeks ago, Tom Wheeler, former President of National Cable and Telecommunications Association now FCC Chairman, wants “to state for the record” he is not a dingo –

ICYMI here is the full episode of Oliver’s #Net Neutrality clip –

Filed Under: Opinion Tagged With: Dingo, FCC, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, John Oliver, Last Week Tonight, Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, Net Neutrality

June 12, 2014

UPDATE: Anheuser-Busch and Miller Coors: Tell Us What’s In Your Beer!

UPDATE X1: Jay Brooks over at Brookston Beer Bulletin has posted a lengthy response to Foodbabe’s petition demanding Anheuser-Bushch and Miller Coors list ingredients they use in making there beer. Brooks article is a solid read and raises several valid points related to Foodbabe’s potentially misleading campaign. The T-Room encourages folks to read his article so as to gain a balanced perspective on what appears to be a growing concern in internet advocacy journalism, especially related to listing food/beverage ingredients –

Her first salvo was last year when she sensationally claimed to expose The Shocking Ingredients in Beer. Almost every one was as un-shocking as it gets, especially if you understand the brewing process. But that’s the new yellow journalism, and unfortunately you see it all over the internet. A provocative headline to grab page views, link bait or something just overly sensational is all you need. It’s happened so many times since I’ve been writing online that I’ve lost count. And it works. The beer community rushes in to correct egregious mistakes, faulty reasoning, uninformed opinion while the hit count spikes, advertisers smile and websites raise their advertising rates. It rarely matters that what’s written is often wrong, sometimes so utterly wrong that it should be embarrassing for not only the author, but the publication, too. And yet curiously, it’s not. And for me, that’s why it’s yellow journalism. It’s not intended to be factual, or well-researched or reasoned. It’s sole purpose is to get eyeballs on the page. And facts apparently are boring. The truth is somnambulistic. Controversy, even the manufactured kind, is what brings the traffic.

We’re keeping the petition up and linking to her site only because The T-Room is a staunch supporter of all food and beverage labeling no matter who is making the request or how they are making it.

The T-Room encourages our readers to support Foodbabe’s  petition  asking “Anheuser-Busch and Miller Coors, America’s largest beer brands to disclose their full set of ingredients online for all consumers to see.”

“Nearly every other food and beverage provider is legally required to make this information available—yet these two companies, which collectively sell more than $75 billion in beers each year, have not. I grew concerned about the beer after discovering there is a long list of additives the government has approved for use in beer during an investigation last fall. High fructose corn syrup, artificial flavors, stabilizers that are linked to intestinal inflammation, artificial colors – like caramel coloring, ingredients found in airplane deicing liquid, genetically modified ingredients, and even fish swim bladders are allowed in beer. ”

Beer Petition

 

Read more – http://foodbabe.com/2014/06/11/anheuser-busch-miller-coors-tell-us-whats-beer/#more-16950

 

Filed Under: Opinion Tagged With: Anheuser-Busch, Beer, budweiser, coor's, craft beer, Foodbabe, Foodbabe petition, Ingredients in Beer, Miller Coors, miller lite

June 10, 2014

WHO IN THE HELL DO THEY THINK THEY ARE???? (Updated)

Tonight, my husband and I went to vote in the [Virginia] primary and were SHOCKED by the fact we were only allowed, ALLOWED, geesh, unfathomable, allowed, to vote in either the a) federal primary or b) city primary due to Party (24.2-530 – going on memory here).

We were told, as well as other voters disgusted at the process at the same time we were at the precinct, we could not vote in BOTH, which, quite frankly, infringes upon our constitutional right to cast a vote for the candidates who we believe will best represent us on BOTH the federal and city level, AND the respective candidates right to muster votes to secure their Fall election ballot. We were FORCED to cast our vote in either NOT or. Thus, our primary concern is to kick the bum out of congress who represents AIPAC and Israel rather than the constituents in the 7th Congressional District.

But I digress. We are furious with said choices. My right as a Virginian is and should always, and I mean ALWAYS, be to vote for any candidate no matter the Party affiliation and office i.e., federal, state or city should be ours to make NOT the Virginia General Assembly.

Tonight, the candidate for the city primary got totally screwed by 24.2-530 (note: if I’m citing the correct code it says “party” not office or federal vs state primary). We had every intention of voting in both the federal and city primaries, but, like I said above, we were totally robbed of that opportunity. We, along with others, immediately filed official complaints which were either left with the SBE volunteers at our precinct or, those who trust the political system even less than we do, chose to send there’s in. I spoke with many of the volunteers about this ABSURDITY and they freely informed me that they had received such complaints ALL DAY. They too felt helpless. Why on earth would the state put these volunteers in such a position?

Please know, if the Virginia GA passed a law that infringes on Virginian’s voting rights then trust I, along with a plethora of others, are utterly unaware.

Exactly when did the Virginia General Assembly pass such an authoritarian law? We want to know. We do not believe they did, but rather the Sec’y of the SBE has been terribly counseled. However, if they did, pass such a stupid ass statute, you damned well better know we will use every tool available to ensure said archaic election laws are rescinded in their entirety. Dumb. Dumb. Dumber.

Candidates who worked their tail ends off to convince us to vote for them, challenger or sitting, were absolutely, one-hundred percent robbed of our votes today. This is wrong, wrong, wrong and must be in violation of federal election laws, if not, state election laws or just plain old common sense.

We want answers and we want them now. Yes, we’re furious. ALL VIRGINIAN’S DESERVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE FOR WHOMEVER THEY WISH. ALL!

Helen

UPDATE x1 –  We just learned Cantor’s challenger won tonight’s primary. NEWS FLASH, Cantor got screwed by the Va SBE just like the city treasurer position did. We have no love for Cantor, trust us, but when someone gets royally screwed like Cantor just did then hell YES we’re going to speak up. Wrong is Wrong no matter the party or stupid ass policies they put forward!

UPDATE x2 – The two votes were for either congress OR City clerk not Treasurer.

 

Filed Under: Opinion Tagged With: 2014 primary, Eric Cantor loses primary, Va election laws, VA general assembly, violation of VA state election laws, Virginia 2014 primary elections

June 4, 2014

Solar Freakin Roadways

Well, this seems pretty cool at first glance. I’m sure there is a downside somewhere…always is –

h/t silverbearcafe dot com

Filed Under: Opinion Tagged With: solar, solar freakin roadways, solar panels, solar roadways, solar sidewalks

May 29, 2014

Reaction, Insight, Opinion and Clips from Snowden's Interview You Didn't See #Patriot #Traitor

NBC News is steering those who missed last night’s interview with Snowden over to their site. They’ve taken down YT vids that cut out all of the ads leaving only the interview. If you missed the interview and want to watch or re watch it click here.

One more item worth noting following the Snowden interview. NBC asked folks on Twitter to weigh in on whether they believe Snowden to be a “#Patriot” or “#Traitor.” Well, the vote tally is in with 59% #Patriot v 41% #Traitor.

Here are some additional articles you may want to read. They take on various pieces of the interview with the first link leading you to portions of the interview that didn’t make the final cut.

The Edward Snowden clips NBC didn’t broadcast on TV

NBC Censors Snowden’s Critical 9/11 Comments from Prime Time Audience

Not Snowden but *Keith Alexander*: Hero or Traitor (the debate we should be having)

Kerry To Snowden: “Man Up and Come Back to the United States.”

And the NSA just released this slightly redacted email from Snowden making an inquiry to NSA General Counsel on the hierarchy laid out in a training he attended –

Edward J. Snowden email inquiry to the NSA Office of General Counsel<br />
May 29, 2014<br />
NSA has now explained that they have found one email inquiry by Edward Snowden to the Office of General Counsel asking for an explanation of some material that was in a training course he had just completed. The e-mail did not raise allegations or concerns about wrongdoing or abuse, but posed a legal question that the Office of General Counsel addressed.<br />
There was not additional follow-up noted. The e-mail will be released later today. There are numerous avenues that Mr. Snowden could have used to raise other concerns or whistleblower allegations. We have searched for additional indications of outreach from him in those areas and to date have not discovered any engagements related to his claims.

Edward J. Snowden email inquiry to the NSA Office of General Counsel<br />
May 29, 2014<br />
NSA has now explained that they have found one email inquiry by Edward Snowden to the Office of General Counsel asking for an explanation of some material that was in a training course he had just completed. The e-mail did not raise allegations or concerns about wrongdoing or abuse, but posed a legal question that the Office of General Counsel addressed.<br />
There was not additional follow-up noted. The e-mail will be released later today. There are numerous avenues that Mr. Snowden could have used to raise other concerns or whistleblower allegations. We have searched for additional indications of outreach from him in those areas and to date have not discovered any engagements related to his claims.

Filed Under: Opinion Tagged With: Edward Snowden, First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Mass Surveillance, NBC Brian Williams and Edward Snowden interview, NBC interview of Snowden, NSA, Snowden email to NSA General Counsel, US Constitution

May 14, 2014

WATCH Video Snowden Made to Teach Greenwald Email Encryption

h/t Beforeitsnews dot com

Filed Under: Opinion Tagged With: Edward Snowden, email encryption, Glenn Greenwald, Snowden teaches Encryption

May 12, 2014

State Dept. cable highlighted Ukrainian civil war threat in 2008

May 10, 2014

by Wayne Madsen
Wayne Madsen Report

One of the classified State Department cables released by WikiLeaks confirms that the U.S. State Department knew of the fascist threat to Ukraine as early as 2008. The cable, sent from the U.S. embassy in Moscow, also expressed the legitimate concerns of the Russian government, including Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, over plans to extent NATO membership to Ukraine. The cable also states that NATO membership for Ukraine could lead to “violence or even, some claim, civil war.” Lavrov also told the United States of attempts of some new [NATO] member countries to “rewrite history and glorify fascists.”

The cable, sent from U.S. ambassador William Burns, is evidence that the George W. Bush administration was more acutely aware of the sensitivity of Ukrainian membership in NATO than the Obama administration has been. This difference has led some to believe that the Obama administration has, because of incompetence and failure to curb the influence of several noted Zionist neo-conservatives, including Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland and U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt, brought on the crisis with Russia over Ukraine for other purposes, including forcing sanctions against Russia.

Neo-con financial backers, including George Soros, would like nothing more than to get their hands on Russia’s natural resources, including gold and palladium. Russia possesses over 40 percent of the world’s palladium resources. Palladium is a key component in solar batteries.

The cable also states that Russia did not want to face the possibility of intervening in a Ukrainian civil war brought about by a split in the country over a Ukrainian decision to join NATO.

The cable, just as with National Security Agency surveillance, is yet another example of Obama being worse than Bush in a major policy area.

VZCZCXYZ0000
OO RUEHWEB DE RUEHMO #0265/01 0321425
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
O 011425Z FEB 08
FM AMEMBASSY MOSCOW
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 6368
INFO RUEHXD/MOSCOW POLITICAL COLLECTIVE IMMEDIATE RUEHZG/NATO EU COLLECTIVE IMMEDIATE RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC IMMEDIATE RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC IMMEDIATE RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC IMMEDIATE

C O N F I D E N T I A L MOSCOW 000265
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/30/2018
TAGS: PREL [External Political Relations], NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization], UP [Ukraine], RS [Russia; Wrangel Islands]
SUBJECT: NYET MEANS NYET: RUSSIA’S NATO ENLARGEMENT
REDLINES
REF: A. MOSCOW 147 B. MOSCOW 182
Classified By: Ambassador William J. Burns. Reasons 1.4 (b) and (d).1. (C) Summary. Following a muted first reaction to Ukraine’s intent to seek a NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP) at the Bucharest summit (ref A), Foreign Minister Lavrov and other senior officials have reiterated strong opposition, stressing that Russia would view further eastward expansion as a potential military threat. NATO enlargement, particularly to Ukraine, remains “an emotional and neuralgic” issue for Russia, but strategic policy considerations also underlie strong opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia. In Ukraine, these include fears that the issue could potentially split the country in two, leading to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene. Additionally, the GOR and experts continue to claim that Ukrainian NATO membership would have a major impact on Russia’s defense industry, Russian-Ukrainian family connections, and bilateral relations generally. In Georgia, the GOR fears continued instability and “provocative acts” in the separatist regions. End summary.

MFA: NATO Enlargement “Potential Military Threat to Russia”

2. (U) During his annual review of Russia’s foreign policy January 22-23 (ref B), Foreign Minister Lavrov stressed that Russia had to view continued eastward expansion of NATO, particularly to Ukraine and Georgia, as a potential military threat. While Russia might believe statements from the West that NATO was not directed against Russia, when one looked at recent military activities in NATO countries (establishment of U.S. forward operating locations, etc. they had to be evaluated not by stated intentions but by potential. Lavrov stressed that maintaining Russia’s “sphere of influence” in the neighborhood was anachronistic, and acknowledged that the U.S. and Europe had “legitimate interests” in the region. But, he argued, while countries were free to make their own decisions about their security and which political-military structures to join, they needed to keep in mind the impact on their neighbors.

3. (U) Lavrov emphasized that Russia was convinced that enlargement was not based on security reasons, but was a legacy of the Cold War. He disputed arguments that NATO was an appropriate mechanism for helping to strengthen democratic governments. He said that Russia understood that NATO was in search of a new mission, but there was a growing tendency for new members to do and say whatever they wanted simply because they were under the NATO umbrella (e.g. attempts of some new member countries to “rewrite history and glorify fascists”).

4. (U) During a press briefing January 22 in response to a question about Ukraine’s request for a MAP, the MFA said “a radical new expansion of NATO may bring about a serious political-military shift that will inevitably affect the security interests of Russia.” The spokesman went on to stress that Russia was bound with Ukraine by bilateral obligations set forth in the 1997 Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership in which both parties undertook to “refrain from participation in or support of any actions capable of prejudicing the security of the other Side.” The spokesman noted that Ukraine’s “likely integration into NATO would seriously complicate the many-sided Russian-Ukrainian relations,” and that Russia would “have to take appropriate measures.” The spokesman added that “one has the impression that the present Ukrainian leadership regards rapprochement with NATO largely as an alternative to good-neighborly ties with the Russian Federation.”

Russian Opposition Neuralgic and Concrete

5. (C) Ukraine and Georgia’s NATO aspirations not only touch a raw nerve in Russia, they engender serious concerns about the consequences for stability in the region. Not only does Russia perceive encirclement, and efforts to undermine Russia’s influence in the region, but it also fears unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences which would seriously affect Russian security interests. Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war. In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face.

6. (C) Dmitriy Trenin, Deputy Director of the Carnegie Moscow Center, expressed concern that Ukraine was, in the long-term, the most potentially destabilizing factor in U.S.-Russian relations, given the level of emotion and neuralgia triggered by its quest for NATO membership. The letter requesting MAP consideration had come as a “bad surprise” to Russian officials, who calculated that Ukraine’s NATO aspirations were safely on the backburner. With its public letter, the issue had been “sharpened.” Because membership remained divisive in Ukrainian domestic politics, it created an opening for Russian intervention. Trenin expressed concern that elements within the Russian establishment would be encouraged to meddle, stimulating U.S. overt encouragement of opposing political forces, and leaving the U.S. and Russia in a classic confrontational posture. The irony, Trenin professed, was that Ukraine’s membership would defang NATO, but neither the Russian public nor elite opinion was ready for that argument. Ukraine’s gradual shift towards the West was one thing, its preemptive status as a de jure U.S. military ally another. Trenin cautioned strongly against letting an internal Ukrainian fight for power, where MAP was merely a lever in domestic politics, further complicate U.S.-Russian relations now.

7. (C) Another issue driving Russian opposition to Ukrainian membership is the significant defense industry cooperation the two countries share, including a number of plants where Russian weapons are made. While efforts are underway to shut down or move most of these plants to Russia, and to move the Black Sea fleet from Sevastopol to Novorossiysk earlier than the 2017 deadline, the GOR has made clear that Ukraine’s joining NATO would require Russia to make major (costly) changes to its defense industrial cooperation.

8. (C) Similarly, the GOR and experts note that there would also be a significant impact on Russian-Ukrainian economic and labor relations, including the effect on thousands of Ukrainians living and working in Russia and vice versa, due to the necessity of imposing a new visa regime. This, Aleksandr Konovalov, Director of the Institute for Strategic Assessment, argued, would become a boiling cauldron of anger and resentment among the local population.

9. (C) With respect to Georgia, most experts said that while not as neuralgic to Russia as Ukraine, the GOR viewed the situation there as too unstable to withstand the divisiveness NATO membership could cause. Aleksey Arbatov, Deputy Director of the Carnegie Moscow Center, argued that Georgia’s NATO aspirations were simply a way to solve its problems in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and warned that Russia would be put in a difficult situation were that to ensue.

Russia’s Response

10. (C) The GOR has made it clear that it would have to “seriously review” its entire relationship with Ukraine and Georgia in the event of NATO inviting them to join. This could include major impacts on energy, economic, and political-military engagement, with possible repercussions throughout the region and into Central and Western Europe. Russia would also likely revisit its own relationship with the Alliance and activities in the NATO-Russia Council, and consider further actions in the arms control arena, including the possibility of complete withdrawal from the CFE and INF Treaties, and more direct threats against U.S. missile defense plans.

11. (C) Isabelle Francois, Director of the NATO Information Office in Moscow (protect), said she believed that Russia had accepted that Ukraine and Georgia would eventually join NATO and was engaged in long-term planning to reconfigure its relations with both countries, and with the Alliance. However, Russia was not yet ready to deal with the consequences of further NATO enlargement to its south. She added that while Russia liked the cooperation with NATO in the NATO-Russia Council, Russia would feel it necessary to insist on recasting the NATO-Russia relationship, if not withdraw completely from the NRC, in the event of Ukraine and Georgia joining NATO. C

Comment

12. (C) Russia’s opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia is both emotional and based on perceived strategic concerns about the impact on Russia’s interests in the region. It is also politically popular to paint the U.S. and NATO as Russia’s adversaries and to use NATO’s outreach to Ukraine and Georgia as a means of generating support from Russian nationalists. While Russian opposition to the first round of NATO enlargement in the mid-1990’s was strong, Russia now feels itself able to respond more forcefully to what it perceives as actions contrary to its national interests. BURNS

# # #

Filed Under: Opinion Tagged With: Civil War, fascism, Kiev, Lavrov, NATO, Russia, State Department, Ukraine, Wikileaks Cable

May 6, 2014

It's hight time for all who use the internet to learn about Net Neutrality

Following are two short videos detailing what Net Neutrality means – treating all data equally – and why it is in everyone’s  best interest to make sure the net remains neutral.

This first vid does a great job explaining what net neutrality is, how data currently works on the net and argues why we need to keep it this way –

This second vid also explains net neutrality but offers additional insight into the financial benefits to internet GIANTS if they are successful in getting the FCC to approve ‘fast lanes’ which we will all end up paying for with few deriving substantial benefit –

However, if you don’t have time to watch either one understand currently net neutrality insures ‘data’ such as songs, movies, articles, games, blogs and shows all receive equal treatment no matter who they are or how much money they can throw around, whereas if the Comcast’s and Verizon’s of the world get their way you’ll soon be paying a lot more to watch and/or read your fav’s because they will likely upgrade services to ‘fast lanes’ which will result in a tiered internet system – slow lane v fast lane. Once they add the first “fast lane” there will be no limits on adding “high frequency lanes” or an “Audubon” or … in the end our wallets will be lighter and the level playing field destroyed.

Let’s agree to keep the net neutral. After all, we are painfully learning what division has cost our nation, so let’s keep the web a 100% level so anyone and everyone has an equal opportunity to take advantage of all the web has to offer.

Please make a public comment here!
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/begin…

Tell the FCC that they should reclassify broadband internet as a Title II  “Common carrier” telecommunications service. Right now broadband is regulated like TV or radio, which doesn’t make sense.

This is a public comment for the public record…official government stuff… so you’ll have to include your actual name and address.

You can also email the FCC directly here: http://dft.ba/-tell_the_FCC

If you want to help some organizations that work their butts off trying to fight the telecoms, check out:

Save The Internet (from FreePress) http://www.savetheinternet.com/sti-home

Public Knowledge: http://www.publicknowledge.org/

And contact your congress people: http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml

Filed Under: Opinion Tagged With: Contact the FCC, equal opportunity, Fast lanes v slow lanes, FCC, Net Neutrality

May 2, 2014

Obama's sanctions on Russia triggering global recession

April 30, 2014

by Wayne Madsen
Wayne Madsen Report

The White House media spinmeisters and the talking heads of Bloomberg News and CNBC dare not say it but the sanctions on Russia being crafted by Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew’s team at the Department of Treasury are beginning to take their toll: on the economies of the United States and western Europe.

Once, we were told that Russia, as a member of the G8 and World Trade Organization, was a sign of the financial interdependency of the world. Now, we are told by the very same people who came up with all the “free trade” and “new world order” contrivances that imposing economic sanctions on energy-exporting Russia will have no effect on the global economy.

The report card on the adoption by the Obama administration of neoconservative-developed sanctions on Russia is now in. The U.S. economy has slowed dramatically since the Obama administration first began drawing up contingency sanctions on Russia as U.S.-financed rioters first began assembling on Kiev’s Maidan Square in January with the intent of violently ousting the pro-Russian government of President Viktor Yanukovych. Nothing that occurs within the Obama administration, even that which is done in secret, escapes the notice of international hedge fund mogul George Soros, without whose support Obama would have never become president, let alone a U.S. senator from Illinois.

With the inside knowledge of contingency sanctions against Russia being formulated in January, Soros began doing what Soros does best: betting for or against certain currencies and bonds based on his inside knowledge of White House plans.

During January, February, and March, the U.S. economy dramatically decelerated. The energy crisis in Europe brought about by U.S. destabilization of Ukraine and sanctions on Russia resulted in sudden increases in the price of gasoline in the United States as anyone owning an automobile witnessed at the pump.

Many key indicators on the strength of the U.S. economy have plunged as a result of what are not merely sanctions against Russia but a neocon-instituted trade war against one of the world’s largest economies. Not only have inventories fallen in America but so too have exports.

And why would U.S. exports suffer? Because U.S. sanctions are affecting the ability of U.S. firms to operate in Russia. McDonald’s imports over half of its products sold in over 400 restaurants in Russia. Much of those products come from the United States. The weaker ruble resulting from targeted U.S. sanctions has had an adverse effect on McDonald’s sales in Russia and, thus, its supply purchases from the United States. McDonald’s is not the only U.S. restaurant chain operating in Russia that is facing falling profits and a cut-back in exports from the United States.

Pepsico sells a number of food and soft drink products in Russia. Growing anti-American consumer backlash in Russia, coupled with a falling ruble, has placed in jeopardy the company’s profits in the Russian market.

Ford Motors is also being affected by the sanctions with the scaling back of its joint venture with Russian car manufacturer Sollers. With Ford Sollers operations being halted in Russia, there is no demand for car parts imported from Ford and third party manufacturers in the United States. Hence, we have the problem with weak inventories and lower exports now being reported in the United States.

Another key U.S. company operating in Russia is Caterpillar, a firm with a 100-year legacy in Russia and the Soviet Union. It’s CEO, Doug Oberhelman, is quoted by Reuters as issuing a dire warning for U.S. sanctions against Russia. Oberhelman said, “We are hoping for a peaceful resolution, but business confidence around the world could dampen, and trade and world GDP could slow should the situation deteriorate.”

So far, the Obama administration has shown every indication that it is prepared to go the distance in levying sanctions on Russia. There are already plans to increase sanctions to the level of those imposed on Iran. If that occurs, not only will the U.S. target every financial transaction involving Russian banks or corporations but also countries, such as the BRICS allies of Russia — Brazil, India, China, and South Africa — that refuse to abide by sanctions imposed by the U.S., Canada, European Union, Australia, and Japan. Sanctions and a trade war between the West and BRICS would be all that is needed to not only bring about a worldwide recession but a depression and history has shown us how countries facing such a calamity crawl out of their dilemmas. War — global war.

dr-evil-soros-ecomomy-soros-dollar-evil-new-world-order-one-political-poster-1289584678
As usual, the same villain is behind the sanctions on Russia.

Not only are the BRICS potentially facing the curled wringing hands of the Treasury Department’s sanction planners but countries almost totally dependent on trade via Russia are feeling the economic doldrums. These include Russia’s two Eurasian Economic Union partners, Belarus and Kazakhstan.  The BRICS countries are now shedding their dependency on the U.S. dollar as a trading and reserve currency, thus making the U.S. fiat currency backed by the manipulative practices of the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank, even more worthless than it already is. Russia and China are already trading in the ruble and the yuan and there are plans for the Eurasian Economic Union to adopt a dollar- and euro-free monetary unit called the“altyn” by 2025.

A number of U.S. energy companies are active in Kazakhstan and all face problems with Obama’s sanctions on Russia. Russia is a gateway country for foreign oil and natural gas operations in Kazakhstan. U.S. sanctions on Rossiya Bank and the Russian state-owned oil company Rosneft, both of which are active in Kazakhstan, are merely intended to help exiled Russian Jewish tax scofflaw Mikhail Khodorkovsky attempt to get back some of his nationalized Yukos and other assets from Russian state-owned firms like Rosneft and banks like Rossiya Bank. After being freed from prison in an amnesty authorized by Russian President Vladimir Putin, Khodorkovsky immediately reneged on his promise to avoid politics, showing up in Kiev to support the usurper coup government that took power with the help of some of Khodorkovsky’s fellow travelers, individuals like State Department envoy chief diplomat for Europe Victoria Nuland and U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt.

Russia’s cutback on the natural gas supply to Ukraine has affected Russia’s supply of gas to fragile economies in southern Europe, especially Italy, Greece, Bulgaria, Macedonia, and Serbia. These nations, already squeezed economically by the austerity vultures of the EU and International Monetary Fund, are seeing their teetering economies further hurt by the sanctioneers of Washington, London, and Frankfurt. The rise of nationalist parties opposed to the EU and sanctions on Russia is a direct result of the globalists putting the economies of Italy, Serbia, Greece, Macedonia, and Bulgaria on the chopping block for the sole interests of a group of coup leaders in Kiev. The election for the EU Parliament on May 22 will have some nasty surprises in store for the globalists, bankers, and neocons like Nuland, Pyatt, and their friends in Kiev.

Further sanctions on Russia stand to harm farmers already beset by EU austerity policies. Farmers in Portugal, Spain, Italy, Austria, and Bulgaria who export fruit to Russia, which is 80 percent dependent on foreign imports of fruit and berries, stand to lose their livelihoods from further EU sanctions on Russia.

If U.S. imposes sanctions on the Russian energy giant Gazprom, nationals of third countries, like former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, the chairman of Gazprom’s Nord Stream pipeline operation and friend of Putin, would likely see their foreign accounts frozen and a travel ban imposed by the United States. It is unlikely that real Germans, not the half-Polish hausfrau from the former East Germany who is the current chancellor, would object to a former chancellor being treated like a common criminal, especially after revelations that the U.S. National Security Agency has conducted wide scale surveillance of Germans’ communications.

Israel will have nothing to do with supporting the U.S. on sanctions on Russia because its floating natural gas platform, Tamar, has a deal with Gazprom to export liquefied natural gas.

Regardless of whether sanctions are increased on Russia or not, Soros has already made his killing by his speculative billion-fold “pump and dump” investing and short selling of currencies. His unique insight into what occurs inside the Obama White House, something that would not be possible without the connivance of Obama, himself, and his closest aides like Valerie Jarrett and Jacob Lew, have already made Soros an even wealthier man.

Filed Under: Opinion Tagged With: George Soros, Obama, Obama sanctions on Russia, Odessa, putin, Russia, Sanctions, Slavyansk, Ukraine, US Companies Hit by Sanctions

May 1, 2014

Seven Decades of Nazi Collaboration: America's Dirty Little Secret

Published March 28, 2014

by Paul H. Rosenberg and Foreign Policy in Focus
The Nation

An interview with Russ Bellant, author of “Old Nazis, the New Right, and the Republican Party.”

The Ukrainian nationalist party Svoboda holds a rally in Kiev, January 1, 2014. (Reuters/Maxim Zmeyev)

The Ukrainian nationalist party Svoboda holds a rally in Kiev, January 1, 2014. (Reuters/Maxim Zmeyev)

This article is a joint publication of TheNation.com and Foreign Policy In Focus.

As the Ukrainian crisis has unfolded over the past few weeks, it’s hard for Americans not to see Vladimir Putin as the big villain. But the history of the region is a history of competing villains vying against one another; and one school of villains—the Nazis—have a long history of engagement with the US, mostly below the radar, but occasionally exposed, as they were by Russ Bellant in his book Old Nazis, The New Right And The Republican Party (South End Press, 1991). Bellant’s exposure of Nazi leaders from German allies in the 1988 Bush presidential campaign was the driving force in the announced resignation of nine individuals, two of them from the Ukraine, which is why he was the logical choice to turn to illuminate the scattered mentions of Nazi and fascist elements amongst the Ukrainian nationalists, which somehow never seems to warrant further comment or explanation. Of course most Ukranians aren’t Nazis or fascists—all the more reason to illuminate those who would hide their true natures in the shadows…or even behind the momentary glare of the spotlight.

Your book, Old Nazis, the New Right, and the Republican Party exposed the deep involvement in the Republican Party of Nazi elements from Central and Eastern Europe, including Ukrainian, dating back to World War II and even before. As the Ukrainian crisis unfolded in the last few weeks there have been scattered mentions of a fascist or neo-fascist element, but somehow that never seems to warrant further comment or explanation. I can’t think of anyone better to shed light on what’s not being said about that element. The danger of Russian belligerence is increasingly obvious, but this unexamined fascist element poses dangers of its own. What can you tell us about this element and those dangers?

The element has a long history, of a long record that speaks for itself, when that record is actually known and elaborated on. The key organization in the coup that took place here recently was the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists [OUN], or a specific branch of it known as the Banderas [OUN-B]. They’re the group behind the Svoboda party, which got a number of key positions in the new interim regime. The OUN goes back to the 1920s, when they split off from other groups, and, especially in the 1930s began a campaign of assassinating and otherwise terrorizing people who didn’t agree with them.

As World War II approached, they made an alliance with the Nazi powers, they formed several military formations, so that when Germany invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941, they had several battalions that went into the main city at the time, where their base was, Lvov, or Lwow, it has a variety of spellings [also ‘Lviv’]. They went in, and there’s a documented history of them participating in the identification and rounding up Jews in that city, and assisting in executing several thousand citizens almost immediately. There were also involved in liquidating Polish group populations in other parts of Ukraine during the war.

Without getting deeply involved in that whole history, the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists to this day defend their wartime role, they were backers of forming the 14th Waffen SS Division, which was the all-Ukrainian division that became an armed element on behalf of the Germans, and under overall German control. They helped encourage its formation, and after the war, right at the end of the war, it was called the First Ukrainian division and they still glorify that history of that SS division, and they have a veterans organization, that obviously doesn’t have too many of members left but they formed a veterans division of that.

If you look insignia being worn in Kiev in the street demonstrations and marches to the SS division insignia still being worn. In fact I was looking at photographs last night of it and there was a whole formation marching, not with 14th Division, but with the Second Division, it was a large division that did major battle around the Ukraine, and these marchers were wearing the insignia on the armbands of the Second Division.

So this is a very clear record, and the OUN, even in its postwar publications has called for ethno-genetically pure Ukrainian territory, which of course is simply calling for purging Jews, and Poles, and Russians from what they consider Ukrainian territory. Also, current leaders of Svoboda have made blatantly anti-Semitic remarks that call for getting rid of Muscovite Jews and so forth. They use this very coarse threatening language that anybody knowing the history of World War II would tremble at. If they were living here, it would seem like they would start worrying about it.

Obviously these people don’t hold monopoly power in Ukraine, but they stepped up and the United States has been behind the Svoboda party and these Ukrainian nationalists. In fact the US connections to them go back to World War II and the United States has had a long-standing tie to the OUN, through the intelligence agencies, initially military intelligence, and later the CIA.

Your book discusses a central figure in the OUN, Yaroslav Stetsko, who was politically active for decades here in America. What can you tell us about his history?

Yaroslav Stetsko was the number two leader of the OUN during World War II and thereafter. In 1959, Stefan Bandera, who was head of the OUN, was killed and that’s when Stetsko assumed the leadership. Stetsko in 1941 was the guy who actually marched into Lvov with the German army June 30, 1941 and the OUN issued a proclamation at that time under his name praising and calling for glory to the German leader Adolf Hitler and how they’re going to march arm in arm for the Ukraine and so forth. After the war, he was part of the key leadership that got picked up by the Americans.

There’s a number of accounts I’ve seen, at least three credible up reports, on how they were in the displaced person camp, the Allied forces set up displaced persons camp and picked up tens of thousands of these former allies of Hitler from countries all over the East, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania – there weren’t Polish collaborators I think most people know the Germans heavily persecuted and murdered millions of Polish residents – but Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, and so forth, Belorussia. They had them in these camps they built and organized them, where the Ukrainians were assassinating their Ukrainian nationalist rival so that they would be the undisputed leaders of Ukrainian nationalist movement, so they would get the sponsorship of the United States to continue their political operation, and they were successful in that regard. So when Bandera was out of the picture, Stetsko became the undisputed leader of Ukrainian nationalists.

The Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists in 1943 under German sponsorship organized a multinational force to fight on behalf of the retreating German army. After the battle of Stalingrad in ’43 the Germans felt a heightened need to get more allies, and so the Romanian Iron Guard, the Hungarian Arrow Cross, the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and others with military formations in place to assist came together and formed the united front called the Committee of Subjugated Nations and again worked on behalf of of the German military. In 1946, they renamed it the Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations, ABN. Stetsko was the leader of that until he died in 1986.

I mention this in part because the OUN tries to say well during the war we fought the Germans and the communists. The fact of the matter is that they were the leadership of this whole multinational alliance on behalf of the German the last two years of the war and in the war thereafter. All the postwar leaders of the unrepentant Nazi allies were all under the leadership of Yaroslav Stetsko.

What happened when Stetsko, and others like him from other German allied forces came to the United States?

In the United States, when they came, his groups organized ‘captive nations’ committees, they became, supposedly, the representatives of people who are being oppressed in Eastern Europe, the Baltic countries, by the Soviet. But they were, in fact, being given an uncritical blank check to represent the voices of all these nations that were part of the Warsaw Pact when in fact they represented the most extreme elements of each of the national communities.

The Captive Nations Committee in Washington DC for instance was run by the person who headed the Ukrainian organization of nationalists, that was true in a number of places. In my hometown area near Detroit as well, they played a major role. In the early 50s, when they were resettled in the United States, there was at least 10,000 of them that were resettled, when you look at all the nationalities. They became politically active through the Republican national committee, because it was really the Eisenhower administration that made the policy decision in the early 1950s, and brought them in. They set up these campaign organizations, every four years they would mobilize for the Republican candidate, whoever it would be, and some of them like Richard Nixon, in 1960, actually had close direct ties to some of the leaders like the Romanian Iron Guard, and some of these other groups.

When Richard Nixon ran for president in 1968, he made a promise to these leaders that they would if he won the presidency he would make them the ethnic outreach arm of the Republican National Committee on a permanent basis, so they wouldn’t be a quadrennial presence, but a continuing presence in the Republican Party. And he made that promise through a guy named Laszlo Pasztor, who served five years in prison after World War II for crimes against humanity. He was prosecuted in 1946 by non-Communist government that actually had control of Hungary at the time. There was a period from ’45 to ’48 when the Hungarian Communist Party didn’t run Hungary. They were the ones who prosecuted him. He had served as a liaison between the Hungarian Nazi party and Berlin; he served in the Berlin embassy of the Hungarian Arrow Cross movement. This is the guy that got picked to organize all the ethnic groups, and the only people that got brought in were the Nazi collaborators.

They didn’t have a Russian affiliate because they hated all Russians of all political stripes. There were no African Americans or Jewish affiliates either. It was just composed of these elements, and for a while they had a German affiliate but some exposure of the Nazi character of the German affiliate caused it to be quietly removed, but other [Nazi] elements were retained.

Your book was researched and published in the 1980s. What was happening by that point in time, after these groups had been established for more than a decade?

I went to their meetings in the 1980s, and they put out material that really make clear who they were there 1984, one of their 1984 booklets praised the pro-Nazi Ustashi regime in Croatia, and these Ustashi killed an estimated 750,000 people and burned them alive in their own camp in Croatia. And here they are praising the founding of this regime, and acknowledging that it was associated with the Nazis, and it was signed by the chairman of the Republican National Committee. You couldn’t make this stuff up. It was just crazy.

I interviewed the Kossack guy, he showed me his pension from service in the SS in World War II, and how he was affiliated with free Nazi groups in the United States, and he was just very unrepentant. These are the umbrellas that were called ‘Captive Nations Committees’ by these people that Stetsko was over, and was part of, too. The Reagan White House brought him in, and promoted him as a major leader and did a big dinner—[UN Ambassador] Jeane Kirkpatrick was part of it, George Bush as Vice President, of course Reagan—and Stetsko was held up as a great leader., And proclamations were issued on his behalf.

When Bush was running for president in 1988, Bush Senior, he came to these basically one of the leading locations of the Ukrainian nationalists in North America, which is in just outside of Detroit, a suburb of Detroit to their cultural center, and one of their foremost leaders in the world is headquartered out of their, at the time, he got Bush to come there and they denounced the OSI and Bush just shook his head, he wouldn’t say anything about it.

The OSI was the Offices of Special Investigations, it was investigating the presence of Nazi war criminals in the United States, and deporting those that were found to have lied on their history when they applied to come into the United States after the war. They had deported a number of people from all over the United States. They had a lot of open investigations, and all these émigré Nazis were trying to bring all the political pressure they could to stop these investigations, including the Ukrainian nationalists ones.

So they denounced them, the OSI investigations, in front of Bush, Bush nodded his head, but he wouldn’t say anything because he didn’t want to sound like he was sympathetic to the Nazi war criminals, but at the same time he didn’t want to offend his hosts by disputing the issue with them. So, the issue of World War II was still being played out over four decades later, in the politics of the presidency, and unfortunately Bush and Reagan continued to be on the side that we tried to defeat in World War II.

What was the response when your book came out, with all this information? How was the information received, and what was the political reaction?

Prior to the book’s publication, Washington Jewish Week had done a story about some of the ethnic leaders of the Bush campaign and their history, like denying the Holocaust, or being involved with these émigré Nazi groups. They named a couple of them that weren’t part of the Heritage Groups Council, but they were part of the Bush campaign.

Then when I published the book, it brought out a lot more names, and the Philadelphia Inquirer and the Boston Globe did stories on them. It got to the point where when reporter from the Philadelphia Inquirer would call them about one of their ethnic leaders of the Bush campaign the standard response was he’s no longer part of the campaign, and they’d say that almost as soon as the name would get mentioned. So that they would call that person, and I’ll give the example of Florian Galdau, he was, he ran the Rumanian Iron Guard in New York City. He had wartime record. [Romanian Archbishop Valerian] Trifa himself was implicated in the mass killing of Jews in Bucharest in 1941, I believe. Galdau’s record is clear, because when Trifa was prosecuted he was one of the people targeted by the Office of Special Investigations, and he was forced into deportation in the 1980s, but in those records, they identify Florian Galdau is one of his operatives, so his history is known, except apparently to the Bush campaign.

So when he was identified by the Philadelphia Inquirer, they immediately said he wasn’t part of it, so the Philadelphia Inquirer called Florian Galdau, and he said, “No, I’m part of it. They never said anything to me. As far as I know I’m still part of the campaign.” And that was the pattern.

The Republican National Committee said after the election that they were going to put a blue ribbon committee together and do an investigation of the charges in my book. I was never contacted, nobody affiliated with the book project, the publisher wasn’t contacted none, none of the sources I worked with was contacted. And after about a year, with nobody raising any issues or questions about it they just folded it up and they said well we have not had the resources to investigate this matter.

I did publish an op-ed in the New York Times about two weeks after the election was over, and I think that was the last time anybody said anything publicly about it that got any kind of forum. I think they were allowed to just die and wither away, that is those leaders. The Republican idea was probably to bring in another generation of people who were born in the United States as these émigré’s died off, but they never did anything about this history that Richard Nixon had bequeathed them with. The Reagan White House had really made deep political commitments and alliances with them, they didn’t want to look like they turned their back on them; and Bush wanted them for his reelection campaign, so he wasn’t going to turn his back on them either.

If you want an anecdote, I know that 60 Minutes was working on a piece that Bradley’s team was working on, and Nancy Reagan herself called the executive producer and said that we would really like it if you would wouldn’t do this story, and they killed it. Because, basically, it’s not just about Nazis and the Republican national committee were Nazis in the White House, it inevitably raises the question of who are they how did they get here, who sponsored them and it goes back to the intelligence agencies at that point. And some people don’t like treading there, if it’s tied to an intelligence agency, they prefer to just stay away from the subject. So, some people at 60 Minutes were frustrated by it, but that’s what happened. I think that they were able to effectively kill the story when people tried to cover it. They were able to persuade news managers to not delve into it too much.

What’s happened since you wrote your book, and most of the World War II generation died off? What have the OUN and its allies been up to since then that we should be aware of?

Once the OUN got sponsored by the American security establishment intelligence agencies, they were embedded in a variety of ways in Europe as well, like Radio Free Europe which is headquartered in Munich. A lot of these groups, in the ABN were headquartered in Munich under the sponsorship of Radio Free Europe. From there they ran various kinds of operations where they were trying to do work inside the Warsaw Pact countries. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, a number of them moved back into the Ukraine as well as the other respective countries, and began setting up operations there, and organizing political parties. They reconstituted the veterans group of the Waffen SS, they held marches in the 1990s in the Ukraine, and organized political parties, in alliance with the United States, and became part of what was called the Orange Revolution in 2004, when they won the election there.

The prime minister was closely allied with them. They worked with the new government to get veterans benefits for the Ukrainian SS division veterans, and they started establishing the statues and memorials and museums for Stepan Bandera, who was the leader of the OUN, and who I should say was despised by other Ukrainian nationalists because of their methods, because they were extreme and violent toward other rival Ukrainian nationalist groups as well. So Bandera wasn’t a universal hero, but this group was so influential, in part because of its US connections, that if you go online and you Google ‘Lviv’ and the word ‘Bandera’ you’ll see monuments and statues and large posters and banners of Bandera’s likeness and large monuments permanent erected monuments on behalf of Bandera so they made this guy like he’s the George Washington of the Ukraine.

That government was in power until 2010, when there was another election, and a new regime was elected with a lot of support from the East. Ukrainian nationalist groupings around the Orange Revolution were sharply divided against each other, and there was rampant corruption, and people voted them out. The United States was very aggressive in trying to keep the nationalists in power, but they lost the election. The United States was spending money through the National Endowment for Democracy, which was pumping money into various Ukrainian organizations, and they were doing the same thing in Russia and many other countries around the world as well. We’re talking about many millions of dollars a year to affect the politics of these countries.

When the occupations came in Independence Square in Kiev late last year, you can see Svoboda’s supporters and you can hear their leaders in the parliament making blatant anti-semitic remarks. The leader of the Svoboda party went to Germany to protest the prosecution of John Demjanjuk, who was the Ukrainian who was settled in the United States, who was implicated as a concentration camp guard in the killing of innocent people. The German courts found him guilty and Svoboda leadership went to Germany to complain about convicting this guy. The reason they said they didn’t want any Ukrainian tainted with it because they live a lie that no Ukrainian had anything to do with the German Nazi regime, when history betrays them, and their own affiliations betray them. But they don’t like that being out there publicly, so they always protest their innocence of any Ukrainian being charged with anything, regardless of what the evidence is.

Your book was an important revelation but was not alone. Your book notes that Jack Anderson reported on the pro-Nazi backgrounds of some of the ethnic advisors as far back as 1971, yet when your report came out almost two decades later, everyone responded with shock, surprise, and even denial. What lessons should we draw from this history of buried history? And how should it influence our thinking about the unfolding crisis in the Ukraine?

I don’t believe it’s ever too late to become familiarized and educated about the history of this phenomenon both the wartime history and our postwar collaboration with these folks. There were a number of exposés written about the émigré Nazis. There was a 1979 book called Wanted and it did a number of case stories of these people being brought in to the United States, including the Trifa story. Christopher Simpson did a book called Blowback that discussed the policy decisions, it’s an incredible book. He’s a professor at American University and he did years of research through the Freedom of Information Act and archives, and got the policy documents under which the decisions were made to bring these folks together, and not just into the United States but to deploy them around the world.

Like my book, it didn’t get the attention it deserved. The New York Times book reviewer was negative toward the book. There are people that really don’t want to touch this stuff. There’s a lot of people who don’t want it touched. I think it’s really important for people who believe in openness and transparency and democratic values, who don’t want to see hate groups come back to power in other parts of the world to know what happened.

There’s not very many Americans that really even know that the Waffen SS was a multinational force. That’s been kind of kept out of the received history. Otherwise people would know that there were Ukrainian Nazis, Hungarian Nazis, Latvian Nazis, and they were all involved in the mass murder of their fellow citizens, if they were Jewish, or even if they were co-nationalists that were on the other side of the issue of the war. They were just mass murderers, across Eastern Europe. And that history, those facts aren’t even well-known. A lot of people didn’t even know this phenomenon even existed.

I think all Americans have a responsibility to know what their government is doing in the foreign policy in Europe as well as elsewhere around the world, as well as Latin America as well as Africa. Since our policy was to uphold apartheid in South Africa why weren’t Americans challenging that more? They began challenging that in the 80s, but the apartheid regime was run by the Nazi party. They were allied with Germany in World War II, they were the Nationalist party and they took power in 1948 and the United States backed that for decades. We backed the death squads in Latin America, even though they massacred tens of thousands of people – 30,000 people in Chile alone. Americans aren’t being attentive to what their government is doing abroad, even though it’s been doing done with their tax dollars and in their name, and I think we just have a general responsibility.

I went to these meetings, I went to these conferences, I went over a period of years. I met with them directly, most of the people I wrote about, I met with them personally or in group meetings. People can’t afford to do that on their own, timewise, but there’s enough literature out there they can read and pursue it, they will get enough enough of a handle to get what the real picture is, to demand change. I’m not totally partisan in this, but I think the Republican Party was extreme on this, but the Democrats folded and didn’t challenge this when they knew it was going on.

There is an old Roman poet that once said truth does not say one thing and wisdom another. I’m a believer in that. Tell the truth and wisdom will follow.

Paul H. Rosenberg is a columnist for Al Jazeera English and Senior Editor for Random Lengths News. 

# # #

Filed Under: Opinion Tagged With: George Bush, Nazis, Neocons, New World Order, OUN, Republican Party, Ronald Reagan, Russia, Ukraine, Ukrainian Nationalists, World War II

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • …
  • 76
  • Next Page »

Any publication posted at The T-Room and/or opinions expressed therein do not necessarily reflect the views of The T-Room. Such publications and all information within the publications (e.g. titles, dates, statistics, conclusions, sources, opinions, etc) are solely the responsibility of the author of the article, not The T-Room.

© 2013 Tansey & Associates, LLC | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Site Designed by Owen Design Company