Asked what he did during the French Revolution, Abbe Sieyes replied, ‘I survived.’ Donald Trump can make the same boast. No other political figure has so dominated our discourse. And none, not Joe McCarthy in his heyday in the early ’50s, nor Richard Nixon in Watergate, received such intensive and intemperate coverage and commentary as has our 45th president. Whatever one may think of Trump, he is a leader and a fighter, not a quitter. How many politicians could have sustained the beatings Trump has taken, and remained as cocky and confident? And looking back on what may fairly be called The Year of Trump, his achievements have surprised even some of his enemies. With the U. S. military given a freer hand by Trump, a U. S.-led coalition helped expel ISIS from its twin capitals of Raqqa in Syria and Mosul in Iraq, driving it back into a desert enclave on the Iraq-Syria border. The caliphate is dead, and the caliph nowhere to be found. The economy, with the boot of Barack Obama off its neck, has been growing at 3 percent. The stock market has soared to record highs. Unemployment is down to 4 percent. And Trump and Congress just passed the largest tax cut since Ronald Reagan. With deregulation, which conservative Republicans preached to deaf ears in the Bush I and Bush II eras, Trump and those he has put into positions of power have exceeded expectations. Pipelines Obama blocked have been approved. Alaska’s National Wildlife Refuge has been opened to exploratory drilling. We have exited a Paris climate accord that favored China over the U. S.
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Fri, 12/29/2017 –.
Daniel Ellsberg, the man who leaked the Pentagon papers which exposed the government’s lies during the Vietnam war is vocalizing a warning. He says the United States is really close to a nuclear Armageddon. Ellsberg, now 86-years-old, leaked the Pentagon papers back in 1969 and he’s now got a new book out which serves a warning to those who care to listen. According to the Daily Mail, Ellsberg’s 7,000-page report was the WikiLeaks disclosure of its time, a sensational breach of government confidentiality that shook Richard Nixon’s presidency and prompted a Supreme Court fight that was supposed to advance press freedom. In his new book, The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner, Ellsberg details how easy nuclear bombs can be triggered and shot off on a false alarm – and that the president isn’t the only who can launch the nukes, as we are often told. Low-level military commanders are capable of launching nuclear weapons too. ‘All out-nuclear war – an irreversible, unprecedented and almost unimaginable calamity for civilization and most life on earth – has been, like the disasters of Chernobyl, Katrina, the Gulf oil spill, Fukushima Daiichi, and before these, World War I, a catastrophe waiting to happen, on a scale infinitely greater than any of these,’ writes Ellsberg in his new book.
This post was published at shtfplan on December 19th, 2017.
Authored by Patrick Buchanan via Buchanan.org, On Aug. 9, 1974, Richard Nixon bowed to the inevitability of impeachment and conviction by a Democratic Senate and resigned. The prospect of such an end for Donald Trump has this city drooling. Yet, comparing Russiagate and Watergate, history is not likely to repeat itself. First, the underlying crime in Watergate, a break-in to wiretap offices of the DNC, had been traced, within 48 hours, to the Committee to Re-Elect the President. In Russiagate, the underlying crime – the ‘collusion’ of Trump’s campaign with the Kremlin to hack into the emails of the DNC – has, after 18 months of investigating, still not been established. Campaign manager Paul Manafort has been indicted, but for financial crimes committed long before he enlisted with Trump. Gen. Michael Flynn has pled guilty to lying about phone calls he made to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, but only after Trump had been elected and Flynn had been named national security adviser. Flynn asked Kislyak for help in blocking or postponing a Security Council resolution denouncing Israel, and to tell Vladimir Putin not to go ballistic over President Obama’s expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats.
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Dec 15, 2017.
It’s almost never a good idea for a political figure to invoke the name of Hitler. In fact, that very mistake undoubtedly contributed to premature demise of Sean Spicer earlier this year. Of course, the rules are slightly different for former President Obama as the media barely batted an eye when he compared the rise of Trump in the U. S. to that of Hitler in the 1930s and warned people to “pay attention…and vote” lest they want “sixty million people to die.” As Crain’s noted, Obama’s controversial comments came at a speech before the Economic Club of Chicago earlier this week: Still, the U. S. has survived tough times before and will again, he noted, particularly mentioning the days of communist fighter Joseph McCarthy and former President Richard Nixon. But one reason the country survived is because it had a free press to ask questions, Obama added. Though he has problems with the media just like Trump has had, “what I understood was the principle that the free press was vital.” READ MORE
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Dec 8, 2017.
[America’s War for the Greater Middle East by Andrew J. Bacevich (New York: Random House, 2016; 480 pages] America’s military involvement in the Middle East began in classic imperial fashion, according to military historian and retired Army colonel Andrew J. Bacevich. They had something we needed, and we made sure we had access to it. ‘Oil has always defined the raison d’tre of the War for the Greater Middle East,’ he writes in the first paragraph of his magisterial work, America’s War for the Greater Middle East. ‘Over time, other considerations intruded and complicated the war’s conduct, but oil as a prerequisite of freedom was from day one an abiding consideration.’ By 1969, oil imports already made up 20 percent of the daily oil consumption in the United States. Four years later, Arab oil exporters suspended oil shipments to the United States to punish America for supporting Israel in the October War. The American economy screeched to a halt, seemingly held hostage by foreigners – a big no-no for a country accustomed to getting what it wants. Predictably the U. S. response was regional domination to keep the oil flowing to America, especially to the Pentagon and its vast, permanent war machine. The Middle East was now a U. S. military priority, and the pursuit of direct American domination of the region came from none other than the supposed peacenik, Jimmy Carter. Before him, Richard Nixon was content to have the Middle East managed by proxies after the bloodletting America experienced in Vietnam. His arch-proxy was the despised shah of Iran, whom the United States had installed into power and then armed to the teeth. When his regime collapsed in 1979, felled by Islamic revolutionaries who would eventually capture the American embassy and initiate the Iranian hostage crisis, so too did the Nixon Doctrine. That same year, the Soviet Union rolled into Afghanistan. The world was a mess, and Carter was under extreme pressure to do something about it, lest he lose his bid for a second term. (He suffered a crushing defeat anyway.)
More Americans want to see U. S. President Donald Trump impeached than Richard Nixon amid the Watergate scandal, a new poll has revealed. According to Monmouth University, 24 percent of the U. S. public wanted Richard Nixon to leave the White House six months into his second term back in 1973. Currently, the appetite for removing Donald Trump is significantly higher with 41 percent of the U. S. public in favor of impeachment compared to 53 percent who are against it.
Tim Weiner, Pulitzer-prize winning author of ‘Legacy of Ashes’ and a longtime chronicler of US intelligence agencies, sat down for an interview with Bloomberg’s Tobin Harshaw to discuss how the FBI has handled previous investigations involving the White House. The feud between President Donald Trump and former FBI Director James Comey is hardly unprecedented in modern US history. As Weiner explains, there have been four instances during the past 45 years – excluding the present day – where the FBI has confronted a sitting president. And up until now, the bureau has prevailed every time. *** Here’s Weiner: ‘Five times in the last 45 years the bureau has gone up against the White House. With all due respect to Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, it was the FBI that brought down Richard Nixon. Twelve years later it was the FBI that served search warrants and subpoenas on members of Ronald Reagan’s National Security Council after the Iran-Contra imbroglio. Agents recovered 5,000 documents from their computers – a forensic feat unprecedented in technological virtuosity. That led to the indictments of a dozen of Reagan’s national security aids.
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Jun 11, 2017.
The military/security complex spent seven decades building its empire. The complex assassinated one American president (JFK) who threatened the empire and drove another (Richard Nixon) out of office. The complex does not tolerate the election of politicians in Europe who might not follow Washington’s line on foreign and economic policy. Suddenly, according to the Western and even Russian media, the complex is going to let one man, Trump, who does not rule America, and one woman, Merkel, who does not rule Germany, destroy its empire. According to the presstitutes, by pulling out of the Paris Accord (the global climate pact) and stating that NATO members should contribute more to the alliance’s budget for which the US taxpayer has an overweighted share, Trump has caused Merkel to conclude that Europe can no longer rely on Washington. The discord between Trump and Merkel and Washington’s resignation of its leadership position has destroyed the Western alliance and left the EU itself on the verge of being torn apart.
A power hungry president has kicked a power player out of office, and the mainstream media is having a field day. Headlines have obsessively focused on Trump’s termination of FBI Director James Comey and the implications that come with it, drawing comparisons to Richard Nixon’s Watergate scandal and questioning Trump’s decision to fire the man who was leading an investigation into the president’s own alleged misconduct. While the drama currently unfolding will certainly have profound implications for the present and future, the theatrics playing out on telescreens around the country are hardly representative of the bigger picture in the United States. As millions of Americans fix their eyes and minds on the ongoing developments, other stories are lurking behind the curtain – and reveal far more about the struggles we face. Though they have received some coverage from corporate and establishment outlets, these stories are being forced out of the conversation by round-the-clock coverage of political figureheads warring in Washington. Here are five to follow: 1. The Pentagon is seeking a troop increase in Afghanistan after 16 years of repeating that exact mistake – The last time Anti-Media put together a list of stories falling by the wayside amid a media feeding frenzy – that time, it was Trump’s decision to bomb Syria – an increase of troops in Afghanistan made the cut. Unfortunately, it’s a recurring development. As various mainstream outlets reported – with little traction – the Trump administration is considering sending as many as 5,000 more troops to Afghanistan. Though options are still being considered – and even Trump and the likes of Condoleezza Rice have pushed for a different strategy – the potential increase amounts to business as usual for an empire mired in endless war with a country still plagued by the very same terrorists the United States vowed to eradicate sixteen years ago when the invasion first commenced. There are currently over 8,000 troops in Afghanistan, making a spike of several thousand troops significant and a sign of the military-industrial establishment’s continued hold over American foreign policy.
Richard Nixon, in his effort to silence black people and antiwar activists, brought the War on Drugs into full force in 1973. He then signed Reorganization Plan No. 2, which established the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Over the course of five decades, this senseless war has waged on. At a cost of over $1 trillion – ruining and ending countless lives in the process – America’s drug war has created a drug problem that is worse now than ever before. This is no coincidence. For years, those of us who’ve been paying attention have seen who profits from this inhumane war – the police state and cartels. This horrendously corrupt and violent drug war has gotten so bad, that it is getting pushed into the mainstream. In an extremely rare move, A&E Networks, a subsidiary of ABC and the Walt Disney Company, will be addressing the government’s role in the drug war in a four-part documentary series on the History Channel, titled, ‘America’s War on Drugs.’ In this documentary, History channel promises to delve into items that, up until recently, were considered ‘conspiracy theory.’ CIA drug dealing is one of those such items. According to the description on A&E:
It was Tuesday, August 6, 1974. New evidence had surfaced showing that the President of the United States, Richard Nixon, had lied to the nation about his knowledge of the Watergate burglary and attempted coverup. Senator Barry Goldwater blurted out in frustration at a Republican luncheon: ‘There are only so many lies you can take, and now there has been one too many. Nixon should get his ass out of the White House – today!’ The next day, Goldwater led a delegation of Republican leaders to the White House. They told Nixon he had lost the confidence of his party; he did not have the votes in the House to ward off impeachment or the votes in the Senate to avoid conviction. The very next day, Thursday, August 8, 1974, Nixon addressed the nation and announced his resignation as President. One could see August 2017 playing out in a similar vein if Republicans in our current Congress do not quickly find the mettle to meet with President Trump and demand that he starts behaving in a manner befitting the Oval Office.
On January 2nd, the U. S. Republican Party’s Wall Street Journal headlined Tensions Within GOP Rise Over How to Handle Russia, and reported that the policy toward Russia by the incoming Republican President Donald Trump is being opposed not only by Democrats in the U. S. Congress, but also by some Republicans, and perhaps even by enough Republicans to jeopardize confirmation of his nominee for U. S. Secretary of State, as well as some nominees for other crucial diplomatic and military positions. A key insightful passage in that news-report was: ‘What you are seeing on Russia within the Republican Party is in some ways more a symptom of realignment across the board within American political parties,’ said Matthew Rojansky, director of the Washington-based Kennan Institute. ‘This speaks to something very critical that’s going on in our political system right now.’ Trump is being significantly opposed by both Parties regarding his foreign policies, even though his domestic policies are being opposed on a far more partisan basis, by Democrats, and have a higher chance of congressional passage than his international initiatives do, because of the almost-solid support for his domestic policies on the part of Republican members of Congress – and because Republicans control both the Senate and the House. The realignment across the board within American political parties is actually a realignment only in the field of foreign policy – not at all in domestic policy. What used to be Republican foreign policy ever since the time of Richard Nixon, has been called neoconservatism – referring to a hard line against communism and then against Russia and any country that’s friendly toward Russia – but the incoming Republican President Trump campaigned consistently against neoconservatism, and now Democrats are almost solidly neocons, while some Republicans are actually joining the Republican President in condemning neocons.
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Jan 8, 2017.
When Henry Kissinger and David Rockefeller met with Zhou Enlai in China in 1973 – just after President Richard Nixon had visited China establishing official relations – an understanding was reached whereby the U. S. would supply industrial capital and know-how to China. In return Kissinger-connected corporations would gain the monopolistic advantage of low-cost labor production which could outcompete all U. S. domestic industry. The comparative advantage gained was being able to hire Chinese laborers who were ready to work hard at exceedingly low cost – with no drugs, no alcohol, a strong work ethic, no unions, no paid benefits and weak environmental standards. And with such a large labor pool, burned out workers could simply be replaced. This gave the Rockefeller/Kissinger corporations a major edge over their domestic U. S. competitors who had to pay relatively high wages, high regulation costs, deal with union strikes and collective bargaining etc. Of course, the American consumer did not see greatly lowered prices commensurate with such greatly lowered labor costs. The $19.99 plastic action-figure toy marketed with a Hollywood movie still cost $19.99 even though it cost $12 to $15 to produce in the U. S. but less than $2.00 per copy to produce in China and transport to America’s West Coast container ports for distribution throughout America.
As I keep emphasizing, Trump achieved two great things in his campaign for the presidency: he stopped Hillary Clinton from occupying the Oval Office, and he ran against big media, helping to further destroy its reputation. From here on, we shall see. How many compromises will the new president permit? How many will he seek? To put it another way, how many covert victories will arch-Globalist David Rockefeller and his associates pile up? They are, of course, aware that Trump has promised to kick the can of Globalism down the road, stop the excesses of ‘free trade,’ and bring stolen jobs back to America. What actions will they take against Trump? Here’s a lesson from the past, about a president who put a brief dent in David Rockefeller’s master-plan. Let’s look at Richard Nixon and a different version of Watergate, the scandal that toppled him. On the mega-corporate front, the plan for world control remains the Rockefeller template. ‘Free trade.’ This plan was advanced, ceaselessly, for 40 years until, on January 1, 1995, the World Trade Organization was fully formed and took charge of criminal rules of global commerce: the crowning moment for global corporate predators. No more tariffs.
There is another side to the JFK assassination that does not actually negate some of the conspiracies that surround CIA or military involvement. It may actually expose that Oswald was the patsy who was out to kill John Connally, not JFK. Nevertheless, the events are still clouded by bureaucrats. After Lee Harvey Oswald delivered those fatal shots in Dallas, a Secret Service officer named Mike Howard was dispatched to Oswald’s apartment. Agent Howard found a little green address book. In this book on page 17, under the heading, ‘I WILL KILL,’ Oswald listed four men: James Hosty, an FBI agent; Edwin Walker, a right-wing general; and Vice President Richard Nixon. However, at the very top of that list was the governor of Texas, John Connally, where Oswald drew a dagger with blood drops dripping downward. Oswald motive was that he had written to Connally asking for help and got the typical bureaucratic reply letter.
Senator Joe McCarthy perfected the technique in the United States: whenever you disagree with anybody, don’t debate ideas, go right into name calling. In McCarthy’s day, the epithet of choice was ‘Communist.’ In recent years, it has morphed into ‘racist, sexist, homophobe, latinophobe, Islamophobe, xenophobe etc., etc.” There were Communists in McCarthy’s day, which made his technique seem to work for a while. Richard Nixon was accused of being a McCarthyite because he thought State Department employee and Georgetown upper crust favorite Alger Hiss was a Stalinist agent, but eventually Soviet records confirmed that Hiss was indeed a Stalinist agent. Because there are racists and sexists in our society, it makes it easier to try to destroy people with these epithets whether they fit or not. Hillary Clinton called this ‘the politics of personal destruction.’ She complained that it was being leveled at her, but she gave at least as much as she got. The whole recent campaign was consumed by it, and one had reason to hope that the end of the campaign would provide some relief. But apparently this is not to be. The mainstream media won’t let it go.
Shortly after a haggard-looking Hillary Clinton made her first public appearance since the election, Jesse Jackson called for President Obama to issue a blanket pardon to Hillary Clinton before he leaves office, just like Ford did for Richard Nixon. Speaking at President Gerald Ford’s alma mater, while stopping short of saying Clinton did anything wrong, Jackson told a large crowd of University of Michigan students, faculty and administrators gathered at daylong celebration of his career that Obama should short-circuit President-elect Donald Trump’s promised attempt to prosecute Hillary Clinton for use of a private e-mail server. “It would be a monumental moral mistake to pursue the indictment of Hillary Clinton,” Jackson said and added that issuing the pardon could help heal the nation. In 1974, Ford, a University of Michigan alumnus, issued a full and complete pardon of Nixon for any crimes he may have committed. He said the pardon was in the best interests of the nation. “President Ford said we don’t need him for trophy. We need to move on. President Nixon wasn’t convicted of a crime. He didn’t apply for a pardon. (Ford) did it because he thought it would be best for the country.
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Nov 17, 2016.
If there is any lesson to be learned from the ghosts of Watergate, it is that the big-money support of a leader who has lost the ability to deliver the goods crumbles very quickly as the endgame unfolds. The parallels between Hillary Clinton and Richard Nixon are not legal–they are political: specifically, how can a leader crippled by scandal and cover-ups govern? In even blunter terms: how can a crippled politico deliver the goods to the special interests who bet their cash and political capital on the politico’s ability to deliver favors? Among the many ghosts of Watergate, one specter especially haunts Hillary:once the special interests and party stalwarts who defended you through every scandal and every cover-up–month after month and year after year, on the promise that you would deliver the goods upon ascending to the presidency–realize you are too damaged to deliver anything of value to anyone, why would they continue supporting you? Once a politico has to declare “I am not a crook” based on legalese rather than a moral foundation, that politico’s ability to lead has vanished. Hillary and her supporters rely entirely on legalese parsing of wrong-doing rather than on a self-explanatory, basic moral foundation of right and wrong.
In the world of politics, the cover-up is often worse than the original crime. It was his role in the Watergate cover-up that took down Richard Nixon, and now Hillary Clinton’s cover-up of her email scandal could send her to prison for a very, very long time. When news broke that the FBI has renewed its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails, it sent shockwaves throughout the political world. But this time around, we aren’t just talking about an investigation into the mishandling of classified documents. I haven’t heard anyone talking about this, but if the FBI discovers that Hillary Clinton altered, destroyed or concealed any emails that should have been turned over to the FBI during the original investigation, she could be charged with obstruction of justice. That would immediately end her political career, and if she was found guilty it could send her to prison for the rest of her life. I have not seen a single news report mention the phrase ‘obstruction of justice’ yet, but I am convinced that there is a very good chance that this is where this scandal is heading. The following is the relevant part of the federal statute that deals with obstruction of justice… Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsified, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under Title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If Hillary Clinton is sent to prison for 20 years, that would essentially be for the rest of her life. I have a feeling that the FBI is going to find a great deal of evidence of obstruction of justice in Huma Abedin’s emails. But unfortunately there is not likely to be a resolution to this matter before November 8th, because according to the Wall Street Journal there are approximately 650,000 emails to search through…