from Stefan Molyneux:
by Ricky Twisdale, The Duran:
As the unremitting assault on Donald Trump’s presidency by the deep state continues, the president openly mocked the Russia hysteria
Donald Trump spoke to a packed crowd in Huntington, West Virginia on Thursday, delivering one of his most fiery speeches since his campaign days.
It continued Trump’s strategy of taking his message directly to the people, bypassing the traditional mass media, which is overwhelmingly hostile.
The U.S. President openly mocked the ongoing “Russiagate” obsession of the mainstream media and his opponents in the deep state apparatus, to the delight of the audience:
The Russia story is a total fabrication. It’s just an excuse for the greatest loss in the history of American politics…
What the prosecutors should be looking at, are Hillary Clinton’s 33,000 deleted emails, and they should be looking at the paid Russian speeches, and the owned Russian companies – or let them look at the uranium she sold that is now in the hands of very angry Russians.
Most people know there were no Russians in our campaign – there never were. We didn’t win because of Russia, we won because of you…
Have you seen any Russians in West Virginia…? Are there any Russians here tonight?
The speech comes right on the heels of Trump’s signing into law a bill forced on him by congress, which restricts the president’s ability to lift sanctions on Russia without approval from the legislature. Trump slammed the bill as “clearly unconstitutional.”
Read More @ TheDuran.com
by Elizabeth Vos, Disobedient Media:
Cassandra Fairbanks of Big League Politics released audio today revealing journalist Seymour Hersh had stated that Seth Rich provided the DNC emails to Wikileaks. The stunning audio files also appear to contradict claims made by private investigator Rod Wheeler in a defamation suit filed today against Fox News stemming from allegedly false quotation in their report on the investigation of Rich’s death. Media furor surrounding this case has centered on both the dismissal of Rich as a source for Wikileaks, and allegations that the Trump White House had “concocted” the story with Fox News. However, statements made by Wheeler and Hersh in a second audio file appear to undermine claims made in Wheeler’s suit, with Hersh’s statement going even further by directly stating that Seth Rich had been the source of Wikileaks DNC emails.
The first audio clip published by Fairbanks earlier today revealed Rod Wheeler discussing his investigation into Rich’s death. The conversation includes allusions to Rich’s brother, stating that Aaron Rich stalled the investigation into Seth’s potential connection to Wikileaks. The audio released by Big League Politics is particularly relevant to the statements Wheeler made to Fox News which were quoted in their controversial article published in May. Dispute over this citation serves as the basis for a defamation suit Wheeler initiated against Fox today.
Wheeler had been employed by Seth Rich’s family as a private investigator in order to investigate Rich’s unsolved murder. Wheeler’s suit claims that the Trump administration coordinated with Fox, and that the company had ‘invented’ quotes from him. The explosive allegations made by Wheeler caused a firestorm in the mainstream media.
The second audio clip appears especially significant as it depicts Seymour Hersh alleging that Seth Rich had kept DNC emails in a protected drop box, which was eventually accessed by Wikileaks. He can also be heard calling former CIA Director John Brennan an “a**hole.” Big League Politics also noted that Hersh cited an FBI document and an NSA report in alleging these details.
Disobedient Media spoke with Charles Grapski, a legal and political theorist who serves as Director of the Open Records Project and the Director of the Fair Elections Initiative. He told us that he believed Wheeler’s defamation claims were weak, with misquotation being an unstable basis to prove defamation of character had occurred.
No false statement was actively made about Wheeler in the original Fox story, but instead refers to incorrect attribution made in Wheeler’s suit. It also appears that many statements in the complaint could be based on hearsay. The civil rights claim added to allegations of defamation are especially bizarre considering that it indicates Fox News should have hired Wheeler as an employee; while simultaneously claiming Fox had defamed him. Grapski stated via Twitter that the newly published audio had undermined Wheeler’s defamation claim. A Federal civil rights claim would also allow Wheeler to collect his attorney’s fees from the defendants.
Escalating media furor in the wake of Wheeler’s suit has labelled Seth Rich’s possible association with Wikileaks to be “baseless.” These conclusions were to some extent counteracted by the audio published by Fairbanks which appears to contradict his claims against Fox to some extent. If the audio clips had not been released, the media firestorm regarding Wheeler’s suit may have effectively replaced the discredited Russian hacking narrative as a focus of legacy media deflection from allegations of severe corruption within the Democratic party.
Read More @ DisobedientMedia.com
by Joshua Caplan, The Gateway Pundit:
Sara Carter of Circa News reported National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster granted top Obama official Susan Rice top-secret security clearance. The letter, in which McMaster notified Rice that such powers were granted to her, can be seen below.
Circa News reports:
Almost one month after it was disclosed that former President Obama’s National Security Adviser Susan Rice was unmasking members of President Trump’s team and other Americans, Trump’s own national security adviser, H.R. McMaster, sent an official letter giving her unfettered and continuing access to classified information and waiving her “need-to-know” requirement on anything she viewed or received during her tenure, Circa has confirmed.
The undated and unclassified letter from McMaster was sent in the mail to Rice’s home during the last week of April. Trump was not aware of the letter or McMaster’s decision, according to two Senior West Wing officials and an intelligence official, who spoke to Circa on condition that they not be named.
This is the letter from McMaster to Rice. Names, phone numbers and personal addresses have been blurred.
“I hereby waive the requirement that you must have a ‘need-to-know’ to access any classified information contained in items you ‘originated, reviewed, signed or received while serving,’ as National Security Adviser,” the letter said. The letter also states that the “NSC will continue to work with you to ensure the appropriate security clearance documentation remains on file to allow you access to classified information.”
Circa revealed in March that during President Obama’s tenure, top aides — including Rice, former CIA Director John Brennan and former Attorney General Loretta Lynch — routinely reviewed intelligence reports received from the National Security Agency’s incidental intercepts of Americans abroad. They were doing so by taking advantage of rules Obama relaxedstarting in 2011 to help the government better fight terrorism, espionage by foreign enemies and hacking threats, according to documents obtained by Circa.
The Gateway Pundit previously reported National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster has concluded key Obama official Susan Rice did nothing wrong in making numerous ‘unmasking’ requests.
Read More @ TheGatewayPundit.com
by Neil Munro, Breitbart:
The data comes from 10 polls in 10 swing states conducted by NumbersUSA, a pro-reform group which is trying to pressure Senators in those states to either support or be neutral in the populist versus elite fight over immigration and the nation’s cheap-labor economic strategy.
In Michigan, for example, where Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow is up for election, the poll shows that 61 percent of people “strongly” support “setting up rules to ensure that businesses give first preference for jobs to American workers and legal immigrants already in this country before businesses can ask for new immigrant workers.” Only 10 percent “somewhat” or “strongly” oppose that rule.
The Michigan poll also showed that 74 percent of people say “business should be required to try harder to recruit and train from groups with the highest unemployment,” while only 11 percent said, “government should continue to bring in new immigrants to compete for jobs.”
The group released polling data from Florida, Michigan, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Wisconsin. Those states were won by Donald Trump in 2016 and will get to vote for or against incumbent Democratic Senators next November.
For the next 17 months, those Democratic Senators will likely try to avoid picking sides in the immigration debate. If the GOP leadership schedules a vote on Trump’s reform, their Democrat leaders will try to defeat it — while also trying to let several of the 10 Democratic cast voter-friendly and ineffectual votes in support of the bill.
For the next 17 months, those Democratic Senators will likely try to avoid picking sides in the immigration debate. If the GOP leadership schedules a vote on Trump’s reform, their Democrat leaders will try to defeat it — while also trying to let several of the 10 Democratic cast voter-friendly and ineffectual votes in support of the bill.
On the GOP side, legislators will try to mollify their business donors by staying quiet on the proposed reforms. But GOP candidates who want to win in 2018 can use the polling data to carefully undermine incumbent Democrats, several of whom already voted for the cheap-labor, wage-cutting ‘Comprehensive Immigration Reform” bill in 2013.
The NumbersUSA polls echo prior economy-focused polls which show that Americans strongly favor rules which help the pocketbooks of other Americans, regardless of color.
The NumbersUSA data is likely to be challenged by business and progressive groups. Their polls will push respondents to declare support for the hopes of migrants or to back the country’s supposed tradition of favoring migrants.
When executed skillfully, those “nation of immigrants” polls can show up to 80 percent support for an amnesty. That manipulation is easy to do because Americans do like immigrants, want to be seen liking immigrants, and fear being stigmatized by progressives and the media.
Those fears are muffled or overcome in the polls by NumbersUSA, which ask people to focus on economics — not on sympathetic migrants — and also ask people to choose whether they support fellow nationals or unknown foreigners.
Some pollsters go to great efforts to find out what people want, rather than what they say. For example, a pair of academic polls from 2005 and 2010 showed that more than half of white Americans prefer all immigration be stopped.
That understated American-first view is spotlighted by the NumbersUSA polls, which show that Americans strongly favor the reduction of annual immigration numbers. When asked this balanced question:
Current federal policy automatically adds about one million new legal immigrants each year giving all of them lifetime work visas. Which is closest to the number of lifetime immigrant work visas the government should be adding each year — none, 250,000, half a million, one million, one and a half million, two million, or more than two million?
Two third of Michigan voters urged an annual immigration rate of 500,000 or roughly half the current level of 1 million. Only 22 percent said the annual inflow of should level or greater than the current level of 1 million.
The 2016 election showed that many voters do sympathize with migrants, but also will use their secret vote to back the candidate who helps them pay their bills and help their boyfriend or kids get decent jobs. In the voting booth, voters can safely ignore the candidate who scolds them for ignoring unskilled Central American migrants or Muslims who can’t speak English.
Read More @ Breitbart.com
by Michael Krieger, Liberty Blitzkrieg:
Increasingly, a number of influential people in Silicon Valley seem to think that Mark Zuckerberg will likely run for president of the United States one day. And some people, including myself, believe that he could indeed win. “He wants to be emperor” is a phrase that has become common among people who have known him over the years.
From January’s Post: “He Wants to be Emperor” – How Mark Zuckerberg is Scheming to Become President
Mark Zuckerberg wants to be President. That much is obvious, and it’s been obvious for quite some time. I’ve written a couple of articles about it, as have countless others. Then yesterday, there was a lot of chatter about the Facebook CEO hiring Joel Benenson to advise him and his wife on their charitable giving. Most of these articles focused on the superficial “does this really mean he’s running?” angle. In contrast, I want to dig into why his recent hires tell you all you need to know about who Zuckerberg is, and why his worldview is nothing more than technocratic neoliberalism.
Let’s start off by examining a few excerpts from yesterday’s article from Politico about the hiring of Joel Benenson:
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan, have hired Democratic pollster Joel Benenson, a former top adviser to President Barack Obama and the chief strategist for Hillary Clinton’s failed 2016 presidential campaign, as a consultant, according to a person familiar with the hire.
Benenson’s company, Benenson Strategy Group, will be conducting research for the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, the couple’s philanthropy. The organization — whose mission statement, according to its website, is “advancing human potential and promoting equality” — is endowed with the couple’s Facebook fortune.
In January, the couple hired David Plouffe, campaign manager for Obama’s 2008 presidential run, as president of policy and advocacy. Plouffe had previously worked at Uber. Ken Mehlman, who ran President George W. Bush’s 2004 reelection campaign, also sits on the board.
And earlier this year, the couple also brought on Amy Dudley, a former communications adviser to Virginia Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine.
Benenson’s involvement in the group gives them access to someone who was one of the top lieutenants of Clinton’s doomed campaign and Obama’s longtime pollster, just as speculation about Zuckerberg’s political ambitions is mounting.
Even before his is-he-or-isn’t-he road trip, Zuckerberg had shown an interest in politics and social issues. In 2010, he announced during an appearance on “Oprah” that he was donating $100 million to help fix the Newark City public school system in New Jersey. The influx of Facebook cash, however, didn’t generate the desired results, and the gift became a nationally recognized failure of good intentions.
The above is a great indicator of what a Zuckerberg presidency would look like.
But the hiring of Benenson is sure to fuel speculation that Zuckerberg is getting more serious about how he plays in the political and policy worlds.
Let’s start the analysis with Joel Benenson, since he was the topic of the above post. His made quite a name for himself during the Democratic primary by blasting Bernie Sanders and defending the bailed out, welfare queen TBTF Wall Street mega-banks. As reported by David Sirota in the International Business Times:
Hillary Clinton’s campaign held a conference call Thursday with reporters to deride Bernie Sanders for airing an ad that criticized Wall Street firms and the politicians who accept their donations. Though the ad did not mention Clinton by name, the conference call featured her top strategist Joel Benenson portraying the spot as an inappropriate attack on Clinton, whose 2016 campaign has accepted$5.7 million from executives in the financial industry.
On the call, Benenson accused Sanders of going negative, assertingthe U.S. senator from Vermont had “decided to do something that he had said so proudly he would never do.” What the Clinton campaign did not say when announcing the call is that Benenson’s firm not only consults for Clinton — it also lists as clients the kind of Wall Street banks that Sanders’ ad assails, as the Intercept’s Lee Fang pointed out.
According to its website, the Benenson Strategy Group lists Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase among its clients. In a 2012 press release, Benenson listed JPMorgan Chase — whose executives are collectively among Clinton’s top 2016 donors — as an example of how the firm “has guided many Fortune 500 companies and leading advocacy groups through critical strategic and communication challenges.” The section of Benenson’s website listing the banks as clients says the firm is focused on “delivering strategies corporations need to stay ahead of the curve.” Other clients listed include McDonald’s, Pfizer and Walmart — the last of which once had Hillary Clinton on its board of directors when she was first lady of Arkansas.
Read More @ LibertyBlitzkrieg.com
by Dawn Luger, Intellihub:
Facebook CEO and founder Mark Zuckerberg has publicly claimed many times that he is not preparing to run for president. But then why on earth would he hire Hillary Clinton’s former chief strategist?
Remeber, Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump in November of 2016. Hiring her chief campaign strategist may not be the best “strategy.” Politico reported that Zuckerberg has secured the services of Democratic pollster Joel Benenson, one of Barack Obama’s chief advisers and chief strategist to presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s disastrously failed 2016 campaign. But Zuckerberg probably just wants to compile in-depth statistics on the party affiliations and political views of people across the nation for completely normal, regular person reasons.
Zuckerberg has hired other people for average and regular dude purposes too. They include former Virginia Governor Tim Kaine’s communications adviser Amy Dudley and 2008 Obama campaign manager David Plouffe. It’s becoming clear that Zuckerberg thinks the best people to examine whatever it is he hired them for, are closely affiliated with the elitist Democratic political establishment that was ruinously discredited last year and in desperate need of better ideas.
Benenson’s company, Benenson Strategy Group, will be conducting research for the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, the couple’s philanthropy. Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan have vowed to give away 99 percent of their Facebook shares, worth an estimated $45 billion, to charity. The organization (whose mission statement, according to its website, is “advancing human potential and promoting equality”) is endowed with the couple’s Facebook fortune. But the timing of this hire is leading to speculations that the Facebook czar will be running for president in 2020 and this has little to do with philanthropy and more to do with a political future.
Bringing on Benenson is the latest sign that Chan and Zuckerberg are pushing their philanthropic work more heavily into the political and policy world. Oh goody, just what we all need. More policy and laws and regulations from rich elitist leftists.
Read More @ Intellihub.com
by Michael Snyder, EndOfTheAmericanDream.com:
Are you ready for the second coming of Speaker Pelosi? As a result of the recent Obamacare debacle, the American people are deeply frustrated with the Republicans in Congress. And having nowhere else to go, many voters are considering turning to the Democrats for answers. As you will see below, one recent survey found that only 37 percent of voters nationally say that they plan to support Republican candidates for Congress in 2018. If the 2018 mid-term elections were held at this moment, the Republicans would be in big trouble and it would be quite likely that the Democrats would take back control of the U.S. House of Representatives.
And I am not the only one that is warning of political doom on the horizon. Earlier today, an editorial by Newt Gingrich and Brad Anderson also warned of what could happen if the Republicans don’t get their act together…
Following Republicans’ failure to fix the country’s health care system, polls show Americans are increasingly flirting with Democratic governance in Congress next year. This means Republicans must change their game plan. The next six months must not be the same as the last six months.
To regain their legislative momentum and keep their majority, Republicans must clearly demonstrate they are fighting for the country’s hardworking taxpayers. This means passing a major tax cut by Thanksgiving — and making it retroactive to the start of this year.
I am not particularly optimistic that we will see major tax cuts by the end of this year, but hopefully I will be proven wrong.
If the Republicans in Congress continue to fumble the ball, we could see a historic wipeout in 2018. As I mentioned above, the polling numbers don’t look good for congressional Republicans at this point…
Democrats stand to win big in the 2018 midterm elections, according to a new poll – perhaps flipping enough seats to take over the House of Representatives.
Forty-four percent of registered voters say they would vote for a Democrat in their district if an election were held today. Just 37 percent said they would back a Republican.
And even in the best of times, this upcoming election would provide quite a challenge for the Republican Party. Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia recently explained why…
Midterm elections for first-term presidents are historically ruinous for the party that controls the White House.
By Sabato’s analysis, the president’s party has shed House seats in 36 of 39 midterms stretching back more than 150 years, with an average loss of 33 seats — well above the 24 pickups the Democrats need to take the chamber next year.
If something happens 36 out of 39 times, there is a very good chance that it will happen the next time too.
So even if President Trump was exceedingly popular right now the Republican Party would have an uphill climb in 2018. But the fact that his approval ratings have fallen so precipitously definitely spells trouble…
President Donald Trump has watched his ratings decline for months, but on Wednesday two respected polls showed that only a third of American voters view him favorably — a new low less than 200 days into his presidency
A new Quinnipiac University Poll has the president’s approval rating falling to 33 percent, while Gallup shows it at 36 percent. Quinnipiac’s measurement is the lowest in the poll’s tracking of the Trump administration thus far, and Gallup’s is the lowest three-day average it has registered.
I fully support President Trump, but I have to admit that those are horrible numbers. Of course the mainstream media is treating him exceedingly unfairly, and that takes a toll. But hopefully he can eventually overcome the constant media onslaught and regain the level of popularity that he enjoyed back during the campaign.
If you dig even deeper into the Quinnipiac poll, you find some numbers about Trump that are deeply, deeply alarming…
President Trump cannot fight this battle alone. So many conservatives out there decided that their job was done once Trump won the election, but the truth is that the battle is just getting started.
Right now, Democrats are raising millions upon millions of dollars for the mid-term elections and the liberal base is extremely energized.
If we do not match their enthusiasm and energy we are going to be facing a historic defeat.
And if the Democrats are able to take control of both the Senate and the House in 2018, it will just be a matter of time before Trump is impeached.
We desperately need to get Trump more friends in Congress, and so I am hoping that you all will stand with me and other pro-Trump candidates that are running for federal offices in 2018. In my new book entitled “Living A Life That Really Matters”, I explain what I hope to do once I am elected, and one of the things I hope to do is to put an end to the ridiculous investigations that are keeping Trump from being an effective president.
Read More @ EndOfTheAmericanDream.com
by Caleb Maupin, New Eastern Outlook:
The ban on travel to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is primarily an attack on the people in the northern part of the Korean Peninsula. It is a move to further isolate the DPRK, and prevent tourist dollars from flowing in, while also preventing fraternization between Americans and citizens of the country. However, the State Department’s decision also has another target in the crosshairs, one much closer to Washington DC.
According to reports in the press, roughly 5,000 US citizens visit the DPRK each year. Most are tourist youth attracted to the mystique and adventure of traveling to a country so widely demonized in the US media. Communist organizations send political delegations and Christian sects such as the Mennonites often send missionaries and aid workers. However, one can be sure that among the 5,000 people who visit the country each year is more than a few American spies, posing as tourists.
When one looks over the recent history of Americans being arrested in North Korea prior to the tragic death of Otto Warmbier, the reasons for the arrest almost always indicate activities that could be described as espionage. Merrill Newman, for example, was a former member of the US military’s “White Tigers” division during the Korean War. The 85 year old man was arrested in the DPRK as he wore a ring with the insignia of this anti-DPRK fighting and intelligence unit. After being arrested he confessed to participating in some of the war crimes against the Korean people during the 1950-1953 war. Newman stated “I did not realize North Korea was still at war” after his eventual release.
The State Department ban on travel to the DPRK is far more extreme than the widely challenged ban on travel to Cuba, enacted as part of the blockade. Officials say that any American who visits DPRK will automatically have their passport invalidated. The constitutionality of such an extreme ban is likely to be challenged.
In the meantime, however, any efforts by the CIA to gather information inside North Korea, or to manipulate or maneuver within its internal affairs, are greatly limited.
Two divisions of the US Federal Government that have long been at odds in issues of foreign policy have been the military and the Central Intelligence Agency. The nature of the two entity’s work lays the basis for their constant disagreement and conflict. The new State Department policy has essentially declared that the DPRK will be handled with military operations, not with “color revolutions,” plots of a coup, manipulation of the youth, or the other shenanigans carried out by the intelligence agencies.
A Longstanding Fight – CIA vs. Pentagon
The US military brass is trained at West Point, and though a great deal of history and background is provided, the focus of their training is military science and the “art of war.” Meanwhile, the Central Intelligence Agency’s administrators come from Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, and are trained in the subtle art of expanding US influence and quietly neutralizing those who challenge it.
The favorite word of those who extoll the military and disfavor the CIA is “strength.” The strategies favored by the Pentagon involve demoralizing opponents of US power with “shock and awe” style crushing of enemies. The mass bombing campaigns in Vietnam and Korea did not win credibility and respect for the US internationally, and this was not their intention. The same can be said for Bush’s unilateral invasion of Iraq. The Pentagon does not concern itself with winning friends and influencing people, but with blowing things up, and its favored foreign policy reflects this.
The CIA, on the other hand, tends to favor soft power, negotiations, and internal subversion of global rivals, all done covertly, with the USA looking like a benevolent “Mr. Nice Guy” on the surface. The CIA favors arming and training third party proxies to fight their enemies, while waging a fierce battle in the field of public relations and propaganda.
The clash between the military and the intelligence agencies has played out dramatically in recent US history. It is widely understood that John F. Kennedy began enacting policies that overwhelmingly favored the CIA prior to his death. Kennedy resisted the efforts to escalate military involvement in Vietnam, while funding and emphasizing CIA-linked operations like the Peace Corps. Kennedy’s often quoted the phrase “those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable” stated the CIA’s exact strategy for fighting Communism during the Cold War. The CIA favored “reforms” in US aligned third world regimes that made Marxist-Leninist revolution less appealing, while also presenting the US as a benevolent, charitable country that did not seek to intervene in other countries domestic affairs. The CIA worked to make sure that the hands of the USA during the rise of military dictatorships and the toppling of pro-Soviet world leaders were well hidden.
Prior to Kennedy’s assassination, a hard, right-wing mass movement against him, involving the John Birch Society and many Pentagon linked political figures, called the “Camelot” President a traitor and Soviet agent. Many sections of the military thought Kennedy’s “soft power” strategy for confronting Communism, and his ultimate refusal to invade Cuba with US troops after the CIA’s failed “Bay of Pigs” operation, showed weakness. Films like “Dr. Strangelove” widely mocked the well-known fanaticism of the military brass, which distrusted the intelligence agencies and the ability of politicians to make military decisions. Kennedy’s subtle alliance with the Civil Rights Movement, though inconsistent and widely criticized by activists, also threatened a military brass packed with the sons of wealthy southern families.
After the death of Kennedy, the US military seemed to be on top in the power struggle. Richard Nixon’s electoral victory in 1968, and his “secret plan” to win the Vietnam War with massive bombing, showed the military and its allies as the dominant force in setting policy.
But the demoralizing and unpopular war in Vietnam reversed this by the mid-1970s. Nixon found himself listening and depending more on the advice of Henry Kissinger, opening relations with the People’s Republic of China, and eventually being driven from office. Jimmy Carter took office in 1976 calling himself a “student” of CIA strategist Zbiegniew Brzezinski. Under Reagan, the CIA got stronger, with CIA chief George H.W. Bush rising to be Vice President and eventually Reagan’s successor as commander-in-chief.
The often repeated narrative that the US military’s escalation of the arms race was the key factor in defeating the USSR is said with absolute defensiveness by the Pentagon’s right-wing allies. Though the “strong man Reagan” explanation is more widely understood among the US public, within the circles of power in the USA, the CIA takes more credit.
Under the direction of Brzezinski, who boasted that he “gave the USSR a Vietnam” by funneling money and weapons to insurgents in what he called the “Afghan trap,” the CIA manipulated political situations in Eastern Europe causing unrest and a crisis that eventually toppled the USSR. The CIA widely credits itself for terminating the Soviet Union by manipulating internal problems and applying less blatant forms of external pressure.
The CIA is not a “Conservative” Organization
Many leftists and anti-war activists assume that the CIA is staffed with jingoistic conservatives due to the nature of the job. While the rank-and-file of “the company” may attract a more rightist crowd of Mormons and military types, the leaders of the CIA are not conservative in any sense of the word.
John Brennan, the director of the CIA under Barack Obama admits that he voted for Communist Party Presidential Candidate Gus Hall in the 1976 Presidential election. Brennan was stationed in Riyahl for many years, and at the time of his appointment, many voices came forward to allege that he had actually converted to the Wahabbi brand of Islam. The allegations remain unproven.
The CIA strategist who was most influential between the 1960s and the 1990s was Zbiegnew Brzezinski. To call Brzezinski conservative would be deeply mistaken. Zbeignew’s daughter, Mika Brzezinski is a host on liberal leaning MSNBC’s TV program “Morning Joe.”
Brzezinski developed the art of propaganda, presenting the USA to the world as the homeland of Beatles Music, the paintings of Jackson Pollack, and sexual hedonism. In Eastern Europe, Brzezinski’s policies convinced millions of alienated young people that overthrowing the Marxist-Leninist governments would transform their countries into Disneyland playgrounds packed with consumer goods and never ending rock and roll concerts.
In Afghanistan, Brzezinski worked with a young Saudi billionaire named Osama Bin Laden to fight against the People’s Democratic Party. With US made weapons and funding, complimented by heroin revenue, the insurgents poured acid on women’s faces and hanged literacy campaign volunteers. Brzezinski’s slick propaganda work convinced the world that these Wahabbi extremists were actually Che Guevara-esqu freedom fighters, battling the “Soviet Empire” for freedom. CBS news was even caught airing staged, fake battle footage.
The figure known as George Soros has become a favored talking point of right-wing activists in the USA. They present him as the sinister bank-roller of leftist activism. Long before Soros was promoting Democrats and Liberals in the USA, he was bank-rolling CIA supported anti-Communist “color revolutions.” Soros is known to have funded anti-communist, pro-capitalist and pro-western protest movements in the USSR, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and elsewhere.
During the Cold War, the CIA launched a program called the “Congress for Cultural Freedom.” The program funded the art of Jackson Pollack, as well as the Trotskyist magazine “Partisan Review.” The CIA also launched a project called MK-Ultra which involved distributing hallucinogenic drugs on college campuses.
Read More @ NEO.org