It is official. The deep state has admitted that Trump is now under their control and it is now business as usual — just like it was under Bush and Obama — and just like it would’ve been under Hillary.
For those who don’t remember, with the help of mainstream media—from The New York Times to Fox News—after 9/11, Americans were duped into accepting endless war by George W. Bush thanks to a constant bombardment of lies sold to the masses under the guise of “protecting freedom.” All one needs to do to realize no freedoms were protected by these wars, in which thousands of Americans died and hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians were slaughtered, is look around today.
With every action recorded, phone tapped, innocent family surveilled, right stripped, and citizen killed by their government, the term “Freedom” has become a mere symbolic representation of the brittle shell of America left behind after being gutted by unelected operatives in the deep state hell bent on total control and perpetual war.
Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and other neocons hailing from the notorious Project for the New American Century (PNAC), co-founded by neoconservative extraordinaire, William “Bill” Kristol, had their agenda of military hegemony clearly laid out, years before 9/11 which Bush would implement for them perfectly.
After Obama promised to end the wars, he quickly fell in line and started several more. And now, this very same thing is happening with Trump.
Advertisment
The deep state neocon/neolib faction has become so successful at shifting the narrative toward irrelevant infighting that no one even notices when their candidate gets into office and does a 180 on damn near every promise they made — Trump included. Here are just two powerful examples of Trump selling out to the deep state.
READ MORE:Ron Paul Just Destroyed Trump"s Hypocritical Speech in an EPIC Tweet Storm
Afghanistan. Before he was elected, Trump was vehemently opposed to the quagmire in Afghanistan and called it “stupid,” “wasteful,” and “dangerous.” Now, just like his predecessors, he’s doubling down and send thousands more troops into an unwinnable war in which they will kill or be killed only to come home with PTSD or worse.
While many had faith that Trump would keep his promises, the fact is that all presidents are puppets and no matter who is in office, the shadow government always wins.
The deep state is so brazen, that the founder of PNAC actually took to MSNBC this week to admit they’ve finally gotten a grip on Trump.
After Trump made his UN speech, promising more war and to annihilate the millions of citizens in North Korea if they should make one wrong move, Bill Kristol himself went on MSNBC to praise him for it.
Kristol said Trump “sounded a little like George W. Bush to me” and that “for all of Donald Trump’s America First talk and repudiation of the Bush-McCain-Romney foreign policy,” it came across as “more standard,” even with the “Trumpian aspects.”
Kristol openly admitted that yes, Trump ran on a non-interventionist policy of peace and actually criticized Bush and Obama for their senseless wars, but now he is just like Bush. But it gets worse.
READ MORE:WATCH: Ron Paul Weighs in on Trump Presidency -- Beware of the "Shadow Government"
As to why Trump now sounds like Bush, according to Kristol, it’s because the deep state has officially attached their puppet strings.
“The people around Trump have gotten more of a grip on Trump, I think, in foreign policy, than I would have expected… This is a more normal speech by an American president than I might have thought three, four months ago,” said Kristol.
And just like that, on live TV, the neocon of neocons — who is an unmistakable member and policy writer of the deep state — said that Trump is now a puppet whose very strings are pulled by the Swamp he promised to drain, yet never did.
It’s not just the neocons who’ve noticed Trump’s transformation into a deep state neocon puppet either — lots of us have — including former Congressman Ron Paul.
“Who would’ve thought?” Paul noted before epically explaining Trump’s hypocritical transition.
Trump bashed W. and the Iraq War relentlessly during his campaign.
Now, the very same people who brought us the Iraq nightmare are giddy with excitement.
Neocons like John Bolton and Elliot Abrams are so happy to see this new Trump.
Today, the king of the warmongers Bill Kristol says Trump “sounded a little like George W. Bush to me”.
The people who have never been right, and have done unimaginable damage to the United States of America are gearing up to take us back into the abyss.
Donald Trump is their new W.
Welcome to the deep state Donald Trump, we hope you enjoy selling out your base.
For homesteaders Bryan and Laura Emerson, a trip to town doesn’t involve a quick drive in the family car. In fact, in their neck of the woods, nothing is quick. And they’re perfectly fine with that.
Bryan and Laura live on a lake in the bush of Alaska, where they are a 20-minute float plane trip to the nearest road. They’re also this week’s guests on Off The Grid Radio, and they tell us what it’s like to live 100 percent off-grid in the heart of America’s “Last Frontier” – in a location that gets 20 hours of sunlight. They also share with us:
How they generate electricity and obtain water.
What they grow, store and eat in such a unique climate.
How they make money by telecommuting.
Why they don’t have indoor plumbing.
How Laura survived a frightening encounter with a bear … on their property.
Why they ditched the city life for the bush.
Finally, Bryan and Laura provide tips for people who are considering moving off-grid, even to Alaska. We were inspired by their story, and you will be, too!
(RT) — The primary US objective during the 2003 invasion of Iraq was not bringing democracy to the Middle Eastern country, but to oust Saddam Hussein, touted as “a threat to the region,” says a secretary of state under President George W. Bush.
“We didn’t go to Iraq to bring democracy to Iraq,” Condoleezza Rice told a meeting at the Brookings Institution on Thursday, stressing that the aim was simply to eliminate a security challenge.
“We went to Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein, who we thought was reconstituting weapons of mass destruction, and who we knew had been a threat in the region. It was a security problem.”
Bringing democracy to Afghanistan by removing the radical Taliban wasn’t a US goal either.
“We overthrew them [Taliban] because they were harboring Al-Qaeda in a safe haven after 9/11,” Rice said.
“Once we had done that, it was a separate decision as to whether or not to try to advocate for a post-Saddam or a post-Taliban Iraq or Afghanistan that would be democratic, or that it would be given a chance for democracy. And we actually debated whether that ought to be the case. But we felt, particularly in the Middle East, we had done enough of support authoritarians because they are stable, and then watch them ultimately not be stable…”
Rice, who served as national security adviser to President George W. Bush from 2001 to 2005, denied that the United States was ready to use its military power to impose democracy on Iraq in 2003 or on Afghanistan in 2001.
“I would never have said to President Bush: ‘Use military force to bring democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan,’” she added.
It’s not the first time Rice has owned up that Washington’s top priority in Iraq was to eliminate a Saddam, labeled as “cancer in the Middle East.”
“We didn’t go to Iraq to bring democracy to the Iraqis,” Rice told ABC News in 2011, saying Saddam Hussein was a threat that “needed to be dealt with.”
In 2003, Bush authorized a US-led invasion of Iraq, claiming that Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and was working with terrorists who had attacked the US in September 2001.
Neither of those claims turned out to be true. In his recently-published book, ‘Debriefing the President: The Interrogation of Saddam Hussein’, former CIA officer John Nixon, who interrogated Hussein in 2003, argued that Islamic State (formerly ISIS/ISIL) could not have arisen under his rule. “It is improbable that a group like ISIS would have been able to enjoy the kind of success under his [Hussein’s] repressive regime that they have had under the Shia-led Baghdad government,” Nixon said.
He noted that “Saddam felt that Islamist extremist groups in Iraq posed the biggest threat to his rule” and did his best to eradicate any such threats.
“In hindsight, the thought of having an ageing and disengaged Saddam in power seems almost comforting in comparison with the wasted effort of our brave men and women in uniform and the rise of Islamic State, not to mention the £2.5 trillion [US$3.2 trillion] spent to build a new Iraq,”Nixon wrote.
The recently-published Chilcot report, by eminent Britons on their country’s involvement in the 2003 Iraq War, supported Nixon’s assumption on IS. The documents show that by 2006 – three years into the occupation – UK intelligence chiefs were increasingly concerned about the rise of Sunni jihadist resistance.
Those radicals and parts of the disbanded Iraqi military later joined radical jihadist groups, including IS, the report said.
By 2013, Al-Qaeda in Iraq – established only after the US invasion and the insurgency against the occupiers – had been transformed into Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) and exploited the discontent of Iraq’s Sunni Muslims under the Shia-dominated Al-Maliki government to seize much of the north and east of the country.
In June 2014, IS was able to take the city of Mosul after some 30,000 Iraqi troops trained and equipped by the US simply fled the battlefield, leaving much of their weapons and gear behind. Iraqi operation aided by the US-led coalition is now engaged in an operation to liberate the city.
Some 5,000 US troops have returned to Iraq since, to “advise and assist” the reconstituted Iraqi military in its struggle against IS.
(ANTIMEDIA Op-Ed) If anything, President Donald Trump has been able to accomplish at least one feat: to unite unprincipled conservatives and liberals in deeming former President George W. Bush a morally sound leader.
In light of Trump’s immigration orders targeting both undocumented individuals and travelers from countries on the receiving end of U.S. foreign intervention, Bush has been getting a great deal of love from the media. He has had warm interviews with celebrity talk show hosts and the Today show. He has been leaving traces of harsh criticism aimed at Trump, and this commentary seems to be leaving both #NeverTrump conservatives and hysterical liberals in awe of how sane he now sounds.
In one example, Bush criticized Trump for his alleged involvement with Russian officials, claiming “we all need answers.”
Julian Assange — the man behind the website that published the notorious emails associated with Hillary Clinton and her campaign staff — has said the documents were leaked and not hacked. Apparently oblivious to this, however, Bush appears to simply trust the media on the scandalous ties between the president and the Kremlin. He also praised the press even though they have failed to present sufficient evidence to prove their narrative is accurate.
Perhaps Bush’s eight years away from the public spotlight helped him, and the people to forget how he and his administration helped to shape the narrative in 2003. Back then, the then-president needed to convince the American public that Saddam Hussein was out to get us all. Unfortunately, the Iraqi dictator was too busy writing his memoirs to worry about weapons of mass destruction — or the lies being manufactured by the Bush administration.
But please, ignore all that. What matters is that Bush says he would like to see “an immigration policy that’s welcoming and upholds the law.” The guy is solid — a solid farce, that is. Was he worried about the countless innocent civilians losing their homes and lives in Iraq and Afghanistan before he invaded? Perhaps he loved immigrants so much that his plan was to destroy the Middle East so they could all move west as refugees. We’ll never know. But what we do know is that if that was his plan, it worked magically.
Ellen DeGeneres told Bush she was “so excited” to have him on her show, even though Bush opposed same-sex marriage and went so far as to propose a ban on the practice.
In January, celebrity comedian Aziz Ansari told the Saturday Night Live audience that Bush “made a speech after 9/11, and it really helped.”
To the forgetful funny man, “[t]hings changed. … [because Bush] said Islam is peace” after 9/11, refusing to indict the entire religion. I guess words speak louder than actions, right?
On the daily talk show The View, liberal Joy Behar confessed that while she was “after” Bush for eight years, she was considering purchasing the former president’s paintings.
“The thing about this is that Donald has now done something I thought he would never do. I like — I like the fact that George Bush — I like George Bush now, is what I’m trying to say. I’m having trouble saying it.”
United in hate.
After countless celebrities joined Iraq war protesters, helping Bush’s approval ratings to tank to 25 percent in 2008 — one of the lowest in history — liberals are now coming together to celebrate their long lost “Bushie,” the Republican who speaks to their inner tyrants.
Instead of keeping politics out of the emotional realm, understanding that politicians — regardless of party affiliation — perpetuate policies that dramatically hurt innocent people both domestically and abroad, these emotionally promiscuous luminaries are again united in hate. The end result? They are now elevating those who speak to their anger — not necessarily those who advocate what they claim to represent.
I can’t wait to see the same characters giving Trump taps on the back years from now when another bad seed occupies the White House.
This article was written by Michael Krieger and originally published at his Liberty Blitzkrieg site.
Editor’s Comment: Few blogs are as consistently aware of keeping their principles as is Liberty Blitzkrieg. Michael Krieger is proving to be the voice that we all need to keep close to our thoughts, reminding us that our civil liberties and rights are firm; that opposition to war and torture is moral; and all the slippery sliding around on ideological positions – by politicians, celebrities and media organizations, including alternative media – will do nothing but hasten the ruin of this country. Compromising, flip flopping and fudging on important issues to gain power and influence with the ‘winning circles’ does no one any good and reflects a truly weak and unprincipled individual.
Former president George W. Bush and his clan of neocons and shadow rulers lied to the country to drag us into war; dozens of figures inside his administration appeared to have prior knowledge of 9/11 and were certainly ready (with expansive middle east war plans, the PATRIOT Act and more) to exploit it to the hilt. Their prosecution of the war killed over a million civilians, and more than 4,400 U.S. soldiers were killed in action, and hundreds of thousands were wounded. This was all for illegitimate reasons, and disgusting underlying motives that don’t even reflect the interests of the American people. Freedom was sacrificed for a trans-national empire, and the enrichment of a handful of insiders and owners, while the war fueled the rise of sectarian violence, giving rise to ISIS and guaranteeing future phases of a wider conflict.
There is blood on his hands; as there is on former President Obama and current President Donald Trump. One does not wash that evil simply because one becomes politically useful to new opposition alliances. This failed thinking partially accounts for the continued “swamp” in Washington. How many policy makers and deep state operatives are guilty of treason?
Self-Proclaimed ‘Liberals’ Are Now Fawning Over George W. Bush
by Michael Krieger
In conclusion, we need popular movements, we don’t need stupidity. If you don’t like Trump’s vision, you better have competing vision and be willing and able to articulate it. The status quo is dead. We are in a populist age, with tremendous opportunity to make the world a better place if we can take the moment and run with it. As it stands, the Democratic Party remains business as usual, and if it stays that way, will continue to lose election after election and become a increasingly irrelevant factor in American political life.
If you don’t want to be an irrelevant victim of history, the time is now to become involved in powerful political movements. This doesn’t include covering your ears, smashing windows and complaining about the Russians.
I’m not a big fan of litmus tests, but here’s one I think is entirely appropriate. If you’re a self-proclaimed “liberal” who’s suddenly fawning over George W. Bush, you’re a fraud and should probably never speak again.
Unfortunately, this most recent demonstration of mindless, unprincipled liberal “ideology” continues to make the term completely useless, and the people who use it to describe themselves, increasingly irrelevant. When you stand for nothing, you’ll allow anything, including the whitewashing of war crimes. This is precisely the direction celebrities, fake liberals and the corporate media are taking us in, and it’s no accident.
Think about it. If the public can be convinced that George W. Bush is some sort of hero just because Trump is in office, what can’t we be convinced of? If torture and the destruction of a nation based on false information can now be overlooked, what can’t be overlooked? That’s why this intentional resurrection of George W. Bush seems like a psychological operation against the American public. It’s a way of saying, who cares about the horrific crimes committed by the American elite class over the past 20 years, we have to unite against Trump and Putin! To this I say: Never.
The people who knew Trump could win all along were precisely the people most aware of the endless series of crimes commented by the American elite class against the American public. Now, the people who committed these crimes and their corporate media mouthpieces are trying to brush it all under the rug in the name of fighting Trump. They’re starting with the legacy of George W. Bush, but it won’t stop there. The country is in the state it’s in because of the elitist class, not because of Trump or Putin. If we take our eye off the ball at this key moment, all will be lost.
Eight years ago, amid the financial collapse known as the Great Recession, America broke up with its 43rd president with such relief it might as well have dumped his clothes on the White House lawn and screamed from an open window “get out!”
In 2008, at the close of his second term, President George W. Bush’s approval ratings had plunged to 25 percent, among the lowest in presidential history next to Harry Truman and Richard Nixon. His would-be Republican successor, candidate John McCain, actively distanced himself from the Bush administration and comedians relentlessly mocked the man.
But in the first few months of 2017 and amid a book tour that landed him glowing spots on the “Ellen DeGeneres Show” and in People magazine, Bush is at least getting a little more respect from some who deeply disrespected him.
“A little respect,” that’s putting it mildly. Ellen actually said to Bush, “I love your whole family.”
Some of the rethinking of Bush stems not from anything Bush has said or done but simply from the contrast with President Trump, a comparison bolstered by his recent appearances on talk shows and in news segments.
After the “Ellen” show posted a video of the former president joking about his inner “Rembrandt” and learning to paint, viewers flooded the comments with unexpected praise.
“A few years ago I would have rolled my eyes at the [sight] of this man, but 6 weeks of Trump makes W look like a pretty decent guy,” one woman wrote. “Perspective is a funny thing.”
Added another: “I used to be a big critic of him and still don’t agree with much of what he did while in office. But, given who is now in office and how scary 45 is making the world, I’ve come to actually like this man.”
It was an idea comedian Aziz Ansari explored in January during his monologue as host of “Saturday Night Live,” the same show that spent years writing unflattering skits of President Bush and has since turned its humor to a new GOP target.
“George W Bush made a speech after 9/11, and it really helped,” Ansari said. “Things changed. … He said Islam is peace.”
Yes, wonderful words. Unfortunately, that’s all they were, as he proceeded to murder half a million Iraqis based on false information.
“What the hell has happened?” he said during the monologue. “I’m sitting here wistfully watching old George W. Bush speeches?’ Just sitting there like, ‘What a leader he was! … He guided us with his eloquence!’”
What the hell happened? I’ll tell you what happened. You lost your fucking mind.
Joy Behar, the liberal on the daily talk show “The View,” noted after Bush’s comments that though she was “after” him for eight years, she just might purchase one of his paintings because of Trump.
“The thing about this,” she said, “is that Donald has now done something I thought he would never do. I like — I like the fact that George Bush — I like George Bush now, is what I’m trying to say. I’m having trouble saying it.”
Star Trek’s George Takei also weighed in: “You know things are bad when George W. Bush starts sounding like a member of the Resistance.”
Wrong. You know things are bad when “the resistance” is so ideologically weak and castrated it eagerly embraces George W. Bush.
At this point, I want you to watch the Ellen clip. The dancing is nauseating enough, but it’s the embrace that really sticks with you. There is a look of affection from Ellen that simply cannot be faked. It’s utterly creepy.
Moving forward, what can we do about it? I think we need to start thinking about celebrity boycotts. I’m not sure what the strategy could be though, because no one reading this actually watches The View, and the people who do are probably beyond help. So how can we strike back in a non-violent, creative way against these celebrities and their shows? I’m not sure, but if anyone has ideas, please share them in the comment section. We need to start thinking in such terms.
If you enjoyed this post, and want to contribute to genuine, independent media, consider visiting ourSupport Page.
In Liberty, Michael Krieger
This article was written by Michael Krieger and originally published at his Liberty Blitzkrieg site.
Hillary Clinton was booed by the people who rejected her corruption at the ballot box, now demanding her arrest at Trump’s inauguration.
Another torch has been passed on, and is part of a continuing American legacy.
Not just the inauguration of the duly elected President Trump, being passed the torch from Obama, but the traditional shaming of the bad actors before them who have played a role in ruining the country.
In 2009, former President George W. Bush was booed as he was announced on January 20th– after leaving office with large portions of the country strongly opposed to his policies on Iraq, terrorism and larger legacy as a semi-dynastic heir to office.
Now in 2017, Hillary Clinton, who attempted her own semi-dynastic claim to the presidency, was roundly rejected with calls to “lock her up” during the inauguration, despite the fact that President Trump publicly distanced himself from his campaign rhetoric after the election. On January 20th, 2017, for many, it was Hillary Clinton, not outgoing President Obama, who was represented the end of an era of shame.
This video comes from a back angle, so there is probably a better source of the crowd chanting, but it certainly makes the point:
Trump inauguration Hillary Clinton boo lock her up 1/20/2017
After an ongoing email scandal, and evidence of wide-reaching corruption inside her campaign and the Democratic party, a large portion of the population voted against her doings in the same way they had earlier turned against W. Bush.
2008: Bush Booed and Jeered during Inaugural pre-Introduction
Some Donald Trump supporters chanted “Lock her up” when Hillary Clinton was announced on the inauguration stage Friday.
The chant was popular among supporters during Trump’s campaign. During one presidential debate, Trump even suggested Clinton should be in jail over her email controversy while secretary of state.
Clinton says she’s attending Trump’s inauguration to “honor our democracy.”
Crowd boos and chants “LOCK HER UP” when Hillary and bill clintons names are called #Inauguration
In fairness, there was also audible booing or shouting during the moment when Donald Trump was sworn in as president, and these opposition crowds are a testament to the deep divisions and strong hostility among the population.
Here is Hillary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton just before being announced at the inauguration ceremony:
Click here to subscribe: Join over one million monthly readers and receive breaking news, strategies, ideas and commentary.
Please Spread The Word And Share This Post
Author: Mac Slavo Views: Read by 123 people Date: January 20th, 2017 Website:www.SHTFplan.com
Copyright Information: Copyright SHTFplan and Mac Slavo. This content may be freely reproduced in full or in part in digital form with full attribution to the author and a link to www.shtfplan.com. Please contact us for permission to reproduce this content in other media formats.
(RPI– Op-Ed) This week, Congress passed a budget calling for increasing federal spending and adding $1.7 trillion to the national debt over the next ten years. Most so-called “fiscal conservatives” voted for this big-spending budget because it allows Congress to repeal some parts of Obamacare via “reconciliation.” As important as it is to repeal Obamacare, it does not justify increasing spending and debt.
It is disappointing, but not surprising, that the Obamacare repeal would be used to justify increasing spending. Despite sequestration’s minor (and largely phony) spending cuts, federal spending has increased every year since Republicans took control of the House of Representatives. Some will attribute this to the fact that the Republican House had to negotiate with a big-spending Democratic president — even though federal spending actually increased by a greater percentage the last time Republicans controlled the White House and Congress than it did under President Obama.
The history of massive spending increases under unified Republican control of government is likely to repeat itself. During the presidential campaign, President-elect Donald Trump came out against reducing spending on “entitlements.” He also called for a variety of spending increases, including spending one trillion dollars on infrastructure.
One positive part of the infrastructure proposals is their use of tax credits to encourage private sector investments. Hopefully this will be the first step toward returning responsibility for building and maintaining our nation’s infrastructure to the private sector.
Unfortunately, the administration appears likely to support increased federal spending on “shovel-ready” jobs. Claims that federal spending helps grow the economy rely on the fallacy of that which is not seen. While everyone sees the jobs and economic growth created by government infrastructure projects, no one sees the greater number of jobs that could have been created had the government not taken the resources out of the hands of private businesses, investors, and entrepreneurs. Despite what some conservatives seem to think, this fallacy applies equally to Republican and Democrat spending.
President-elect Trump has criticized the past two administrations’ reckless foreign policy, and he has publicly shamed the powerful Lockheed Martin company for wasting taxpayer money. Yet, he continues to support increasing the military budget and has called for increased military intervention in the Middle East.
The fact is the United States already spends too much on militarism. Not only does the United States spend more on the military than the combined military budgets of the next eight highest spending countries, but Pentagon waste exceeds the total Russian military budget.
America can no longer afford to waste trillions of dollars on a militaristic foreign policy. Donald Trump should follow-up his attacks on wasteful military spending by dramatically changing our foreign policy and working to cut the Pentagon’s bloated budget.
If the new administration and Congress increase spending, they will need the Federal Reserve to monetize the growing debt. The need for an accommodative monetary policy gives the Federal Reserve and its allies in Congress and in the deep state leverage over the administration. This leverage could be used, for example, to pressure the administration to abandon support for the Audit the Fed legislation.
Fed action can only delay the inevitable day of reckoning. Raising levels of federal spending and debt will inevitably lead to a major economic crisis. This crisis is likely to be reached when concerns over our national debt cause more countries to reject the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency. The only way to avoid this crisis is to stop increasing spending and instead begin reducing spending on all aspects of the welfare-warfare state.
(RT) Those who wished to read the full text of the notorious Senate report on documenting the CIA torture of detainees after 9/11 will have to wait for 12 years. The White House ordered it kept under seal after Barack Obama leaves office.
Seven US senators urged the Obama administration to declassify the 6,770-page Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report on the CIA’s detention and interrogation program so the public could have a full account of past torture practices.
White House counsel Neil Eggleston, in responding to the request, said the president had told the National Archives and Records Administration that access to the classified material should be shielded from public access requests for 12 years.
“At this time, we are not pursing declassification of the full study,” Eggleston wrote in a letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein (D, California).
After 12 years, a record request to Obama’s archives would prompt a process to consider declassification.
Senator Feinstein, who spearheaded the investigation and declassification request said she was pleased the report was being preserved in Obama’s archives but acknowledged the rejection for immediate declassification.
“It’s my very strong belief that one day this report should be declassified,” Feinstein told the AP. “This must be a lesson learned: that torture doesn’t work.”
The 525-page executive summary of the report was released in late 2014 and citied CIA documents that showed the interrogation program was more brutal than previously understood. It provided details on the abuse of 119 prisons, including five men facing trial by military commission at Guantanamo for their alleged roles planning and aiding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
The summary showed that the ‘enhanced’ interrogation didn’t yield any unique intelligence that couldn’t have ordinary been acquired from regular interrogation techniques.
Senator Wyden (D, Oregon) said he will start “on the very first day of the new session building a bipartisan coalition to get the study declassified.”
“The American people deserve the opportunity to read this history rather than see it locked away in a safe for twelve years. When the president-elect has promised to bring back torture, it is more critical than ever that the study be made available to cleared personnel throughout the federal government who are responsible for authorizing and implementing our country’s detention and interrogation policies,” said Wyden in a released statement.
#FactsMatter. Torture does not work. #TortureReport—which shows that—must be distributed and declassified not buried for more than a decade.
In a related story, defense lawyers in the September 11 war crimes case at Guantanamo Bay asked a judge last week to secure a copy of the US Senate report before President-elect Donald Trump takes office.
“The new administration has made statement promising waterboarding or worse and there are many reasons to believe it is hostile to preservation of the report,” lawyer James Connell.
Connell, who represents Ammar al Baluchi, told the military judge presiding over the case who argued The Trump administration would be less likely to turn over the report, or may even seek its destruction.
Eight copies of the report were distributed to various branches of government, including the Department of Defense, but the CIA inspector general disclosed that it had destroyed its copy.
President Putin shakes the hand of Rex Tillerson, Trump’s pick for Secretary of State.
This article was written by Aaron Dykes and originally published at TruthstreamMedia.com.
Editor’s Comment: It will interesting to see what happens next. The future depends not only on what kind of president Mr. Trump will be, but also on what kind of foreign affairs the country will carry out. Rex Tillerson is a bold and seemingly atypical choice – he is plucked straight out of Big Oil headquarters.
There have been hopeful signs on the part of Trump and Putin that relations can be significantly improved, and that would set a working peace. However, the situation could quickly change as the administration takes charge; Syria or Iran could be a catalyst for war. Rex Tillerson, who already has a personal business history with Russia and with Putin himself, will be in a very interesting and nuanced position – assuming he is confirmed – as tensions rise and events take place. The fluctuation of oil prices has had a tremendous amount to do with geopolitical turmoil – including in Russia – and Tillerson may have something to do with it all.
The most interesting dynamic is the unraveling of OPEC dominance and the promise of return to domestic exports of oil, gas and energy. With the yuan now pegged to the SDR and global currency basket, the dollar will play a different role in the coming years, and so will oil.
And the Secretary of State Is… A Fracking Pioneer Who Is Now Steering Geopolitical World Order
by Aaron Dykes
Not sure yet, but I think that Donald Trump’s stunning campaign run will not be the last time America will be surprised. Political realignment historically happens in the U.S. every 30 or 40 years; it’s like shifting teeth and growing pains. There is every reason to guard carefully the jewel of liberty during this time. The new face of the country is a political unknown; perhaps even a chameleon.
The cabinet, who pack the real power behind the throne, are already gearing up to be a potent gang of corporate cronies and Wall Street insiders. But the ace card was announced today. Trump has finally announced that he will name Rex Tillerson, CEO and chairman of ExxonMobil, as the next most powerful official and highest ranking foreign dignitary in the U.S. government. Oil is big, but Tillerson’s background is awe inspiring in its totality on the balance of the great game. He created a revolution that is now taking down world order.
Admittedly, the choice is a bit more outside the box than Romney, Petraeus or Giuliani, all of whom have embarrassing scandals trailing them, and easy-to-pick-a-part dysfunctions.
Nonetheless, it is worth stating plainly that President-elect Trump’s reported nominee for Secretary of State is the man who initiated the entire era of fracking, a practice he first pushed for decades ago towards the beginning of his long career with ExxonMobil.
It was his greatest achievement as an early entrepreneur, and it solidified his role in the company for years to come.
It was 1976, and Tillerson had been sent to East Texas for his second assignment at the company. His job was to follow around rigs drilling for natural gas and “complete” the wells. That meant experimenting with a process known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. By pumping water, sand, and chemicals down into a well at high pressure, he could cause cracks in the stone where the gas was trapped and allow more of it to flow.
That winter Tillerson practically lived out of the back of his car, driving to the company’s district office in Tyler at night so he could run punch-card decks through the computer to design his new fracking programs.
Moreover, this multi-billion dollar industry has become an incredibly important part of geopolitics and statecraft… incidentally, the State Dept. is engaged in ongoing economic warfare against a variety of target states around the globe.
All this, while the petrodollar is crumbling, and the global currency standards are shifting East.
Axis of Power: Oil, Rockefellers and Bushes
Tillerson was apparently recommended for the job by former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, both close Bush allies.
Tillerson was brought into Trump Tower for an interview with Trump at the recommendation of former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who count Exxon among their private consulting clients, according to two sources familiar with the conversations. (source)
Rex Tillerson has every tie to the Rockefeller dynasty, whose Standard Oil fortune branched off into ExxonMobil – even if the members of the family publicly distanced themselves from the oil industry, and dumped their shares in the very stuff their fortunes are based upon, but their foundations argue is destroying the planet.
Tillerson’s Power Play
Now, Tillerson’s control over natural gas, oil and energy – which has the power to send the price of oil into free fall – could prove to be the ultimate weapon.
And just as Hillary used her position to see to the removal of several heads of state in the Arab Spring (with the head-prize of Gaddafi), the next Secretary of State – presumably Rex Tillerson – will be waging covert wars around the world using the vast leverage of oil as his most important tool of negotiation.
It is also worth noting that Tillerson has argued in favor of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) free trade agreement – but Donald Trump publicly campaign against it and promised to stop it. It is not yet clear if Tillerson’s opinion has changed since he was quoted in 2013, but as Secretary of State he would have far more involvement in the trade negotiations than President Trump would.
If fighting off the TPP is of major importance to American jobs and the economy at large, then the US is in a difficult spot.
According to the Dept. of State website, the Secretary of State’s duties include a great deal of power over trade and international business.
• Promotes beneficial economic intercourse between the United States and other countries;
• Negotiates, interprets, and terminates treaties and agreements;
• Conducting negotiations and concluding agreements and treaties on issues ranging from trade to nuclear weapons;
• Helping developing nations establish stable economic environments that provide investment and export opportunities;
• Assisting U.S. businesses in the international marketplace;
Incidentally, the TPP has faced such strong opposition in large part due to the concerns about corporate involvement with the negotiations, the terms of which have been arranged and kept in secret. Sec. Tillerson would mean a major corporation representative with a very wide latitude for negotiations – and some of those decisions will undoubtedly affect the oil trade.
“Control oil and you control nations”
Of course, as President and CEO of ExxonMobil, Rex Tillerson has met countless world leaders, and is intermingled in high level affairs across the globe. Given the still unchecked power of oil (and natural gas, etc.) over the affairs of a nation (to reference a quote from Kissinger), the head of any major oil company is essentially as powerful as a head of state in many respects.
David Rockefeller, as an executive of Chase Manhattan and an heir to the family fortune, bragged that he had the phone number in his roledex of every president or prime minister, as well as every defense and state minister in every Latin American country. He made lots of inroads in Europe, Japan, Russia, the Middle East and China as well. He famously visited Castro and negotiated privately with the Communist dictator.
David Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger, along with the help of the Trilateral gang, set up the petrodollar standard in 1973, using their ability to manipulate production levels to strong arm nations in to cooperation on their terms. It’s more complicated than that, but…
Now, Tillerson – if confirmed – would make the marriage between energy and government more formalized.
Natural Gas and the Downfall of Venezuela, Saudi and Russia?
His greatest strength lies in the positioning of his assets of state and private enterprise vis-a-vis the geopolitical struggle to keep afloat with declining oil prices. These appear rigged, and have triggered economic vulnerabilities in the key states of Russia, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. The collapse of the latter has been pronounced; 95% of its exports are based on oil, and with falling prices, the socialist regime has no way to pay its social obligations, keep power and infrastructure maintained, or keep its currency out of hyperinflation, or its people starving. Via SHTF Plan:
Through fracking, the U.S. trade deficit in oil is expected to balance out and to transform America into a profitable net exporting region in petroleum and gas within just a few short years:
There is no question that the US has entirely changed the global energy landscape and poses an existential threat to Opec. America has cut its net oil imports by 8.7m bpd since 2006, equal to the combined oil exports of Saudi Arabia and Nigeria.
Putin, well aware of the economic warfare strategies of the West via petro-politics, has diversified and kept Russia’s economy from tanking, though it was designed to put pressure on social programs and benefits, i.e. gifts to the people, in order to undermine his popularity in the motherland. The Saudis have also ridden out the waves, and quietly made new negotiations to navigate the swiftly changing climate.
Meanwhile, the meaning of Ukraine is magnified by the importance of the gas pipeline that Russia uses to supply its clients in Europe who need heat – an important source of revenue; U.S. fracking enterprises have been using the puppet regime as cover for their natural gas explorations, in a bid to fuel Europe themselves via LNG (liquid natural gas) extracted from seized basins in Ukraine exploited by U.S. corporations.
Rex Tillerson, named to be the next Secretary of State, with Vladmir Putin.
Putin and Tillerson
The fact that ExxonMobil does business with Russia in natural gas is both ironic, and apropos. Now, they will dance, I suppose.
The country most often mentioned in the same breath as Tillerson is Russia. His experience in overseeing a large, successful project there in the 1990s both elevated Tillerson’s stature at Exxon and provided a solid basis to negotiate what looked like his greatest achievement: 2011’s strategic partnership with Rosneft, blessed by President Vladimir Putin himself. As I wrote here, sanctions imposed following Russia’s seizure of territory from Ukraine put that partnership in deep freeze, undermining an important growth prospect for Exxon. (source)
This could actually be quite interesting as it plays out. Putin has purged a lot of the influence from western banking powers (i.e. Rothschild) and western NGO proxy war culture battles, but the ties still run deep.
The establishment is currently beating the drums of war against Russia, while opening a campaign to expose and silence supposed-Putin collaborators who are allegedly parroting pro-Russian propaganda. Perceived ties with Putin were a campaign issue for Trump, and now his Secretary of State has definitive and direct ties to Russia. Trump announced during the campaign that he ‘doesn’t know Putin’ (personally), but Rex Tillerson most certainly does know Putin.
But he is no pawn to draw controversy over a revived Cold War – this guy actually holds the keys to global conflict… and he and Trump could establish peaceful ties and establish mutual business. On the other hand, the ability to control the supply & demand of the energy economy becomes a power play. If the Administration wishes to poke Putin, they can do it directly through sanctions, or indirectly through sabotage.
The petty debates over resolutions and sound bytes about the Russian threat will be muted by the simple dynamic of whether or not Putin is happy, and whether or not Tillerson is peaceful or warlike.
At some point, there is meant to be more world war, and greater global control… but perhaps for a time there will be peace.
Clearly, this connects back to the life and times of Rex Tillerson, who putting fracking on the map, and created a post-peak oil paradigm in which fossil fuel giants can continue to dominate the earth for the foreseeable future.
Draining the Swamp? Enter, the Council on Foreign Relations and the North American Union scheme
Should the United States seek so-called energy independence in an elusive effort to insulate this country from the impact of world events on the economy, or should Americans pursue the path of international engagement, seeking ways to better compete within the global market for energy? Like the Council’s founders, I believe we must choose the course of greater international engagement. … The central reality is this: The global free market for energy provides the most effective means of achieving U.S. energy security by promoting resource development, enabling diversification, multiplying our supply channels, encouraging efficiency, and spurring innovation.
If there is job growth, it is fracking and its derivatives. “Newly discovered” fields in Midland, Texas or the Dakotas and wherever else is the battlefield for a new front of CFR globalism. Energy is now a product of economic control and digital surveillance at every level. It has become an important tentacle in society; the report indicates the general plans to routes the electrical grid throughout North America, and eventually to transfer natural gas to Central America and beyond.
The larger motivations for North American-ism in the thinking of government can be explored at a later time.
What is important to recognize, is that the powers-that-be have a strategy here. As chaotic as the 2016 appeared, there was a quiet churning in the background; the steady hum of 1,000 points of light, come to implement the accepted agenda, and spout the talking points.
It isn’t clear whether or not Trump is “in on it”, but it is clear that he has surrounded himself with players in the scheme. At this time, it appears that Rudy Giuliani will not play a direct role in Trump’s administration; this may also be true of Gen. Petraeus, whose scandals are just more political baggage – but regardless of whether or not they take cabinet positions, they are directly involved in the larger plan for geopolitical and full spectrum dominance.
Restoring energy exports at home will rally the patriotic base and rouse that “Made in America” spirit – and perhaps there are legitimate advantages – but ultimately the political nature of this industry will be played for benefit by a globalist organization.
Nevertheless, we are entering a new era in politics altogether. Let’s pick apart the pieces of that new paradigm carefully, so we can avoid repeating the painful mistakes of the past.
This article was written by Aaron Dykes and originally published at TruthstreamMedia.com.
