F. William Engdahl,
who is well known for books and articles in geopolitics, has recently published
a book entitled The Lost Hegemon: Whom the Gods Would Destroy. The
subtitle refers to a dictum by Euripides, “Those whom the Gods wish to destroy
they first make mad.”
This book describes
how the U.S. has been going mad since the fall of the Soviet Union, thereby
destroying itself. The madness involves the method through which the United
States tried to prevent the loss of its global hegemony. Engdahl writes
that the method was based on a scheme devised by Zbigniew Brzezinski,
while he was serving as President Jimmy Carter’s national security
The scheme was to
destroy the Soviet Union’s economy by luring it into an unwinnable war in
Afghanistan. The method for doing this was for Osama bin Laden, working for the
CIA, to invite fundamentalist Muslims in Saudi Arabia and other countries to
Afghanistan, where the U.S. military would arm and train them (Operation
Cyclone). Engdahl believes that the weakening of its economy led to
the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The Cold War was over. How would the
United States respond?
Its policy, said
Engdahl, “might have encouraged real, peaceful development of nations in a
climate of peace and cooperation. . . . That cooperation could have included
China and Russia instead of encirclement, confrontation, chaos, and war.”
However, the U.S. chose to use its position as the sole remaining superpower to
try to become the first global empire in history.
Seeing that Operation
Cyclone had worked so well, Washington decided to redeploy the CIA’s Arab
Afghans, or Mujahideen, “to further destabilize Russian influence over the
post-Soviet European space.” The first major battles were in Chechnya, where
they were to sabotage Russian oil pipeline routes, and Yugoslavia, where they
were used to start the Bosnian war in order to break up the country.
The central focus was on Russia, because U.S. strategists, obsessed with
maintaining “American primacy,” saw Russia as the country most likely to be
able to challenge that primacy – as argued in Brzezinski’s The Grand
In any case, thanks
to the success of its terrorist projects, leaders in Washington became
“convinced that they had discovered the ideal instrument for making terror
anywhere in the world to advance their agenda of global hegemony.”
The next major
chapter in this story was 9/11. Engdahl does not accept any of the major
theories: the official account, which “became less and less credible the more
that serious people investigate; the view that Cheney and his neocon war hawks
masterminded the event to create a “new Pearl Harbor”; and the idea that 9/11
was orchestrated by Israel. But Engdahl does not suggest an alternative
hypothesis. He does hold, however, that the U.S., Israeli, and Saudi
governments were “clearly prepared to use the deed to advance [their] own
Engdahl is also clear
that 9/11 has been immensely important, for at least two reasons. First, by
virtue of blaming 9/11 on bin Laden and his al-Qaeda network, America had a
“new ‘enemy image’ to replace the old Soviet communism.” Second, the announced
“War on Terror” was really, as General Wesley Clark said, “a War on
That this was the
nature of the War on Terror from the start is supported by something else Clark
said – that a memo from Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld indicated that the
Pentagon was planning to “destroy the governments in seven [Muslim] countries
in five years,” starting with Iraq. Obviously the timeline did not work out.
But the U.S. government did not reject the list. Indeed, under the Obama
administration, it targeted two other countries on the list, Libya and Syria –
with neocons fervently trying to find an excuse to attack a third, Iran.
discusses an enormous number of facts and ideas that I have not treated. Rather
than trying, I will instead summarize some of his main conclusions:
“The Washington tactic of using political fundamentalist Islam to secure a
revitalized American global hegemony,” said Engdahl, “was failing everywhere.”
The reason for the
failures, he said, was the lack of intelligent leaders in Washington. Real
intelligence in politics is the ability to see connections that are not
necessarily obvious, such as the ability to see “the
interconnectedness of all life, all peoples, and all wars.” It is the
recognition that “when you unleash a destructive force in one place, it affects
all mankind destructively, including those who unleash it.”
The CIA and the
military industrial and political complex falsely “believed they could
weaponize violent Jihadist Islam . . . as their killing machine without any
Because of the
repeated failures of this approach, American Oligarchs “were becoming
desperate. In their growing desperation, they threatened a new world
war” in the thermo-nuclear era. Literally, as Euripides said, “Those
whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad.”
David Ray Griffin is
professor emeritus, Claremont Graduate University. His forthcoming book is Bush and Cheney: How They Ruined America and the World .
“Racist” is the favorite
epithet of the left. Every white person (except leftists) is a racist by
definition. As we are defined as racists based on our skin color, I am puzzled
why we are called racists a second, third, and fourth time due to specific
acts, such as favoring the enforcement of immigration laws. For example,
President Donald Trump says he is going to enforce the immigration laws. For
the left this is proof that Trump has put on the White Sheet and joined the
The left doesn’t say what a
president is who does not enforce the laws on the books. But let’s look at this
from the standpoint of the immigration laws themselves. In 1965 a bill passed
by the “racist” Congress and signed by the “racist” President Lyndon Johnson
completely changed the racial composition of US legal immigration.
In 1960 75% of US legal
immigration was European, 5% was Asian, and 19% was from Americas (Mexico,
Central and South America and Caribbean Islands).
The 1965 Immigration and
Nationality Act is a very strange law for racists to have enacted. Would
racists pass a law, which has been on the books for 52 years, that
fundamentally transformed the racial profile of the US by limiting white
immigration, thereby ultimately consigning whites to minority status?
We could say the racists did
not know what they were doing, or thought they were doing something else.
However, the results have been obvious at least since 1980, and the law is
still on the books.
We live during a time when
there is an abundance of information, but facts seldom seem to inform opinions.
The left delights in branding the Founding Fathers racists. The left was
ecstatic when a 1998 DNA study concluded that Thomas Jefferson was one of eight
possible ancestors of Eston Hemings, a descent of Jefferson’s slave Sally
Hemings. The left seized on the implied sexual relationship as proof of Thomas
Let’s assume Jefferson had a
sexual relationship with Sally Hemings. Does this prove he was a racist, or
does it prove the opposite? Why is it a sign of racism for a white to have sex
with a black? Does this prove that James Bond was a racist in the film “Die
Another Day”? Do we really want to define racially mixed marriages as racist,
as a white conquest over a black, Asian, or Hispanic?
The left has declared the
Declaration of Independence and the Constitution to be racist documents and,
therefore, proof that the US was founded on racism. The left is particularly
incensed that the Constitution counts enslaved blacks as three-fifths of a
white person. Is the three-fifths clause a sign or racism, or was it a
compromise to get an agreement on representation in the House of
It was the latter. Indeed
southerners, such as James Madison and Edmund Randolph, wanted blacks to be
counted one to one with whites. It was northerners, such as Gouverneur Morris
of Pennsylvania, who wanted blacks to count as fractions of a person. Why was
The issue was whether the
North or the South would have majority representation in the House. The country
already had different economic interests which came to conflict in the War of
Southern Secession, which is mischaracterized as a civil war. (A civil war is
when two sides fight for control of the government. The Confederacy was not
fighting for control of the government in Washington. The South was fighting to
secede from the union in order to avoid economic exploitation.)
The southern states were
agricultural, and from early colonial times long before there was a United
States or a Confederate States of America the absence of a work force meant
that the agricultural labor force was imported as slaves. For the South slavery
was an inherited institution, and from the South’s standpoint, if blacks were
not included in the population on which US representation in Congress would be
based, the South would have a minority voice in Congress and would not agree to
the Constitution. The three-fifths clause was a compromise in order to move the
Constitution toward agreement. It had nothing to do with racism. It was about
achieving balance in regional representation in Congress. http://www.blackpast.org/aah/three-fifths-clause-united-states-constitution-1787
The Southern Secession
resulted from divergent economic interests and was not fought over slavery. In
former times when the left had real intellects, such as Charles A. Beard, a
historian who stressed class conflict and a founder of the New School for
Social Research and president of both the American Political Science
Association and the American Historical Association, the left understood the
divergence of interests between northern industry and southern agriculture.
Those who think Lincoln invaded the South in order to free slaves need to read
Thomas DiLorenzo’s books on Lincoln. DiLorenzo establishes beyond all doubt
that Lincoln invaded the Confederacy in order to preserve the Union, that is,
the American Empire, which has continued its growth into the 21st century.
The preponderance of war
correspondence on both sides shows that no one was fighting for or against
slavery. According to the 1860 US census, slave owners were a small fraction of
the Southern population. http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html The Confederate Army
consisted almost entirely of non-slave owners who fought because they were
invaded by Union armies.
As for Thomas Jefferson, he
was opposed to slavery, but he understood that the agricultural South was
trapped in slavery. The “discovery” of the New World provided lands for
exploitation but no labor force. The first slaves were white prisoners, but
whites could not survive the malaria. Native Indians were tried, but they were
not only as susceptible to malaria as whites but also used their native
knowledge of the terrain to resist those who would enslave them. Blacks became
the work force of choice because of genetic superiority in resistance to
malaria. As Charles C. Mann reports in his book, 1493, “About 97
percent of the people in West and Central Africa are Duffy negative, and hence
immune to vivax malaria.”
Thus, the real “racist”
reason that blacks became the labor force was their survivability rate due to
genetic superiority from their immunity to malaria, not white racists
determined to oppress blacks for racial reasons.
The myth has taken hold that
black slavery originated in white attitudes of racial superiority. In fact, as
a large numbers of historians have documented, including Charles C. Mann and
the socialist economic historian Karl Polanyi, brother of my Oxford University
professor, the physical chemist and philosopher Michael Polanyi, black slavery
originated and flourished in Africa where tribes fought one another for slaves.
The victorious would market their captives to Arabs and eventually as time
passed to Europeans for transport to the new world to fill the vacuum of a missing
labor force. (See for example, Karl Polanyi, Dahomey and the Slave
It is a mystery how the myth
of Thomas Jefferson’s alleged racism and love for slavery survives his drafts
of the Declaration of Independence. One of Jefferson’s drafts that was abandoned
in compromise over the document includes this in Jefferson’s list of King
“he has waged cruel war
against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life &
liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating
& carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable
death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium
of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined
to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted
his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to
restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might
want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise
in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them,
& murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off
former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which
he urges them to commit against the lives of another.”http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/declara/ruffdrft.html
Jefferson’s attack on King
George sounds like the left’s racist attack on Jefferson.
It is amazing how proud some
Americans are of their ignorance and how quick they are to hate based on their
ignorance. In America the level of public discourse is so far below the gutter
level that a person who ventures forth to tell the truth can expect to be met
with violent hatred and every epithet in the book. Criticize ever so slightly
the Israeli government’s theft of Palestine, and the Israel Lobby will
immediately brand you an “anti-semite,” that is, a hater of Jews who wants to
send them to the gas chamber. If you don’t denounce whites, especially Southern
whites, as racists, you are not only a racist but also a member of the KKK who
wants to lynch blacks.
Yes, I know. It works also
in the other direction. If you don’t hate the left, you are one of them.
Because I criticized the George W. Bush regime for its war crimes,
conservatives branded me a “pinko-liberal-commie” and ceased to publish my
Hardly anyone, even
southerners, understands that racism in the South originated in the horrors
that were inflicted on the South during the Reconstruction era that followed
the military defeat of the Confederacy. The North inflicted blacks on
southerners in ways that harmed prospects for relations between the races and
gave rise to the KKK as a resistance movement. As Reconstruction faded, so did
the KKK. It was later revived as a shadow of its former self by poor whites who
were ambitious for personal power.
The question remains: How
can President Trump or anyone unite a country in which historical understanding
is buried in myths, lies, and the teaching of hate?
Try to imagine the
expressions of hatred and the denunciations that this factual article will
bring to me.
If we care about humanity
and the creatures on Earth, our task is to find and to speak the truth. That is
what I endeavor to do.
When the left abandoned
Marxism and the working class, the left died. It has no doctrine to sustain
itself, just hatreds based on historical ignorance and misunderstanding of the
limits within which life is lived. Humans are not superheros or magicians who
can reconstruct humanity by waving a wand or smashing evil. Everyone lives
within limitations, and the many submit more than do the few.
It is the few who fight
against the limits to whom we owe the defense of our humanity.
It is the haters who are the
barriers to moral and social progress.
It's difficult to keep
track of all the "shenanigans" which took place across the country
over the course of last year's Democratic primaries: Tallies vanishing in Iowa,
blatant electioneering in Massachusetts, buses full of unregistered voters
caucusing in Nevada, whatever the hell happened in Arizona — we still don't
know — we could drone on and on...
Then there's the New York
primary, which was a must-win for Clinton, and, as expected, was also rife with
The first head has
rolled after more than 100,000 voters were mistakenly purged from the Brooklyn
voter rolls ahead of this week's New York primary, which handed Hillary Clinton
a much-needed win over Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. Diane Haslett-Rudiano, the chief clerk of the New
York Board of Elections, was suspended "without pay, effective
immediately, pending an internal investigation into the administration of the
voter rolls in the Borough of Brooklyn," the agency said in a statement,
according to the New York Daily
elections officials said Haslett-Rudiano, who was in charge of the city's
Republican voter rolls, had been "scapegoated," according to
the New York Post. "It sounds like they cut a deal to make
the Republican the scapegoat and protect Betty Ann," an anonymous
Democratic elected official from Brooklyn told the Post, referring to
Betty Ann Canizio, who was in charge of the Democratic voter rolls.
On the day of the
primary, New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio, a Clinton supporter, said he'd
heard reports of
the "purging of entire buildings and blocks of voters from the voting
lists." He said, "The perception that numerous voters may have been
disenfranchised undermines the integrity of the entire electoral process."
New York State Board
of Elections spokesman Thomas Connolly told Think
Progress thateach complaint he'd followed up on had been
due to a mistake on the voter's part. "I've yet to come across [a voter
registration] that's been maliciously changed," he said. "There's always been a legitimate reason."
A few important things to
remember from this excerpt, which we'll return to shortly: 1. A Republican not
in charge of the Democratic voter rolles was scapegoated for purges done by an
Democratic Party official. 2. The NYC Board of Elections say they purged
"inactive" voters, but even DeBlasio confirms that entire
buildings and blocks were purged. Are we to believe that inactive voters
congregate and live together in the same buildings/neighborhoods? 3. Thomas
Connolly is about to eat his own words, because last
week it was announced that:
The U.S. Justice
Department is joining in on a lawsuit accusing the city Board of Elections of
breaking the law when it purged almost 120,000 voters in Brooklyn from the
rolls ahead of the April 2016 presidential primary. The DOJ filed a motion to intervene yesterday in a
federal lawsuit brought last year by the good-government group Common Cause.
In their filing, the feds
accuse the BOE of repeated violations of portions of the National Voter
Registration Act of 1993 governing voter list maintenance.
New York law requires
county voter registration systems to sync with the state Board of Elections'
database at least every 24 hours, but the New York City Elections Board
failed to notify the state of its mass purge for at least six months, according
to the DOJ. As a result, throughout 2015 and into early 2016, as the primaries
took shape and became so contentious that New York's mattered to the outcome of
the presidential nominations, purged voters who checked their registration
status through the state's online database would have found themselves listed
In other words, more than
120,000 voters in perhaps the most left-wing (see: pro-Bernie) part of the
state were purged and there was no way for them to know until it was
Clinton won the state by
well over 120,000 votes, but the voter purge in Brooklyn was just one of many
examples of election day shenanigans which took place during the New York
Ultimately, the question
is whether the Democrats were capable of recognizing that Clinton would have
issues in her adopted "home state", and able to take corrective
measures ahead of the primary.
On the one hand, the DNC
is basically a criminal enterprise. On the other hand, they're totally
June 8, 1967 — the fourth
day of the Six Day War between Israel and Egypt, Syria and Jordan — was a beautiful day in the Mediterranean. The USS
Liberty was in
international waters off the coast of Egypt. Israeli aircraft had flown over
the USS Liberty in the morning and had reported that the ship was American. The
crew, in close proximity to the war zone, was reassured by the presence of
Israeli aircraft. But at 2:00 p.m. sailors sunbathing on the deck saw fighter
jets coming at them in attack formation. Red flashes from the wings of the
fighters were followed by explosions, blood and death. A beautiful afternoon
suddenly became a nightmare. Who was attacking the USS Liberty and why? The
attack on the Liberty was an attack on America.
The Liberty was an
intelligence ship. Its purpose was to monitor Soviet and Arab communications in
order to warn both Israel and Washington should the Soviets enter the war on
behalf of its Arab allies. The Liberty was armed only with four machine guns to
repel boarders. Its request for a destroyer escort had been denied.
The assault on the Liberty
is well documented. With no warning, the Liberty was attacked by successive
waves of unmarked jets using cannon, rockets and napalm. The attacking jets
jammed all of the US communications frequencies, an indication they knew the
Liberty was an American ship.
The air attack failed to
sink the Liberty. About 30 minutes into the attack three torpedo boats appeared
flying the Star of David. The Israeli boats were not on a rescue mission. They
attacked the Liberty with cannon, machine guns and torpedoes. One torpedo
struck the Liberty mid-ship, instantly killing 25 Americans while flooding the
lower decks. The Israeli torpedo boats destroyed the life rafts the Liberty
launched when the crew prepared to abandon ship, sending the message there'd be
At approximately 3:15 two
French-built Israeli helicopters carrying armed Israeli troops appeared over
the Liberty. Phil Tourney could see their faces only 50/60 feet away. He gave
them the finger. Surviving crew members are convinced the Israelis were sent to
board and kill all survivors.
The Israeli jets
destroyed the Liberty's communication antennas. While under attack from the
jets, crew members strung lines that permitted the ship to send a call for
help. The USS Saratoga and the USS America launched fighters to drive off the
attacking aircraft, but the rescue mission was aborted by direct orders from
When the Liberty notified
the Sixth Fleet it was again under attack, this time from surface ships, the
Fleet commander ordered the carriers America and Saratoga to launch fighters to
destroy or drive off the attackers. The order was unencrypted and picked up by
Israel, which immediately called off its attack. The torpedo boats and the
hovering helicopters sped away. Israel quickly notified Washington that it had
mistakenly attacked an American ship, and the US fighters were recalled a
The USS Liberty suffered
70% casualties, with 34 killed and 174 wounded. Although the expensive state of
the art ship was kept afloat by the heroic crew, it later proved unsalvageable
and was sold as scrap.
Why didn't help come?
No explanation has ever
been given by the US government for Defense SecretaryRobert McNamara and PresidentLyndon B. Johnson's orders for the Sixth Fleet to abort the rescue
mission. Lt. Commander David Lewis of the Liberty told colleagues that Admiral L. R. Geis, commander of the Sixth Fleet carrier force, told him
that when he challenged McNamara's order to recall the rescue mission, LBJ came
on the line and said he didn't care if the ship sank, he wasn't going to
embarrass an ally. The communications officer handling the transmission has
given the same account.
A BBC documentary on the Israeli raid reports
confusion about the attacker's identity almost resulted in a US assault on
Egypt. Richard Parker, US political counsel in Cairo, confirms in the BBC
documentary he received official communication an American retaliatory attack
on Egypt was on its way.
The US government's
official position on the USS Liberty corresponds with Israel's: The attack was
unintentional and a result of Israeli blunders. This is the official position
despite the fact that CIA Director Richard Helms, Secretary of State Dean Rusk,
Assistant Secretary of State Lucius Battle, and a long list of US Navy
officers, government officials and Liberty survivors are on record saying the
Israeli attack was intentional.
According to Helms,
Battle and the minutes of a White House meeting, President Johnson believed the
attack was intentional. Helms says LBJ was furious and complained when The New
York Times buried the story on page 29, but that Johnson decided he had to
publicly accept Israel's explanation. "The political pressure was too
much," Helms said.
personnel, intelligence analysts and ambassadors report having read US
intercepts of Israeli orders to attack the Liberty. In one intercept an Israeli
pilot reports that the Liberty is an American ship and asks for a repeat and
clarification of his orders to attack an American ship. One Israeli who
identified himself as one of the pilots later came to America and met with US
Representative Pete McCloskey and Liberty survivors. The pilot said he had
refused to participate in the attack when he saw it was an American ship. He
was arrested upon returning to base.
The Liberty flew the US
flag. The ship's markings, GTR-5, measured several feet in height on both sides
of the bow. On the stern the ship was clearly marked USS LIBERTY. Mistaking the
Liberty for an Egyptian ship, as Israel claims to have done, was impossible.
Tattered flags show
ferocity of the attacks
The Israelis claim the
Liberty flew no flag, but two US flags full of holes from the attack exist.
When the first flag was shot down, crewmen replaced it with a flag 7-feet by
13-feet. This flag, with its battle scars, is on display at NSA headquarters at
Ft. Mead, Maryland.
Admiral John S. McCain
Jr., the father of the current US senator, ordered Admiral Isaac C. Kidd and Captain Ward
Boston to hold a court of inquiry and to complete the investigation in only one
week. In a signed affidavit Captain Boston said President Johnson ordered a
cover-up and that he and Admiral Kidd were prevented from doing a real
investigation. Liberty survivors were ordered never to speak to anyone about
the event. Their silence was finally broken when Lt. Commander Jim Ennes
published his book, Assault on the Liberty .
It is now established
fact that the attack on the Liberty was intentional and was covered up by
President Johnson and every administration since. There has never been a
congressional investigation, nor has the testimony of the majority of survivors
ever been officially taken. Moreover, testimony that conflicted with the
cover-up was deleted from the official record.
Disgusted by the US
government's official stance discounting the survivors' reports, Admiral Tom
Moorer, retired Chief of Naval Operations and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, organized the Moorer Commission to make public the known facts about the
attack and cover-up. The Commission consisted of Admiral Moorer, former Judge
Advocate General of the US Navy Admiral Merlin Staring, Marine Corps General
Raymond G. Davis and former US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia James Akins.
The Commission's Report concluded:
"That there is compelling evidence that
Israel's attack was a deliberate attempt to destroy an American ship and
kill her entire crew.
"That fearing conflict with Israel, the
White House deliberately prevented the US Navy from coming to the defense
of USS Liberty by recalling Sixth Fleet military rescue support while the
ship was under attack.
"That surviving crew members were threatened
with "court-martial, imprisonment or worse' if they exposed the
truth; and [the survivors] were abandoned by their own government.
"That there has been an official cover-up
without precedent in American naval history.
"That a danger to our national security
exists whenever our elected officials are willing to subordinate American
interests to those of any foreign nation."
Why did Israel attack the
Liberty? Was something super secret going on that is so damaging it must be
protected at all cost?
Some experts believe Tel
Aviv decided to sink the Liberty because the ship's surveillance capability
would discover Israel's impending invasion and capture of Syria's Golan
Heights, an action opposed by Washington. Others believe Israel was concerned
the Liberty would discover Israel's massacre of hundreds of Egyptian POWs, a
war crime contemporaneous with the attack on the US ship. Still others believe
that Israel intended to blame the attack on Egypt in order to bring America
into the war. It is known the US was providing Israel with reconnaissance and
that there were joint US-Israeli covert operations against the Arabs that
Washington was desperate to keep secret.
Survivors with whom I
spoke said the attack was the easy part of the experience. The hard part has
been living with 40 years of official cover-up and betrayal by the US
government. One survivor said that he was asked to leave his Baptist church
when he spoke about the Liberty, because the minister and fellow church-goers
felt more loyalty to Israel than to a member of the congregation who had served
his country. His church's position was that if our government believed Israel,
the survivors should also.
Survivor Phil Tourney
said that "being forced to live with a cover-up is like being raped and no
one will believe you."
Survivor Gary Brummett
said he "feels like someone who has been locked up for 40 years on a
wrongful conviction." Until the US government acknowledges the truth of
the attack, Brummett says the survivors are forced to live with the anger and
dismay of being betrayed by the country they served.
Survivor Bryce Lockwood
has been angry for 40 years. The torpedo that killed his shipmates, wrecked his
ship and damaged his health was made in the USA.
Survivor Ernie Gallo told
me he "has been haunted for four decades" by the knowledge that his
commander-in-chief recalled the US fighters that could have prevented most of
the Liberty's casualties.
Every American should be
troubled by the fact that the President of the United States and the Secretary
of Defense prevented the US Sixth Fleet from protecting a US Navy ship and its
294-man crew from foreign attack. They should also be troubled that the
President ordered the Navy to determine the attack was unintentional.
guys and gals. You can figure this out for yourself. There are two obvious
reasons. One is that Trump thinks the attacks on him were political from the
top and did not involve the rank and file. The other is that time and energy
are limited, and he doesn’t want to be deterred from his agenda by fights with
hope Trump is correct.
If he is
another fake like Obama, we will know soon enough.
Trump to CIA: Media made it sound like I had a feud with intelligence community
President Donald Trump spoke at CIA Headquarters on his first stop as the newly inaugurated commander in chief telling the intelligence agency that despite media reports he is not at war with the intelligence community.
“The reason you’re my first stop is as you know I have a running war with the media- they are among the most dishonest beings on earth, they say I have a feud with the intelligence community. The reason you’re my first stop is exactly the opposite,” Trump said.
"I am so behind you," he told CIA officials at Langley, Virginia.
Trump continued with examples of the “dishonest media” claiming they skewed attendance figures for his inauguration citing lower numbers and showing images of an empty field.
He also called out Time magazine for running a false story stating that he had removed Martin Luther King’s bust from the Oval Office when it was in fact just blocked from view by a cameraman.
The Washington Post & New
York Times Are “Disappointed” in Trump’s Inaugural Address
Post and Times are beside themselves over President Trump’s forceful attack on
the rapacious and immoral American Ruling Establishment for whom the two pretend
newspapers are such faithful servants.
The Clinton Foundation Is Dead — But The Case Against Hillary Isn't
While everyone's been gearing up for President Trump's inauguration, the Clinton Foundation made a major announcement this week that went by with almost no notice: For all intents and purposes, it's closing its doors.
In a tax filing, the Clinton Global Initiative said it's firing 22 staffers and closing its offices, a result of the gusher of foreign money that kept the foundation afloat suddenly drying up after Hillary Clinton failed to win the presidency.
It proves what we've said all along: The Clinton Foundation was little more than an influence-peddling scheme to enrich the Clintons, and had little if anything to do with "charity," either overseas or in the U.S. That sound you heard starting in November was checkbooks being snapped shut in offices around the world by people who had hoped their donations would buy access to the next president of the United States.
And why not? There was a strong precedent for it in Hillary Clinton's tenure as secretary of state. While serving as the nation's top diplomat, the Clinton Foundation took money from at least seven foreign governments — a clear breach of Clinton's pledge on taking office that there would be total separation between her duties and the foundation.
Is there a smoking gun? Well, of the 154 private interests who either officially met or had scheduled phone talks with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state, at least 85 were donors to the Clinton Foundation or one of its programs.
All the way back in May, we outlined how the Clinton Foundation had taken in $100 million from a collection of Gulf sheikhs and billionaires, along with millions from private businesses, who expected — and received — special access to the State Department's top official, Hillary.
In his 2015 book "Clinton Cash," author Peter Schweizer showed how during Hillary's years in government "the Clintons have conducted or facilitated hundreds of large transactions (either as private citizens or government officials) with foreign governments, corporations and private financiers." He called the sums going to the Clintons "staggering."
Using the Freedom of Information Act, Judicial Watch in August obtained emails (that had been hidden from investigators) showing that Clinton's top State Department aide, Huma Abedin, had given "special expedited access to the secretary of state" for those who gave $25,000 to $10 million to the Clinton Foundation. Many of those were facilitated by a former executive of the foundation, Doug Band, who headed Teneo, a shell company that managed the Clintons' affairs.
As part of this elaborate arrangement, Abedin was given special permission to work for the State Department, the Clinton Foundation and Teneo — another very clear conflict of interest.
As Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said at the time, "These new emails confirm that Hillary Clinton abused her office by selling favors to Clinton Foundation donors."
The seedy saga doesn't end there. Indeed, there are so many facets to it, some may never be known. But there is still at least one and possibly four active federal investigations into the Clintons' supposed charity.
Americans aren't willing to forgive and forget. Earlier this month, the IBD/TIPP Poll asked Americans whether they would like President Obama to pardon Hillary for any crimes she may have committed as secretary of state, including the illegal use of an unsecured homebrew email server. Of those queried, 57% said no. So if public sentiment is any guide, the Clintons' problems may just be beginning.
Writing in the Washington Post in August of 2016, Charles Krauthammer pretty much summed up the whole tawdry tale: "The foundation is a massive family enterprise disguised as a charity, an opaque and elaborate mechanism for sucking money from the rich and the tyrannous to be channeled to Clinton Inc.," he wrote. "Its purpose is to maintain the Clintons' lifestyle (offices, travel accommodations, etc.), secure profitable connections, produce favorable publicity and reliably employ a vast entourage of retainers, ready to serve today and at the coming Clinton Restoration."
Except, now there is no Clinton Restoration. So there's no reason for any donors to give money to the foundation. It lays bare the fiction of a massive "charitable organization," and shows it for what it was: a scam to sell for cash the waning influence of the Democrats' pre-eminent power couple. As far as the charity landscape goes, the Clinton Global Initiative won't be missed.