American President has no policies. There are policies drawn by the American
institutions which control the American regime which are the intelligence
agencies, the Pentagon, the big arms and oil companies, and financial
institutions, in addition to some other lobbies which influence American
decision-making. The American President merely implements these policies, and
the evidence is that when Trump tried to move on a different track, during and
after his election campaign, he couldn’t. He came under a ferocious attack. As
we have seen in the past few week, he changed his rhetoric completely and
subjected himself to the terms of the deep American state, or the deep American
regime. That’s why it is unrealistic and a complete waste of time to make an
assessment of the American President’s foreign policy, for he might say
something; but he ultimately does what these institutions dictate to him. This
is not new. This has been ongoing American policy for decades.”
Assad Just Explained How The U.S. Really Works
27, 2017 "Information Clearing House" - While Americans endlessly battle each other
over seemingly important choices like Clinton and Trump or Democrats and
Republicans, it is clear that the majority of the population has little
understanding of how the U.S. government operates. Yet, for those who pay the
price for the apathy and confusion of the general population of the West, it
often becomes stunningly obvious that neither presidents nor political parties
in America represent any discernible difference in the ongoing agenda of the
Deep State and the rest of the oligarchical apparatus. Indeed, that agenda
always marches forward regardless of who is president or which political party
is in control.
He has betrayed the
Constitution, which he swore to uphold.
He has committed treason by
befriending Russia and other enemies of America.
He has subjugated America’s
interests to Moscow.
He has been caught in fantastic
lies to the American people, including personal ones, like his previous
marriage and divorce.
President Donald Trump?
No, President John F. Kennedy.
What lots of Americans don’t realize, because it was kept secret from
them for so long, is that what Trump has been enduring from the
national-security establishment, the mainstream press, and the American
right-wing for his outreach to, or “collusion with,” Russia pales compared to
what Kennedy had to endure for committing the heinous “crime” of reaching out
to Russia and the rest of the Soviet Union in a spirit of peace and friendship.
They hated him for it. They abused him. They insulted him. They
belittled him. They called him naïve. They said he was a traitor.
All of the nasties listed above, plus more, were contained in an
advertisement and a flier that appeared in Dallas on the morning of November
22, 1963, the day that Kennedy was assassinated. They can be read here and here.
Ever since then, some people have tried to make it seem like the
advertisement and flier expressed only the feelings of extreme right-wingers in
Dallas. That’s nonsense. They expressed the deeply held convictions of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, the CIA, the conservative movement, and many people
within the mainstream media and Washington establishment.
In June 1963, Kennedy threw down the gauntlet in a speech he delivered
at American University, now entitled the “Peace Speech.” It was one of the most remarkable
speeches ever delivered by an American president. It was broadcast all across
the communist Soviet Union, the first time that had ever been done.
In the speech, Kennedy announced that he was bringing an end to the Cold
War and the mindset of hostility toward Russia and the rest of the Soviet Union
that the U.S. national-security establishment had inculcated in the minds of
the American people ever since the end of World War II.
It was a radical notion and, as Kennedy well understood, a very
dangerous one insofar as he was concerned. The Cold War against America’s World
War II partner and ally had been used to convert the United States from a
limited-government republic to a national-security state, one consisting of a
vast, permanent military establishment, the CIA, and the NSA, along with their
broad array of totalitarian-like powers, such as assassination, regime change,
coups, invasions, torture, surveillance, and the like. Everyone was convinced
that the Cold War — and the so-called threat from the international communist
conspiracy that was supposedly based in Russia — would last forever, which
would naturally mean permanent and ever-increasing largess for what Kennedy’s
predecessor, President Dwight Eisenhower, had called the
Suddenly, Kennedy was upending the Cold War apple cart by threatening to
establish a relationship of friendship and peaceful coexistence with Russia,
the rest of the Soviet Union, and Cuba.
Kennedy knew full well that his actions were considered by some to be a
grave threat to “national security.” After all, don’t forget that it was
Guatemalan President Jacobo Arbenz’s outreach to the Soviets in a spirit of
friendship that got him ousted from power by the CIA and presumably targeted
for assassination as part of that regime-change operation. It was Cuban leader
Fidel Castro’s outreach to the Soviets in a spirit of friendship that made him
the target of Pentagon and CIA regime-change operations, including through invasion,
assassination, and sanctions. It was Congo leader’s Patrice Lamumba’s outreach
to the Soviets in a spirit of friendship that got him targeted for
assassination by the CIA. It would be Chilean President Salvador Allende’s
outreach to the Soviets in a spirit of friendship that got him targeted in a
CIA-instigated coup in Chile that resulted in Allende’s death.
Kennedy wasn’t dumb. He knew what he was up against. He had heard
Eisenhower warn the American people in his Farewell Address about the dangers
to their freedom and democratic way of life posed by the military
establishment. After Kennedy had read the novel Seven Days in May, which
posited the danger of a military coup in America, he asked friends in Hollywood
to make it into a movie to serve as a warning to the American people. In the
midst of the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the Pentagon and the CIA were exerting
extreme pressure on Kennedy to bomb and invade Cuba, his brother Bobby told a
Soviet official with whom he was negotiating that the president was under a
severe threat of being ousted in a coup. And, of course, Kennedy was fully
mindful of what had happened to Arbenz, Lamumba, and Castro for doing what
Kennedy was now doing — reaching out to the Soviets in a spirit of friendship.
In the eyes of the national-security establishment, one simply did not
reach out to Russia, Cuba, or any other “enemy” of America. Doing so, in their
eyes, made Kennedy an appeaser, betrayer, traitor, and a threat to “national
Kennedy didn’t stop with his Peace Speech. He also began negotiating a
treaty with the Soviets to end above-ground nuclear testing, an action that
incurred even more anger and ire within the Pentagon and the CIA. Yes, that’s
right — they said that “national security” depended on the U.S. government’s
continuing to do what they object to North Korea doing today — conducting
nuclear tests, both above ground and below ground.
Kennedy mobilized public opinion to overcome fierce opposition in the
military, CIA, Congress, and the Washington establishment to secure passage of
his Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
He then ordered a partial withdrawal of troops from Vietnam, and told
close aides that he would order a complete pull-out after winning the 1964
election. In the eyes of the U.S. national-security establishment, leaving
Vietnam subject to a communist takeover would pose a grave threat to national
security here in the United States.
Worst of all, from the standpoint of the national-security
establishment, Kennedy began secret personal negotiations with Soviet Premier
Nikita Khrushchev and Cuban leader Fidel Castro to bring an end to America’s
Cold War against them. That was considered to be a grave threat to “national
security” as well as a grave threat to all the military and intelligence largess
that depended on the Cold War.
By this time, Kennedy’s war with the national-security establishment was
in full swing. He had already vowed to tear the CIA into a thousand pieces and
scatter it to the winds after its perfidious conduct in the Bay of Pigs fiasco.
By this time, he had also lost all confidence in the military after it proposed
an all-out surprise nuclear attack on the Soviet Union, much as Japan had done
at Pearl Harbor, after the infamous plan known as Operation Northwoods, which
proposed terrorist attacks and plane hijackings carried out by U.S. agents
posing as Cuban communists, so as to provide a pretext for invading Cuba, and
after the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the military establishment accused him of
appeasement and treason for agreeing not to ever invade Cuba again.
What Kennedy didn’t know was that his “secret” negotiations with the
Soviet and Cuban communists weren’t so secret after all. As it turns out, it
was a virtual certainty that the CIA (or NSA) was listening in on telephone
conversations of Cuban officials at the UN in New York City, much as the CIA
and NSA still do today, during which they would have learned what the president
was secretly doing behind their backs.
Kennedy’s feelings toward the people who were calling him a traitor for
befriending Moscow and other “enemies” of America? In response to the things
that were said in that advertisement and flier about him being a traitor for
befriending Russia, he told his wife Jackie on the morning he was assassinated:
“We are heading into nut country today.” Of course, as he well knew, the nuts
weren’t located only in Dallas. They were also situated throughout the U.S.
For more information, attend The Future of Freedom Foundation’s one-day
conference on June 3, 2017, entitled “The National Security State and JFK” at the Washington Dulles Marriott
Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom
Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in
economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the
University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also
was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and
economics. In 1987, Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become director
of programs at the Foundation for Economic Education.
Years ago James Jesus Angleton left me with the
impression that when an intelligence agency, such as the CIA, pulls off an
assassination, bombing, or any event with which the agency does not wish to be
associated, the agency uses the media to control the explanation by quickly
putting into place a cover story that, along with several others, has been
prepared in advance. I suggested that the new story that “the Saudis did 9/11”
was put into play to take the place of the worn and battered first cover story. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/07/20/is-the-saudi-911-story-part-of-the-deception-paul-craig-roberts/
The fact that it made no sense did not stop many from
believing it. It did not occur to people more gullible than thoughtful that a
gangster would simply get another woman and not take the risk of assassinating
the US president over a woman. The last thing the Mafia would want would be for
Attorney General Robert Kennedy to bring the law down on the Mafia like a ton
Another cover story was that Castro did it. This made
even less sense. JFK had nixed the Joint Chiefs/CIA plan to invade Cuba, and he
had refused air cover to the CIA’s Bay of Pigs invasion. JFK would certainly
not be on Castro’s hit list.
Another cover story was that Lyndon Johnson was behind
Kennedy’s assassination. As I wrote, there is no doubt that LBJ covered up the
Joint Chiefs/CIA/Secret Service plot against JFK, as any president would have
done, because the alternative was to destroy the American people’s confidence
in the US military and security agencies. The Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court also covered up the plot, as did the Warren Commission, the media, and
The “Johnson did it” story is the most preposterous of
all. The Joint Chiefs, CIA, Secret Service, Chief Justice, Congress, and Media
are not going to participate in the murder of a President and its coverup just
for the sake of the VP’s personal ambition. The idea that so many strong
institutions would permit a VP to murder a President for no reason other than
the personal ambition of the VP is beyond absurdity.
Speaking of cover stories, I wonder if that is what we
are witnessing in the leaked information to the New York Times about the
Manchester Bombing. The only point of the leak is to set the story in place.
The British complaints about the leaked information serve to disguise the
Setting a story in place early crowds out other
explanations. Remember, the government claims to have had no warning of 9/11
but knew instantly who did it and set the story in place. The same for the
Paris events, the Nice event, the Boston Marathon bombing, and I think all the
Authorities quickly come up with a story and names of
those responsible. The alleged perpetrators or patsies, take your choice, are
always dead and, thereby, unable to deny that they did it or say who put them
up to it. The only exception that comes to mind is the younger brother who has
been associated with the Boston Marathon bombing. Despite two police attempts
to shoot him to death, he inconveniently survived, but has never been seen or
heard from. As his orchestrated trial, his court appointed attorney confessed
for him, and the jury convicted on her confession.
Remember, Oswald was shot dead by Jack Ruby before
Oswald was questioned by police. There is no explanation for an armed private
citizen being inside the jail with Oswald and positioned to shoot him at close
range. Clearly, Oswald was not to be permitted to give his story. And no patsie
since has either.
This Memorial Day, Monday,
May 29, 2017, is the 100th birthday of John Fitzgerald Kennedy, the 35th
President of the United States.
JFK was assassinated on
November 22, 1963, as he approached the end of his third year in office.
Researchers who spent years studying the evidence have concluded that President
Kennedy was assassinated by a conspiracy between the CIA, Joint Chiefs of
Staff, and Secret Service.
Kennedy entered office as
a cold warrior, but he learned from his interaction with the CIA and Joint Chiefs
that the military/security complex had an agenda that was self-interested and a
danger to humanity. He began working to defuse tensions with the Soviet Union.
His rejections of plans to invade Cuba, of the Northwoods project, of a
preemptive nuclear attack on the Soviet Union, and his intention to withdraw
from Vietnam after his reelection, together with some of his speeches signaling
a new approach to foreign policy in the nuclear age (see for example, https://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/BWC7I4C9QUmLG9J6I8oy8w.aspx ), convinced the military/security complex that
he was a threat to their interests. Cold War conservatives regarded him as
naive about the Soviet Threat and a liability to US national security. These
were the reasons for his assassination.These views were set in stone when
Kennedy announced on June 10, 1963, negotiations with the Soviets toward a
nuclear test ban treaty and a halt to US atmospheric nuclear tests.
The Oswald coverup story
never made any sense and was contradicted by all evidence including tourist
films of the assassination. President Johnson had ro cover up the
assassination, not because he was part of it or because he willfully wanted to
deceive the American people, but because to give Americans the true story would
have shaken their confidence in their government at a critical time in
US-Soviet relations. To make the coverup succeed, Johnson needed the
credibility of the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, Earl Warren, to chair
the commission that covered up the assassination. Warren understood the
devastating impact the true story would have on the public and their confidence
in the military and national security leadership and on America’s allies.
As I previously reported,
Lance deHaven-Smith in his book, Conspiracy Theory in America,
shows that the CIA introduced “conspiracy theory” into the political lexicon as
a technique to discredit skepticism of the Warren Commission’s coverup report.
He provides the CIA document that describes how the agency used its media
friends to control the explanation.
The term “conspiracy
theory” has been used ever since to validate false explanations by discrediting
President Kennedy was also
determined to require the Israel Lobby to register as a foreign agent and to
block Israel’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. His assassination removed the
constraints on Israel’s illegal activities. http://www.voltairenet.org/article178401.html
Memorial Day is when
Americans honor those in the armed services who died serving the country. JFK
fell while serving the causes of peace and nuclear disarmament. In a 1961 address
to the United Nations, President Kennedy said:
“Today, every inhabitant
of this planet must contemplate the day when this planet may no longer be
inhabitable. Every man, woman and child lives under a nuclear sword of
Damocles, hanging by the slenderest of threads, capable of being cut at any
moment by accident or miscalculation or by madness. The weapons of war must be
abolished before they abolish us. It is therefore our intention to challenge
the Soviet Union, not to an arms race, but to a peace race – to advance
together step by step, stage by stage, until general and complete disarmament
has been achieved.”
Kennedy’s address was well
received at home and abroad and received a favorable and supportive response
from Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, but it caused consternation among the
warhawks in the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The US led in terms of the number of
nuclear warheads and delivery systems, and this lead was the basis for US
military plans for a surprise nuclear attack on the Soviet Union. http://prospect.org/article/did-us-military-plan-nuclear-first-strike-1963 Also, Many believed that nuclear disarmament would
remove the obstacle to the Soviet Army overrunning Western Europe. Warhawks
considered this a greater threat than nuclear armageddon. Many in high military
circles regarded President Kennedy as weakening the US viv-a-vis the Soviet
The assassination of
President Kennedy was an enormous cost to the world. Kennedy and Khrushchev
would have followed up their collaboration in defusing the Cuban Missile Crisis
by ending the Cold War long before the military/security complex achieved its iron
grip on the US government. Israel would have been denied nuclear weapons, and
the designation of the Israel Lobby as a foreign agent would have prevented
Israel’s strong grip on the US government. In his second term, JFK would have
broken the CIA into a thousand pieces, an intention he expressed to his
brother, Robert, and the Deep State would have been terminated before it became
more powerful than the President.
But the military/security
complex struck first, and pulled off a coup that voided all these promises and
terminated American democracy.
Those of us who have exited The Matrix are concerned
that there are no checks on Washington’s use of nuclear weapons in the interest
of US hegemony over the world.
Washington and Israel are the threats to peace.
Washington demands world hegemony, and Israel demands hegemony in the Middle
There are two countries that stand in the way of
Washington’s world hegemony—Russia and China. Consequently, Washington has
plans for preemptive nuclear strikes against both countries. It is difficult to
imagine a more serious threat to mankind, and there is no awareness or
acknowledgment of this threat among the Congress, the presstitute media, and
the general public in the United States and Washington’s European vassal
Two countries and a part of a third stand in the way
of Greater Israel. Israel wants the water resources of southern Lebanon, but
cannot get them, despite twice sending in the Israeli Army, because of the
Lebanese Hezbollah militia, which is supplied by Syria and Iran. This is why
Syria and Iran are on Washington’s hit list. Washington serves the
military/security complex, Wall Street and the over-sized US banks, and Israel.
It is unclear if the Russians and Chinese understand
that Washington’s hostility toward them is not just some sort of misunderstanding
that diplomacy can work out.
Clearly, Russia hasn’t interfered in the US
presidential election or invaded Ukraine, and does not intend to invade Poland
or the Baltics. Russia let go the Soviet empire and is glad to see it gone, as
the empire was expensive and of little benefit. The Soviet Eastern European
empire comprised Stalin’s buffer against another Western invasion. The Warsaw
Pact had no offensive meaning. It was not the beginning, as misrepresented in
Washington, of Soviet world domination.
I see a lack of clarity about the threat that Russia
faces in Russian media reports and articles posted on Russian English language
websites. I see a lack of clarity in Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov’s
continued efforts to work out an accommodation with Washington. How can Lavrov
work out an accommodation with Washington when Washington intends to dominate
or isolate Russia?
Lavrov and Russian media organizations do not always
show awareness that it is not Washington’s intention to accommodate other
It cannot be otherwise for these three reasons:
budget for the US military/security complex is the largest in the world.
It is larger than the Gross Domestic Product of many countries. It
includes not only the Pentagon’s budget but also the budgets of 16 US
intelligence agencies and the Department of Energy, which is the location
of the Oak Ridge nuclear weapons plant and 16 other national laboratories.
When all the elements are added together, the military/security complex
has annually the power and profit from $1,000 billion. An empire of this
sort just doesn’t give up and go away because some president or some part
of the electorate want peace. The “Russian Threat” is essential to the
power and profit of the military/security complex, about which President
Eisenhower warned Americans 56 years ago. Just imagine how entrenched this power is now.
neoconservatives, who control both US foreign policy and the Western
media’s explanation of it, are mainly Jews of Zionist persuasion. Some are
dual Israeli-US citizens. The neoconservatives believe that the collapse
of Soviet communism means that History has chosen the United States as the
socio-politico-economic system, and that the US government has the
responsibility to assert the hegemony of America over the earth. Just read
the neocon documents. They assert this over and over. This is what it
means that America is the exceptional and indispensable nation. If you are
the indispensable nation, every other nation is dispensable. If you are
exceptional, everyone else is unexceptional.The claim that the
neoconservatives make for the US is similar to the claim that Hitler made
Israel controls US Middle East policy, Israel uses its control to have
Washington eliminate obstacles to Israel’s expansion. So far Israel has
achieved the overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s government and chaos in Iraq,
Washington’s war on Syria, and Washington’s demonization of Iran in the
hope that sufficient demonization will justify war.
For the Russian Foreign Minister to believe that it is
possible to reach an accommodation with Washington, other than a Russian
surrender, is nonsense. Perhaps this is Lavrov’s use of diplomacy to delay the
US attack while Russia prepares. Or perhaps Lavrov is just a diplomat who
sticks to his last, despite the facts.
Much of the Russian media, both in Russian and foreign
language broadcasts and websites, thinks that the Western misrepresentation of
Russia is just a mistake and that that facts, once they are established, can
rectify the mistake. These Russian journalists don’t understand that Washington
could not care less about facts. Washington desperately needs an enemy, and
Russia is the enemy of choice.
The Chinese government seems to think that Wall Street
and US corporations are too dependent on the cheap Chinese manufacturing labor,
which keeps the US system fueled with profits, to jeopardize these profits by
going to war.
By underplaying the risk of war, Russia and China fail
to mobilize world opposition to Washington’s recklessness and, thereby, enable
Washington’s move toward war.
The presstitutes serving the National Security State
continue to drive toward conflict. Consider Newsweek’s May 26, 2017, cover
story with Putin on the cover and the caption:
“The Plot Against America:
Inside Putin’s Campaign to Destroy Democracy in the U.S.”
It is difficult to imagine such ignorant nonsense from
a mainstream news magazine. Democracy in America has been destroyed by special
interest groups, by a US Supreme Court decision that gave the reins of power to
special interest groups, and by a hoax war on terror that has destroyed the US
Constitution. And here we have the presstitutes saying that Putin is destroying
American democracy. Clearly, there is no extant intelligence anywhere in the
Western media. The Western presstitutes are either corrupt beyond belief or
ignorant beyond belief. Nothing else can be said for them.
Consider Time magazine’s cover. It depicts Trump
turning the White House into the foundation for the Kremlin and St. Basil’s
Cathedral, which rise above the White House, symbolizing America’s subservience
to Russia under President Trump. This extraordinary propaganda seems to be
readily accepted by the bulk of the Western populations, peoples who will die
as a result of their insouciance.
Even writers critical of Washington, such as Paul
Street’s recent article on CounterPunch and the English language Russian
website, Strategic Culture Foundation, cannot bring themselves to state the
truth that the US military/security complex needs a major enemy, has elected
Russia for that role, and intends to defend this orchestration to the end of
humanity on earth.
Street writes about “How Russia Became ‘Our Adversary’
Again.” According to Street, Russia became the enemy of choice because Russia
protected part of the world’s population and resources from being exploited by
global capital. Russia became the number one enemy of the US also because Putin
stopped the American exploitation of Russia economically. Putin is in the way
of Washington’s exploitation of the world.
Much of what Street says is correct, but he is
hesitant to state it in a straightforward manner. He has to dilute his message
by repeating the obligatory propaganda. Street calls Trump, who originally
wanted normal relations with Russia, an “orange-haired brute . . . [who
admires] Putin’s authoritarian manliness.”
Trump’s problems originated in his goal of normalizing
relations with Russia. Hillary is the brute who intended to worsen the
Putin is a democrat, not an authoritarian. The
authoritarians are in Washington. Surely Paul Street and CounterPunch know
this. But Street has to protect himself from speaking some politically
incorrect truths about the US and Russia by throwing in some anti-Putin
propaganda and denigrating President Trump.
That peace with Russia and China would undermine the
justification of the $1,000 billion military/security budget, and that the
military/security complex is the American government, is too much
truth for most writers to state.
Truth is the most rare element in the Western world,
and we will not be permitted to have much of it much longer. Increasingly, truth
is difficult to find. Soak it up while it is still available.