Home » Posts tagged 'Obama' (Page 11)

Tag Archives: Obama

The owners of U.S. newsmedia know that in order to serve their fellow U.S. aristocrats who want to kick out Russia’s current leader, Vladimir Putin, so as to enable them to buy Russia’s natural resources (and highly educated work-forces) cheap via “privatizations,” their PR campaign for their fellow aristocrats (their major advertisers) must be led by ‘respectable’ newsmedia, such as Foreign Policy magazine, and not by blatantly right-wing, obviously trashy, ones, such as Fox News. Overtly conservative, nationalistic, ‘news’ media wouldn’t be able to sell to anyone who isn’t already on-board with privatizations of government assets as being a fundamental “free market” principle (i.e, equating fascism — the actual originator of privatizations — with constituting ‘capitalism,’ confusing the two systems as being one-and-the-same). So: not only the fascist media are anti-Putin, but media that pretend not to be are also.

Also important, however, is to black out entirely from all U.S. reporting, the U.S. Government’s now very active campaign to conquer Russia by installing next door to Russia, in its former buffer states (the Warsaw Pact nations), new NATO nations, such as Obama hopes to achieve in Ukraine by his February 2014 coup e’etat, which violently overthrew that nation’s then-neutralist democratically elected President, whom U.S. newsmedia very prominently reported was corrupt (in order to fool Americans into thinking that this was somehow a justified overthrow), while they didn’t report that all previous leaders of Ukraine had also been corrupt, so that this U.S. excuse for overthrowing Ukraine’s President Viktor Yanukovych was entirely fake — not just illegitimate, but fake. Furthermore, they didn’t report that the reason why Yanukovych had turned down the EU’s offer (which the U.S. had backed, and which turndown by him was America’s other main excuse for overthrowing him) was that it would have cost Ukraine $160 billion.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Where the TPP Could Lose

August 17, 2015

Where the TPP Could Lose

After years of secret negotiations and silence in the media, the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) has risen to headline news. Now that Congress has voted to give President Obama “fast-track” trade promotion authority to push the deal through the House and Senate with limited debate and no amendments, efforts to finalize the agreement among member countries are proceeding in earnest.

But even if negotiators can reach a final accord, which is far from certain, the pact must still be approved by other national legislatures. And here, the United States is not the only country we should be watching. In Chile, where the administration of President Michelle Bachelet has moved forward with the TPP negotiation process, opposition is strong in the legislature. Even Bachelet’s minister of foreign affairs has indicated that Chile won’t sign the agreement if the TPP doesn’t meet certain criteria.

The Chilean controversy over the TPP highlights some of the biggest problems with the agreement — for working people in Chile, the United States, and around the world — and it makes plain the false promises the Obama administration used to push Democrats to support fast track.

That a no vote from Chile might unravel the agreement as a whole — or inspire other legislatures to follow suit — may be wishful thinking. But growing opposition in that country is a reminder of what’s at stake and why it’s so important for national legislators — in the United States and abroad — to take a stand against bad trade deals. And it highlights the power that organized citizens have to hold politicians accountable and make the TPP vulnerable.

Corporate Boondoggle

The TPP would unite 12 Pacific Rim countries — Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam — in an agreement so big it would account for 40 percent of the global economy.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

When the next crisis comes, which movements will seize the opportunity?

August 16, 2015

When the next crisis comes, which movements will seize the opportunity?

You, too, could be caught in a situation where people are ready for an alternative, yet your group has none to offer.

It’s understandable. We who work for change seem years away from convincing a critical mass of people that it is both stupid and wrong to have a school-to-prison pipeline, or a rate of carbon emissions killing hundreds of thousands of people, or a “national security strategy” that mainly breeds insecurity.

Historic change does not always have the gradual-then-accelerating curve shown by the LGBTQ movement. At times, a system goes into crisis. In 2007-2008 financial sectors in many countries skidded toward the cliff; Iceland’s even went over the cliff. Crisis equals opportunity, for those who are ready to use it.

I asked a Washington, D.C., friend who works among progressive Democrats what he heard after the Wall Street disaster. Did people in his circle discuss organizing the strong, grassroots anger into a push for major reform? He knew of none. As it turned out, that anger was organized by the right and became the Tea Party. Polls show that even today many people identifying as Tea Party members express hostility to Wall Street.

All this missed opportunity should be seen in the context of Barack Obama’s presidency, since it was he who said, during his candidacy, that the Swedish solution to its own banking crisis had been correct: Seize the banks rather than bail them out. (In a recent New Yorker article on Greece, former finance minister Yanis Varoufakis said President Obama told him that the U.S. bailout was against his personal politics.)

Presidents do what they do, given the existing power realities they face. The lesson for us in the United States is: In 2009 we lacked a powerful movement that had a vision, and was willing to mobilize direct action on behalf of that vision.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

US-NATO Military Deployments, Economic Warfare, Goldman Sachs and the Next Financial Meltdown

August 15, 2015

US-NATO Military Deployments, Economic Warfare, Goldman Sachs and the Next Financial Meltdown

Is There a Relationship?

What is the relationship between war in a military theater and “economic warfare”?

An act of war is invariably an economic undertaking which supports dominant corporate interests. The conduct of US-NATO military operations is carried out on behalf of powerful financial institutions.

US led wars in the Middle East under the humanitarian mantle of the “global war on terrorism” largely serve the interests of Wall Street, the Anglo-american oil conglomerates, the so-called ‘defense contractors”, the biotech conglomerates (Monsanto et al), Big Pharma and the corporate media.

But modern warfare is by no means limited to the sphere of military and intelligence operations. Washington not only imposes economic sanctions on countries which do not support its imperial agenda, it also fosters the outright destabilization of national economies. While the Pentagon and NATO coordinate military operations against sovereign countries, Wall Street carries out concurrent destabilizing actions on financial markets including the rigging of the oil, gold and foreign exchange markets directed against Russia and China.

It’s called “financial warfare”, it’s part of the same global agenda, it’s implemented alongside and in coordination with the Worldwide deployment of the US-NATO’s military machine.

In this regard, Obama’s “Pivot to Asia” directed against China involving the deployment of US naval forces in the South China Sea, is reinforced through concurrent destabilizing actions on the Shanghai stock exchange. The ultimate intent is to undermine –through non-military means– the national economy of the People’s Republic of China.

War and Financial Warfare

Is financial warfare coordinated with political decision-making pertaining to major military and intelligence operations?

Acts of financial warfare require intelligence; they often require consultation and coordination at the highest levels of government. While the decision making process between the military-intelligence apparatus and the corporate financial system is by no means integrated, it nonetheless overlaps through a system of cross appointments and consultations.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Big Oil in Retreat

August 15, 2015

Big Oil in Retreat

On July 14, 2011, at TomDispatch, Bill McKibben wrote that he and a few other “veteran environmentalists” had issued a call for activists to descend on the White House and “risk arrest to demand something simple and concrete from President Obama: that he refuse to grant a license for Keystone XL, a new pipeline from Alberta to the Gulf of Mexico that would vastly increase the flow of tar sands oil through the U.S., ensuring that the exploitation of Alberta’s tar sands will only increase.” It must have seemed like a long shot at the time, but McKibben urged the prospective demonstrators on, pointing out that “Alberta’s tar sands are the continent’s biggest carbon bomb,” especially “dirty” to produce and burn in terms of the release of carbon dioxide and so the heating of the planet.

Just over four years later, the president, whose administration recently green-lighted Shell to do test-drilling in the dangerous waters of the American Arctic, opened the South Atlantic to new energy exploration and drilling earlier this year, and oversaw the expansion of the fracking fields of the American West, has yet to make, or at least announce, a final decision on that pipeline. Can anyone doubt that, if there had been no demonstrations against it, if it hadn’t become a major issue for his “environmental base,” the Keystone XL would have been approved without a second thought years ago? Now, it may be too late for a variety of reasons.

The company that plans to build the pipeline, TransCanada Corporation, already fears the worst — a presidential rejection that indeed may soon be in the cards. After all, we’ve finally hit the “legacy” part of the Obama era. In the case of war, the president oversaw the escalation of the conflict in Afghanistan soon after taking office, sent in the bombers and drones, and a year ago plunged the country back into its third war in Iraq and first in Syria.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

US Military Uses IMF and World Bank to Launder 85% of Its Black Budget

August 14, 2015

US Military Uses IMF and World Bank to Launder 85% of Its Black Budget

Though transparency was a cause he championed when campaigning for the presidency, President Obama has largely avoided making certain defense costs known to the public. However, when it comes to military appropriations for government spy agencies, we know from Freedom of Information Act requests that the so-called “black budget” is an increasingly massive expenditure subsidized by American taxpayers. The CIA and and NSA alone garnered $52.6 billion in funding in 2013 while the Department of Defense black ops budget for secret military projects exceeds this number. It is estimated to be $58.7 billion for the fiscal year 2015.

What is the black budget? Officially, it is the military’s appropriations for “spy satellites, stealth bombers, next-missile-spotting radars, next-gen drones, and ultra-powerful eavesdropping gear.”

However, of greater interest to some may be the clandestine nature and full scope of the black budget, which, according to analyst Catherine Austin Fitts, goes far beyond classified appropriations. Based on her research, some of which can be found in her piece “What’s Up With the Black Budget?,” Fitts concludes that the during the last decade, global financial elites have configured an elaborate system that makes most of the military budget unauditable. This is because the real black budget includes money acquired by intelligence groups via narcotics trafficking, predatory lending, and various kinds of other financial fraud.

The result of this vast, geopolitically-sanctioned money laundering scheme is that Housing and Urban Devopment and other agencies are used for drug trafficking and securities fraud. According to Fitts, the scheme allows for at least 85 percent of the U.S. federal budget to remain unaudited.

Fitts has been researching this issue since 2001, when she began to believe that a financial coup d’etat was underway. Specifically, she suspected that the banks, corporations, and investors acting in each global region were part of a “global heist,” whereby capital was being sucked out of each country. She was right.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Why is it So Hard for the West to See Everything is Connected?

August 14, 2015

Why is it So Hard for the West to See Everything is Connected?

QUESTION: Marty, you have written many times how everything is connected and how in Asian culture that is the foundation of all understanding. Why is it so hard in the West to comprehend this fundamental concept?

All the best

ANSWER: I think it is all part of the idea that we can alter society forcing it to do as we desire. Politics is based upon this. Socialism is all about robbing one class to benefit the other. There is no comprehension that everything is connected and this permeates analysis as well. This is not my personal discovery for many have seen these connections in Eastern Philosophies. I think in economics, politicians are not interested in such realizations for it means they are not the masters of the universe.

You take Obama’s policy against Russia. He has effectively been disrupting everything around Europe and the consequences are pouring in refugees to Europe and his sanctions have hurt European farmers and the economy. It is not deliberate, but it is reckless for there is no recognition of how everything is connected.

Every action has a consequence. We have the Fed lowered rates to help the banks. But that crisis is over and the consequence has been to create the next crisis – the defaults of pensions and insurance companies that required high interest rates. So many regulations required pension funds to own government bonds. The regulations have set the stage for the next crisis.

We cannot escape this connectivity. Whatever action we take has a consequence. It is impossible to manipulate markets and the economy for there will always be unintended collateral damage. We are living in the era that will bring about a collapse of socialism precisely as took place in communism. Government is incapable of ever managing society for they cannot escape the inter-connectivity.

The Saudi Royals — Unchained

August 14, 2015

The Saudi Royals — Unchained

Exclusive: With President Obama afraid of upsetting the Saudis anymore after the Iran-nuclear deal, he has given them pretty much a free hand to bomb and blockade Yemen. Meanwhile, the Saudi royals also are displaying their contempt for the United Nations and its Yemen peace efforts, Joe Lauria reports.

By Joe Lauria

Saudi Arabia’s relations with the United Nations have hit rock bottom after a series of incidents that has left a humbled Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon furious with Riyadh, two U.N. officials close to the U.N. chief have told me.

The relationship matters because only the United Nations has the reputation of neutrality necessary to forge a power-sharing deal that can finally end the conflict in Yemen.

Ban was cool to the Saudi-led operation from the start. On the first day of bombing on March 26 he called on countries to “refrain from external interference” which seeks to “foment conflict and instability.” Since then the Saudis have shown near total disregard for Ban and the U.N.’s role in the conflict.

–Ban was upset that the Saudis’ military operation in Yemen derailed U.N.-brokered talks in March.

–He believes he was lied to by the Saudis when they didn’t deliver on a promise of aid money to the U.N.

–The Saudis have blockaded ports bringing the U.N. to the verge of declaring a famine in Yemen.

–Ban was apoplectic that Riyadh forced a postponement in June of U.N.-led talks in Geneva; and then later broke two promises to Ban of a humanitarian truce.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Renewable Energy: Why Emissions and the Economy Don’t Tell the Whole Story

August 13, 2015

Renewable Energy: Why Emissions and the Economy Don’t Tell the Whole Story

Last week, President Obama announced the Clean Power Plan, the United States’ strongest climate policy to date. The plan aims to reduce coal-fired power plant emissions by allowing states to devise their own plans to reach federally-mandated emissions reduction targets. This choose-your-own-adventure policy could send states down very different paths, some worse for the environment and community resilience than others.

A bragging point for the Clean Power Plan is its flexibility; all currently identified low-carbon energy sources can play a role in state plans, including natural gas, nuclear, hydropower and other renewables. But despite the low-carbon nature these energy technologies share, they differ greatly in overall community and environmental benefit. Natural gas is abundantly available today due to controversial fracking technology (most of which occurs near rural communities); hydropower requires dam construction (sometimes on massive scales); and nuclear power comes with the risk of disastrous accidents, issues around extraction and long-term storage problems.

The final Clean Power Plan rule does emphasize renewable energy and energy efficiency over natural gas; a “Clean Energy Incentive Program” provides credits that can be traded later as part of emissions trading systems to states that expand wind, solar and energy efficiency efforts in the two years before state implementation plans take effect. However, shifting from coal to natural gas is one of the three building blocks EPA used in calculating state goals, so states are still permitted to emphasize natural gas in their implementation plans, even if it’s not incentivized. Shifting from one fossil fuel to another is not a sustainable energy future for any state, even if it slightly reduces greenhouse gas emissions.

– See more at: http://www.iatp.org/blog/201508/renewable-energy-why-emissions-and-the-economy-don’t-tell-the-whole-story#sthash.efdtxaKW.dpuf

TransCanada quietly plots response as Keystone XL rejection seems imminent

August 10, 2015

TransCanada quietly plots response as Keystone XL rejection seems imminent

Alberta company consulting lawyers on possibly suing U.S. under NAFTA

A source involved in Keystone XL said the main suspense now is how Obama will make his big announcement about the pipeline: quietly, in a mid-summer Friday afternoon statement, or boldly from a platform like his upcoming Aug. 31 trip to a climate-change conference in Alaska.

The Canadian company involved in the controversy-plagued Keystone XL project has begun planning its response as indications mount the proposed oil pipeline will be rejected by U.S. President Barack Obama.

In its public statements, TransCanada Corp. is expressing hope Obama might still approve the pipeline, which over the course of its years-long delay has become an irritant between the U.S. and Canadian governments.

The rumour is that the decision to deny has been made, and they’re just waiting for the right time– Source involved in Keystone XL project

But people close to the project say the company has become all but convinced a rejection is imminent based on signals the White House is sending publicly and privately — and it’s now considering the next move.

One possible response is a challenge under the North American Free Trade Agreement to recoup damages from the U.S. government. Another is immediately re-filing a permit application with the U.S. State Department before the 2016 presidential election..

A source involved in the project said the company is consulting lawyers on the mechanics of a NAFTA challenge, and weighing the legal and political implications.

He said the main suspense now is how Obama will make his big announcement — quietly, in a mid-summer Friday afternoon statement, or boldly from a platform like his upcoming Aug. 31 trip to a climate-change conference in Alaska.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

EPA’s Clean Power Plan Tougher Than Expected

August 4, 2015

EPA’s Clean Power Plan Tougher Than Expected

The Obama administration unveiled a much-anticipated, controversial rule on the regulation of greenhouse gases from power plants on August 3.

The first-of-their-kind limits on carbon pollution from existing power plants will actually require slightly tougher cuts than the original proposal. The EPA is calling for a 32 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from power plants below 2005 levels by 2030. That is up from the 30 percent target as part of last year’s proposal.

However, the EPA did throw the industry, and its opponents in Congress, a bone.

In the final rule, the Obama administration will allow for two extra years for utilities to hit their interim targets of achieving a 25 percent reduction in greenhouse gases, with a deadline of 2022 instead of 2020. The EPA also offered up a “reliability safety valve,” which would allow states more leniency with deadlines in the event that the reliability of the electric grid came into question.

Under the final rule, the administration also decided to give new nuclear power plants credit towards the federal emissions target, as nuclear generates electricity without carbon emissions. That probably won’t be an avenue that many states pursue outside of a handful of nuclear power plants under construction in Georgia, Tennessee, and South Carolina.

The EPA estimates that the so-called “Clean Power Plan” will cost $8.4 billion annually by 2030 when implemented, but yield public-health and other benefits of $34 to $54 billion, including avoiding thousands of premature deaths each year.

The plan will accelerate a trend towards cleaner sources of electricity. The plan expects renewable energy to more than double its share of the electricity market, jumping from 13 percent in 2014 to 28 percent by 2030.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Permits Required to Build TransCanada’s Keystone XL Pipeline in Jeopardy As Hearings Reveal Missteps

August 4, 2015

Permits Required to Build TransCanada’s Keystone XL Pipeline in Jeopardy As Hearings Reveal Missteps

TransCanada’s decision to purchase all of the pipe needed to complete the Keystone XL Pipeline before receiving a presidential permit could prove a costly mistake.

Not only is President Obama expected to reject the permit TransCanada needs in order to cross the U.S.-Canadian border, the company must recertify an expired permit before it can install the pipeline though South Dakota as well.

At a hearing that began on July 29 in Pierre, South Dakota, the state Public Utilities Commission (PUC) is tasked to decide if it should recertify the company’s permit to build the Keystone XL pipeline through the state. Those opposing the Keystone XL, referred to as interveners, are making the case that TransCanada is not up to the job.

During the first week of the hearing, a mix of members of the grassroots group Dakota Rural Action, Native American tribes, individual landowners, and a team of all of the interveners’ lawyers began presenting testimony challenging TransCanada’s narrative that the Keystone XL “will be the safest pipeline ever built.” The interveners claim that is a public relations ploy far from the truth about TransCanada’s performance record.

TransCanada bears the burden to prove it is capable of following the rules that the PUC set when the original Keystone Pipeline permit was granted in 2010, so it is no surprise that the company objected to the interveners’ introduction of evidence that showed the company has had problems with its other recently constructed pipelines, including the Keystone XL’s southern route, renamed the Gulf Coast Pipeline.

Lawyers for the interveners have also questioned the PUC’s impartially. They believe the commissioners’ pre-hearing rulings to exclude testimony relevant to their case was unjustified. But instead of letting the PUC’s move weaken their case, they laid the foundation during their examination of witnesses that enabled them to refer to the excluded documents in their cross-examination.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Turkey Permits U.S. To Use Its Airbase For Air Strikes Against Syria

July 23, 2015

Turkey Permits U.S. To Use Its Airbase For Air Strikes Against Syria

Earlier we reported that in an apparent retaliation against Monday’s alleged suicide bombing and today’s follow up killing of a Turkish soldier on the border with Syria, the Turkish army launched what under normal conditions would be deemed a land invasion of Turkey when four of its tanks entered Syrian territory. Rhetorically, we asked in “one may wonder if NATO-member Turkey’s land invasion of Syria, which many have said was long overdue following months of rhetoric and belligerent posturing, under the pretext of ISIS “liberation”, has just begun.”

A following report from the WSJ largely answers our question: citing unnamed defense officials, WSJ reportsthat after months of negotiations, “Turkey has agreed to let the U.S. military carry out airstrikes against Islamic State fighters from a U.S. air base near the Syrian border.”

This is the same authoritarian president who has repeatedly cracked down against protesters using various less than media friendly means, and one whom Obama has lashed out at diplomatically. It appears that when pursuing grander visions, Obama is will to forgive anyone’s humanitarian record, or lack thereof, and do anything to achieve America’s real politik ambitions.

Like in this case: the deal, agreed to by President Barack Obama and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, will allow the U.S. to use Incirlik Air Base in eastern Turkey to send manned and unmanned planes to attack Islamic State fighters, the officials said. The two leaders spoke on Wednesday, the White House said.

Use of Incirlik is part of a broader deal between the U.S. and Turkey to deepen their cooperation in the fight against Islamic State that is growing increasingly perilous for Turkey.

On Thursday, Islamic State forces in Syria and the Turkish military engaged in a deadly cross-border battle that left at least one Turkish officer dead.

“They’re in a counter-ISIL fight right across the border,” said one defense official, using one of the acronyms for Islamic State, which is also known as ISIS.

And with that the northern wing of the anti-Syria, pardon anti-ISIS campaign is complete, with the US covering air sorties while Turkey will use NATO tanks to secure the ground and slowly but surely, together with the eastern front where the US will soon deplay troops, close in on Damascus to eliminate the biggestSyrian ISIS threat of them all: president Assad and his (and the Kremlin’s) stern anti-Qatar pipeline position.

New York Times Reports – “Fannie and Freddie are Back, Bigger and Badder Than Ever”

July 23, 2015

New York Times Reports – “Fannie and Freddie are Back, Bigger and Badder Than Ever”

Screen Shot 2015-07-22 at 3.08.07 PM

Just in case you still harbored any doubt that absolutely zero lessons were learned from the cataclysmic financial collapse of 2008/09. We learn from the New York Times that:

AFTER the financial crisis of 2008, there was one thing that almost everyone agreed on. The government-sponsored mortgage giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, had to go. While shareholders and executives reaped the profits from Fannie and Freddie in good times, taxpayers were stuck with the bill in a crisis. President Obama described their dysfunctional business model as “Heads we win, tails you lose.” But here we are, seven years after the crisis, and nothing has changed.

In the 2008 crisis, when it looked as if Fannie and Freddie might go bankrupt, Henry M. Paulson Jr., then the Treasury secretary, argued that their fall would cause economic catastrophe. Foreign investors, stuck with their securities, would panic, and the mortgage market would shut down. So Fannie and Freddie were put into something called conservatorship, and are now government controlled, supported by a line of credit from the Treasury.

Conservatorship was supposed to be temporary — a “time out,” according to Mr. Paulson. We were going to stabilize the companies’ finances, reduce their importance to the mortgage market, and figure out a better system. But nothing happened. In fact, the situation has gotten even more precarious. In the years since the crisis, private lenders, for the most part, have been willing to make mortgages if they can immediately sell them to government agencies, mainly Fannie and Freddie. In other words, without Fannie and Freddie, there wouldn’t be much of a mortgage market.

To make things worse, the government decided to “sweep” almost all the duo’s profits into its own coffers, to be used as a slush fund for general government expenses. As Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew said in congressional testimony this spring, “As a practical matter it’s what has helped us reduce our overall deficit.” If there is another downturn in the real estate market and Fannie and Freddie suffer losses on their some $5 trillion in outstanding securities, taxpayers will again have to foot the bill.

What do you expect to happen when the people responsible for running the economy into the ground are rewarded with bailouts and deemed “Too Big to Jail?”

Liberty Movement Needs More Innovations To Counter Technological Tyranny

July 22, 2015

Liberty Movement Needs More Innovations To Counter Technological Tyranny

The great lesson from history that each consecutive generations seems to forget is that the tools of tyranny used outward will inevitably be turned inward. That is to say, the laws and weapons governments devise for supposed enemies abroad will ALWAYS and eventually be used against the people they are mandated to protect. There is no centralized system so trustworthy, no political establishment so free of corruption that the blind faith of the citizenry is warranted. If free people do not remain vigilant they will be made slaves by their own leadership. This is the rule, not the exception, and it applies to America as much as any other society.

The beauty of the con game that is the “war on terror” is that such a war is ultimately undefinable. An undefinable war has no set enemy; the establishment can change the definition of the “enemy” at will to any culture, country, or group it wishes. Thus, the war on terror can and will last forever. Or, at least, it will last as long as corrupt elitists remain in positions of power.

As I have outlined in past articles, most terror groups are creations of our nation’s own covert intelligence apparatus, or the covert agencies of allied governments.

ISIS is perhaps the most openly engineered terror organization of all time (surpassing Operation Gladio), with U.S. elites and purported anti-Muslim terror champions like Sen. John McCain and Gen. Paul Vallely making deals with “moderate” Free Syrian Army rebels who immediately turn out to be full fledged ISIS fighters (I’m sure they were not “surprised” by this outcome) and the Obama Administration blatantly funding and arming more “moderates” which again in turn seem to be crossing over into the hands of ISIS. Frankly, the whole idea that there is a moderate front in places like Syria where alphabet agencies reign supreme is utterly absurd.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Tag Archives: Obama

Content

Post categories

Economic Links

Energy/Resource Links

Environmental Links

Geopolitical Links

Liberty Links

News Links

Other Links

Survival Skills

Post Archives by Category

Post navigation

Latest Posts