Eric Zuesse -- Who Can NOW Say America Hasn’t Become a Mega-Corporate Dictatorship?

Who Can NOW Say America Hasn’t Become a Mega-Corporate Dictatorship?

Eric Zuesse

 

February 8, 2020

© Photo: Pixabay

Jon Hellevig posted on January 16th at The Saker, “Capitalism in America: How a Dismal Decimal is Robbing Americans Blind” the most extensive and up-to-date compendium anywhere, of data on economic inequality in America, and one fact especially stands out from it: “Today Top 1% are losers compared with Top 0.1% – the Dismal Decimal – who are where the music plays. Top 0.1% now holds as much wealth as Bottom 90% combined.” These top 0.1% people also donate the lions’ share of the money that finances political ads and organizations for their candidates and against the candidates who are financed instead by the other Party’s billionaires. Any candidate who isn’t backed by the billionaires of any Party is a rarity and (except for the independent Bernie Sanders, who is truly an exception) has no realistic chance of winning or keeping a seat in Congress.

That drastic inequality of wealth in America — “Top 0.1% now holds as much wealth as Bottom 90% combined” — is calculated by Deutsche Bank, in their January 2018 study “U.S. Income and Wealth Inequality”. Here’s more from that study:

—

On page 3 is shown that U.S. is comparable to Chile, Israel, Mexico, Portugal, and Turkey, as being at the top of the nations studied, in “inequality in household disposable income.”

On page 6: “A record high 30% of households have no wealth” in the United States.

On page 7: All-time high median net worth in constant dollars was 2007, at $119,000, declined to $67,000 in 2010, and rose to $78,000 by 2016.

On page 8: “U.S.: Top 0.1% owns as many assets as the bottom 90%”

On page 10: U.S. has higher income-inequality than any other OECD nation.

On page 11: Income-inequality is rising faster in U.S. than any other OECD nation.

On page 15: Top 1% in pre-tax income in the U.S. in 2014 was $1.3 million+.

Top 0.1% was $6 million+.

So: if the top 0.1% in income in America are also the top 0.1% in wealth in America, then the individuals in America who draw $6 million+ annual income own as much as do all 90% who aren’t in the top 10%.

ERIC ZUESSE -- How Michael Bloomberg’s ‘Journalists’ Propagandize for More U.S. Aggressions

How Michael Bloomberg’s ‘Journalists’ Propagandize for More U.S. Aggressions

Eric Zuesse

 

January 21, 2020

© Photo: Wikipedia

This will be exposing typical U.S.-regime propaganda. That’s propaganda favoring U.S. imperialism, which actually violates the intentions of America’s Founders, and the spirit of the U.S. Constitution.

The U.S. regime’s propaganda doesn’t come from the Government directly, but instead from the 607 billionaires who control the regime, via their corrupt control over the successful politicians (in both Parties), financing their careers, and by their owning (and otherwise controlling) the regime’s ‘news’-media, which are privately owned and which carry the same propaganda as the Government’s ‘publicly owned’ ‘news’-media do — all of America’s mainstream ‘news’-media being in favor of the U.S. Government’s sanctioning (economic-blockading) and trying to overthrow by means of coup or sometimes outright invasion, countries (such as Iraq, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Libya, etc.) that had never invaded, nor even threatened to invade, the United States. U.S. imperialism is commonly called “neoconservatism,” but it is basically the same as other imperialistic regimes throughout history — it is controlled by the given invading nation’s aristocracy, which deceives in its propaganda regarding the reasons why “regime change” is supposedly needed in the targeted countries. By means of these lies, the nation’s public are made willing to fund these invasions in their taxes and can even think that it is their patriotic duty, instead of being a massively criminal enterprise that they’ve been fooled into supporting with their dollars and sometimes with their very bodies.

Cynthia Chung -- Secret Wars, Forgotten Betrayals, Global Tyranny. Who Is Really in Charge of the U.S. Military?

Secret Wars, Forgotten Betrayals, Global Tyranny. Who Is Really in Charge of the U.S. Military?

It should be no surprise to anyone in the world at this point in history, that the CIA holds no allegiance to any country.

by Cynthia Chung

January 19, 2020

Authored by Cynthia Chung via The Strategic Culture Foundation:

“There is a kind of character in thy life, That to the observer doth thy history, fully unfold.”

– William Shakespeare

Once again we find ourselves in a situation of crisis, where the entire world holds its breath all at once and can only wait to see whether this volatile black cloud floating amongst us will breakout into a thunderstorm of nuclear war or harmlessly pass us by. The majority in the world seem to have the impression that this destructive fate totters back and forth at the whim of one man. It is only normal then, that during such times of crisis, we find ourselves trying to analyze and predict the thoughts and motives of just this one person.  The assassination of Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani, a true hero for his fellow countrymen and undeniably an essential key figure in combating terrorism in Southwest Asia, was a terrible crime, an abhorrently repugnant provocation. It was meant to cause an apoplectic fervour, it was meant to make us who desire peace, lose our minds in indignation. And therefore, that is exactly what we should not do.

In order to assess such situations, we cannot lose sight of the whole picture, and righteous indignation unfortunately causes the opposite to occur. Our focus becomes narrower and narrower to the point where we can only see or react moment to moment with what is right in front of our face. We are reduced to an obsession of twitter feeds, news blips and the doublespeak of ‘official government statements’.

Thus, before we may find firm ground to stand on regarding the situation of today, we must first have an understanding as to what caused the United States to enter into an endless campaign of regime-change warfare after WWII, or as former Chief of Special Operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff Col. Prouty stated, three decades of the Indochina war.

An Internal Shifting of Chess Pieces in the Shadows

Finian Cunningham -- Trump, Iran Coordinated De-escalation… for Now

Trump, Iran Coordinated De-escalation… for Now

Finian Cunningham

January 17, 2020

The stepping back from the brink of war last week seems to have been achieved by the Trump administration and Iran both working together behind the scenes to coordinate a face-saving de-escalation. Both sides knew war would be disastrous and balked. At least for now.

Iran’s barrage of ballistic missiles on two U.S. bases in Iraq in the early hours of January 8 was more a symbolic show of defiance by the Islamic Republic than any serious attempt to inflict American casualties.

What’s more, the Iranian attack seems to have been carried out with a level of U.S. connivance in order to give Trump an off-ramp from all-out war, while assuaging Iranian hardline demands for revenge over the American assassination of iconic General Qassem Soleimani.

Philip Giraldi-- What’s the Point of NATO If You Are Not Prepared to Use It Against Iran?

What’s the Point of NATO If You Are Not Prepared to Use It Against Iran?   

Philip Giraldi

January 16, 2020

Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) alliance commits all members to participate in the defense of any single member that is attacked. An attack on one is an attack on all. Forged in the early stages of the cold war, the alliance originally included most of the leading non-communist states in Western Europe, as well as Turkey. It was intended to deter any attacks orchestrated by the Soviet Union and was defensive in nature.

Currently NATO is an anachronism as the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, but the desire to continue to play soldier on an international stage has granted it a measure of life support. Indeed, the alliance is regularly auditioning for new members. Its latest addition is Montenegro, which has a military consisting of 2,000 men and women, roughly one brigade. If Montenegro should be attacked, the United States is obligated to come to its assistance.

ERIC ZUESSE -- ISIS Applauds Trump’s Killing Soleimani

ISIS Applauds Trump’s Killing Soleimani

Eric Zuesse

January 14, 2020

© Photo: Wikimedia

According to BBC’s top expert on jihadist movements, official publications from ISIS are now calling the killing of the Iranian General Qasem Soleimani an act of God, and are portraying Shiite Iran as Muslims’ greatest enemy, more so even than powers that don’t claim to be Muslim.

In a series of tweets from the BBC’s jihadism-expert, Mina al-Lami, she explains why ISIS is ecstatic that Soleimani is dead — they say that it’s because the killing of Soleimani is a strong display from God that God is wreaking revenge against the opponents of jihad. Her tweets show photos of some of these ISIS publications, paraphrase from them, and place their statements into a broader context of Islamic history and of the ancient split between fundamentalist Sunni Islam, on the one hand, and all of Shiite Islam (including especially Iran’s), on the other.

Here are highlights from this string of tweets, by Mina al-Lami, the BBC’s expert on jihadist movements. She makes clear, “Views are mine.” These statements do not come from BBC, but from herself, to explain why ISIS is so happy that Solomeini is dead:

ERIC ZUESSE -- Who Are the Winners From America’s Destruction of Iraq and War Against Iran?

Who Are the Winners From America’s Destruction of Iraq and War Against Iran?

Eric Zuesse

January 11, 2020

© Photo: Af.mil

Americans are unfortunately severely reluctant to disbelieve the lies that normally spew forth from the U.S. Government about foreign countries and especially about foreign countries that it invades or wants to invade. Consider, for examples, the lies that were told against Iraq when Saddam Hussein ruled it, or about Libya when Muammar Gaddafi ruled it, or about Iran right now. But Americans widely believe their Government’s lies, nonetheless. They are deceived, above all, about whom the U.S. military is fighting for. It’s not fighting for the American people’s benefit. (In World War II, it was, but that was the last time in American history when it was.) And that Government-lie, about “Who benefits?”, is the basis of all the others.

On the morning of January 6th, the Republican Party ‘News’-site Fox News Channel, headlined near the top of their homepage an opinion article, “Democrats still delusional about Trump even after Qassem Soleimani death”, and interviewed there an American soldier in the war against Iraq, who hates Iran’s Government. He compared Qasem Soleimani to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the founder of ISIS, (he said “Soleimani was really Zarqawi in uniform,” at 3:44 in the article’s accompanying video of the interview) but actually Soleimani was the world’s most effective general fighting against ISIS, and he led the elimination of ISIS from Iraq. (That American article linked-to says “Soleimani and his commanders were on the front lines in Iraq and his name became synonymous with victories attributed to Iraqi ground forces. He had presented himself as the face of the offensive in Tikrit, a city which fell under ISIS control in 2014 [HE WAS FIGHTING AND BEATING ISIS THERE].” So, the U.S. soldier speaking on Fox was profoundly misinformed about Soleimani, and about Iran (which has always been staunchly against ISIS). However, notwithstanding the deceit in Fox’s presenting this Republican propaganda for a Republican President, the most “Liked” reader-comment to that article was “A vote for a democrat is a vote for an enemy of America. I am proud to be an American citizen with Donald Trump as our President, and I certainly will never vote for a democrat again.” The facts didn’t matter to these viewers, the internal-U.S. political partisanship, the political Parties, blinded almost every one of the reader-comments there. Those commenters didn’t think, at all, about the U.S. Government’s lies that had persuaded the American public to boost their approval of George W. Bush from 57% immediately before his 2003 invasion of Iraq to 71% immediately after his lie-basedinternational war-crime in invading that country, and everyone who clicked “Like” on that January 6th reader-comment supporting Trump’s January 3rd aggression against both Iraq and Iran, had obviously learned nothing from that historical example from 2003, in which the opponents of the U.S. Government’s Iraq invasion (including mainly Democrats at that time, since Bush was a Republican President) were the actual American patriots (other than the Democrats who were against the invasion merely on account of its being done by a Republican President).

So: how do we know who actually benefitted from that particular international war-crime — the invasion and military occupation of Iraq?

Federico PIERACCINI -- The Deeper Story Behind the Assassination of Soleimani

The Deeper Story Behind the Assassination of Soleimani

The story behind Soleimani’s assassination seems to go much deeper than what has thus far been reported, involving Saudi Arabia and China as well the US dollar’s role as the global reserve currency.

by Federico Pieraccini

January 9, 2020

Authored by Federico Pieraccini via The Strategic Culture Foundation:

Days after the assassination of General Qasem Soleimani, new and important information is coming to light from a speech given by the Iraqi prime minister. The story behind Soleimani’s assassination seems to go much deeper than what has thus far been reported, involving Saudi Arabia and China as well the US dollar’s role as the global reserve currency.

The Iraqi prime minister, Adil Abdul-Mahdi, has revealed details of his interactions with Trump in the weeks leading up to Soleimani’s assassination in a speech to the Iraqi parliament. He tried to explain several times on live television how Washington had been browbeating him and other Iraqi members of parliament to toe the American line, even threatening to engage in false-flag sniper shootings of both protesters and security personnel in order to inflame the situation, recalling similar modi operandi seen in Cairo in 2009, Libya in 2011, and Maidan in 2014. The purpose of such cynicism was to throw Iraq into chaos.

Here is the reconstruction of the story:

ERIC ZUESSE -- How Iran Can Checkmate Trump

How Iran Can Checkmate Trump

and why they probably won’t

by Eric Zuesse

January 7, 2020

Eric Zuesse, originally posted at strategic-culture.org

On Sunday morning 5 January 2020, the great investigative journalist and geostrategist Bernhard Horstmann headlined “Iraqi Parliament Expels Foreign Militaries From Iraq” and he reported that not only the parliament but also the nation’s Prime Minister (Abdel Mahdi) are demanding departure from Iraq of all foreign military forces, and that Iraq will now — as UAE’s The National puts it — “lodge an official complaint against the US at the UN.” The complaint will “condemn #US airstrikes on #Iraqi soil targeting Iraqi soldiers and both Iraqi and #Iranian military leaders.”

(U.S.-and-allied ‘news’-media, such as Reuters, lied about this matter when saying that “While such resolutions are not binding on the government, this one is likely to be heeded: Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi had earlier called on parliament to end foreign troop presence as soon as possible.” As Horstmann had already explained, the assassination was profoundly embarrassing personally to Mahdi, and he “and the whole cabinet supported the resolution.” Under such circumstances, there is no way possible that the Prime Minister can reverse himself and his cabinet and the Parliament, on that demand. It’s a non-reversible demand. But, later on January 5th, the U.S. State Department nonetheless said, “While we await further clarification on the legal nature and impact of today’s resolution, we strongly urge Iraqi leaders to reconsider the importance of the ongoing economic and security relationship between the two countries and the continued presence of the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS.” That was a stupid statement, but at least it wasn’t so demeaning to Shiites and to Shiite-led governments as the U.S. President’s statements normally are. It was instead a public display that the American dictator can’t believe that, from now on, Iraqis are going to be running Iraq, and that there’s no way the ruler in Washington DC can possibly dictate to Iraq again. Yet, Axios reported later in the day, that “‘I think it would be inconvenient for us, but it would be catastrophic for Iraq,’ said a U.S. official familiar with the Trump administration’s effort to block the vote. ‘It’s our concern that Iraq would take a short-term decision that would have catastrophic long-term implications for the country and its security.’” The U.S. Government was already becoming desperate and resorting to veiled unspecific ‘catastrophe’ for Iraqis if Iraq’s Government won’t reverse this command. Some fat chance that the outraged and temporarily united Iraqi public are going to cave to such veiled threats from Iraq’s viscerally hated invader.) 

Zamir AWAN -- US-Iran Tensions Enter Into A New Stage

US-Iran Tensions Enter Into A New Stage

Written by Zamir AWAN on 04/01/2020 

The history of US-Iran tensions goes back to the late 1970s, when the Americans supported the Raza Shah Pahlavi the last Emperor of Iran, against the popular revolt against Emperor led by Khamenei. It was natural that there were anti-Americans sentiments in the revolutionary forces. But the US attitude toward the Iranian New governments was also like stepmothers and openly threatening, harming, coercing the newly established revolution. Unfortunately, tilt date American dreams never come true!

In fact, there was over engaged in destabilizing the new government and plotted several conspiracies against Iran, with the expectation that the Revolution may fail and Shah’s rule may be restored once again and the American may enjoy the pre-revolutionary facilitations in Iran.

Illogical unilateral withdrawal for the Trump Administration from Iran-Nuclear Deal has heated the issue even more. Since then, the taking charge of Washington, the Trump Administration has taken several measures to please Israel, one of them was anti-Iran as on the top of the agenda.

Posing Iran a threat to the oil-rich Gulf States in the Middle-East, the US has sold worth billions of dollars of advanced weapons to Arabs, which they never needed nor possess the capability to use. Even blaming Iran, for attacking Saudi Oil facilities, for which Iran does not have such capacities. Only Israel and the US have such an attack’s capability. But blaming Iran means selling more weapons.

Eric Zuesse -- New York Times Reveals America’s Weapons-Makers Drive Trump-Impeachment

New York Times Reveals America’s Weapons-Makers Drive Trump-Impeachment

Eric Zuesse

January 3, 2020

A remarkably non-propagandistic news-report, in the New York Times, by Eric Lipton, Maggie Haberman and Mark Mazzetti, included powerful evidence that the impeachment-effort against US President Donald Trump is motivated, in part if not totally, by a desire by US Senators and Representatives — as well as by career employees of the US Departments of Defense, State Department, and other agencies regarding national defense — to increase the sales-volumes of US-made weapons to foreign countries. Whereas almost all of the contents of that article merely repeat what has already been reported, this article in the Times states repeatedly that boosting corporations such as Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Boeing, and Northrop-Grumman, has been a major — if not the very top — motivation driving US international relations, and that at least regarding Ukraine, Trump has not been supporting, but has instead been trying to block, those weapons-sales — and creating massive enemies in the US Government as a direct consequence.

The article, issued online on Sunday, December 29th, is titled “Behind the Ukraine Aid Freeze: 84 Days of Conflict and Confusion”, and it quotes many such individuals as saying that President Trump strongly opposed the sale of US weapons to Ukraine, and that,

In an Oval Office meeting on May 23, with Mr. Sondland, Mr. Mulvaney and Mr. Blair in attendance, Mr. Trump batted away assurances that [Ukraine’s current President] Mr. Zelensky was committed to confronting corruption. “They are all corrupt, they are all terrible people,” Mr. Trump said, according to testimony in the impeachment inquiry.

In other words, Trump, allegedly, said that he didn’t want “terrible people” to be buying, and to receive, US-made weapons (especially not as US aid — free of charge, a gift from America’s taxpayers).

The article simply assumes that Trump was wrong that “they are all terrible people.”

Eric Zuesse -- Russiagate Investigation Now Endangers Obama

Russiagate Investigation Now Endangers Obama

Eric Zuesse

December 29, 2019

Former US President Barack Obama is now in severe legal jeopardy, because the Russiagate investigation has turned 180 degrees; and he, instead of the current President, Donald Trump, is in its cross-hairs.

The biggest crime that a US President can commit is to try to defeat American democracy (the Constitutional functioning of the US Government) itself, either by working with foreign powers to take it over, or else by working internally within America to sabotage democracy for his or her own personal reasons. Either way, it’s treason (crime that is intended to, and does, endanger the continued functioning of the Constitution itself*), and Mr. Obama is now being actively investigated, as possibly having done this. The Russiagate investigation, which had formerly focused against the current US President, has reversed direction and now targets the prior President. Although he, of course, cannot be removed from office (since he is no longer in office), he is liable under criminal laws, the same as any other American would be, if he committed any crime while he was in office.

A December 17th order by the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) Court severely condemned the performance by the FBI under Obama, for having obtained, on 19 October 2016 (even prior to the US Presidential election), from that Court, under false pretenses, an authorization for the FBI to commence investigating Donald Trump’s Presidential campaign, as being possibly in collusion with Russia’s Government. The Court’s ruling said:

Finian Cunningham -- US Making Outer Space the Next Battle Zone – Karl Grossman

US Making Outer Space the Next Battle Zone – Karl Grossman

Finian Cunningham

 

December 23, 2019

In the following interview for Strategic Culture Foundation, American Professor Karl Grossman warns that the Trump administration is recklessly pushing ahead with long-held US plans to militarize outer space. This is in spite of a UN treaty banning such a development.

Grossman says the weaponization of space is essential to US imperialist ambitions for “full spectrum dominance” over the entire planet. He also contends that the US enterprise will unleash a new arms race with Russia and China, thereby gravely undermining global security and greatly increasing the risk of a nuclear war.

Much of the US space weaponization program, he says, can be traced back to the post-Second World War years when former Nazi rocket scientists were employed by Washington to continue the Third Reich’s military programs.

In 1967, President Lyndon Johnson signs a proclamation declaring an international treaty barring nuclear weapons and military bases from outer space and prohibiting any nation from claiming sovereignty in space. The treaty was signed by 13 nations. | Harvey Georges/AP Photo

Grossman debunks oft-repeated claims made by US politicians that Russia and China are advancing their own space weaponry. Indeed, he points out, both Moscow and Beijing are on the record over many years calling for the US to desist from violating the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. The Space Force plan being rolled out by the Trump administration is largely being done without the US public’s knowledge or consent.

Karl Grossman’s biography includes being a full Professor of Journalism at the State University of New York/College at Old Westbury. He is also a film-maker, author and renowned international expert on space weaponization, having addressed UN conferences and other forums on the subject. He is a founding director (in 1992) of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space. Grossman is author of the ground-breaking book, ‘Weapons in Space’.

INTERVIEW

Question: The annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) currently going through the US Congress this month makes provision for the establishment of a Space Force as an entirely separate branch of the armed forces. Is the Trump administration moving ahead with plans to weaponize outer space in ways that far exceed similar plans seen under previous administrations, such as Ronald Reagan in the 1980s and his “Star Wars” initiative?

Karl Grossman: It is along the lines of US military space strategy that has been developing for decades. It is important, I believe, to note that much of this started with the arrival of former Nazi scientists – many of whom worked on the V2 rocket program, such as Werner von Braun – to the US after World War Two. At the Army arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama, they produced a modified V2 renamed the Redstone, the first US missile capable of carrying a nuclear weapon.

Former General Walter Dornberger, who supervised work on the V2, was hired as a consultant to the US Air Force in 1947 and, notes the book ‘Arming the Heavens’ by State University of New York Professor Jack Manno, Dornberger “wrote a planning paper for his new employers. He projected a system of hundreds of nuclear-armed satellites all orbiting at different altitudes and angles, each capable of reentering the atmosphere on command from Earth to proceed to its target. The Air Force began early work on Dornberger’s idea under the acronym NABS (Nuclear Armed Bombardment Satellites).” Manno also writes: “Before a congressional hearing in 1958, Dornberger insisted that America’s top space priority ought to be to ‘conquer, occupy, keep and utilize space between the Earth and the moon.’”

ERIC ZUESSE -- The Lies That Are Used for Denying the Legitimacy of Crimea’s Breakaway

The Lies That Are Used for Denying the Legitimacy of Crimea’s Breakaway

Eric Zuesse

 December 23, 2019

© Photo: pxhere.com

Crimea’s breakaway from Ukraine and rejoining Russia is treated in the US-and-allied world as being justification for the explosive re-emergence in 2014 of America’s Cold War NATO alliance as being a restored war against Russia; and, so, whether or not that ‘justification’ is truthful is the paramount geopolitical issue in our era; and it will therefore be discussed and (via the links here) documented in this article.

Though international law is generally an unenforced mess that is interpretable far more by partisanship than by any clearly applicable principles, the US Government does quite blatantly violate it on a routine basis, by means of coups and invasions against countries that never invaded nor threatened to invade the US; but, if anything at all is clear in international law, it is that Crimea’s breaking away from Ukraine and rejoining Russia in 2014 was entirely legitimate, as will be documented here, by exposing the lies that are adduced on the US side, in order to allege that it’s not legitimate.

First, however, will be a bit of essential historical background, which is commonly ignored in arguments by the pro-US-regime liars on this matter: From 1783 to 1954, Crimea was part of Russia. Crimea was arbitrarily transferred from Russia to Ukraine in 1954 by the dictator of the Soviet Union, Nikita Khruschev, who was a Ukrainian and didn’t consult the residents of Crimea about this handover of them to Ukraine. Crimeans were so opposed to being ruled from the foreign-language-speaking and largely pro-Nazi (and anti-Semitic and anti-Russian) Ukrainians to their north, so that as soon as the Soviet Union broke up in 1991, the only way that Crimeans would tolerate any continuation of their formal association with Ukraine was by being declared Ukraine’s “autonomous republic” (the only one) in Ukraine. This situation of partial Crimean independence continued until Ukraine was conquered (via coup) by the US regime, in order to be handed over first to the European Union, and then, after the EU would accept Ukraine, to NATO, which military alliance with the US was extremely unpopular in Ukraine until the American conquest and the immediately subsequent takeover of Ukraine by pro-US oligarchs, who were eager to buy more privatized and formerly Soviet state-owned properties, in basically insider deals with the now US-controlled Ukrainian Government. Those oligarchs’ ‘news’-media successfully propagandized most Ukrainians to switch from being anti-NATO to pro-NATO. However, right at the time of the coup, Crimeans demonstrated in Kiev against the CIA-organized Maidan demostrations, and on the day of the coup, February 20th, those Crimeans in Kiev were forced by the US-supported nazis to flee there, but the eight buses carrrying them were blocked en-route, and an unknown number of the fleeing Crimeans were killed. Many of the surviving ones were permanently injured. Crimeans were terrified and some of them wrote to friends in the West regarding the terror and their fears. All of this information is ignored by the proponents of the illegality of Crimea’s separation from Ukraine, because, clearly, the basic human rights of Crimeans were then under very palpable and severe threat by the US-imposed forces; and, so, any ‘legal’ argument for forcing Crimeans to remain Ukrainians was and is fake. But, still, legal arguments for forcing Crimeans to be Ukrainians again are presented; and, so, here is a quick introduction to those frauds.

Daniele Lazare -- You Can’t Fool All the People All the Time

You Can’t Fool All the People All the Time

Daniel Lazare

December 18, 2019

© Photo: publicdomainpictures.net

You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you can’t fool all the people all the time. So said Abraham Lincoln – maybe. But whoever it was forgot to mention an important corollary: fun as it may be to pull the wool over people’s eyes, you’ll writhe in agony for an equal period once the truth emerges and the fraud is exposed.

This is the significance of Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s devastating report on the FBI investigation of Russiagate suspect Carter Page.

For years, the FBI and its allies in the Democratic Party have had a grand time pillorying Page as the centerpiece of a gigantic Kremlin conspiracy to help Trump win the White House and bend America to its will. Thousands of headlines about this or that bombshell revelation, scores of talking heads proclaiming that “the walls are closing in” – it was all so much fun that revelers barely paused when Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller’s announced last March that he was unable to “establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government.”

Sure, a few Democrats perked up. But they quickly decided that even though Mueller didn’t come up with enough evidence to prove collusion, that didn’t mean that he came up with no evidence at all. So the myth continued unabated.

But payback time is now upon us.  The Horowitz report is not some ordinary rebuke, but an epic assault that has left the FBI reeling. After fawning over the bureau for years, the New York Times tried to salvage a shred of self-respect by declaring that even though it “painted a bleak portrait of the FBI as a dysfunctional agency,” all was not lost because the inspector general uncovered “no evidence that the mistakes were intentional or undertaken out of political bias.”