Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

US Rejects Venezuela Legislative Elections as TSJ Intervenes in Two Opposition Parties

By Ricardo Vaz and Lucas Koerner – Venezuelanalysis – June 17, 2020

Mérida – The US State Department has voiced opposition to upcoming parliamentary elections in Venezuela.

In a press statement published on Monday, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo criticized the recent Supreme Court (TSJ) appointment of a new electoral council (CNE).

“The regime has selected a CNE that will rubber-stamp its decisions and ignore the conditions required for free elections,” the statement said, adding that “elections that represent the will of the people are impossible.”

The Trump administration has repeatedly refused to recognize any elections while President Nicolas Maduro remains in office. In March, the State Department released a “transition” plan with a five-person “Council of State” assuming power and convening presidential and legislative elections. Washington has vowed to ramp up sanctions until Caracas accepts the deal.

The Venezuelan Supreme Court swore in a new CNE on Friday, with former TSJ justice Indira Alfonzo assuming the presidency. While Venezuelan law mandates that the CNE be chosen by a two-thirds majority of the National Assembly (AN), the judicial body stepped in following a request from minority opposition parties in order to guarantee elections this year. The TSJ had also appointed the CNE in 2003, 2005, and 2014 when the AN failed to secure the necessary majority.

AD ruling

Pompeo’s statement came amid another pair of controversial rulings by the high court.

On Monday, the TSJ suspended the current leadership of Venezuela’s largest opposition party, Democratic Action (AD), and named a new ad hoc one headed by former Amazonas State Governor Bernabe Gutierrez.

The brother of newly-appointed CNE Rector Jose Gutierrez, Bernabe Gutierrez previously served as the party’s national secretary before he was expelled by AD Secretary General Henry Ramos Allup on Monday for “conspiring” with President Nicolas Maduro to participate in the upcoming elections. The TSJ order provisionally anulls all party expulsions and exclusions.

Ramos Allup lashed out at the move as a “robbery,” challenging Gutierrez to “come here and take [the headquarters of] Democratic Action.”

For his part, Gutierrez released a statement accusing the ex-secretary general of operating a “regime of terror” and announcing a new era of “internal democracy, of the right to opine, to dissent… without fear of being expelled.” The party leader additionally confirmed that AD would participate in parliamentary elections later this year, which Ramos Allup had previously announced in March.

Ramos Allup has long been infamous for authoritarian leadership style and hostility to elections, with US State Department cables describing the party under his tenure as not only “extremely vertically organized” but “dictatorial.”

Hard-right opposition figures have, however, denounced the standoff within Democratic Action as staged, accusing Ramos Allup of ordering Gutierrez to negotiate with the Maduro government in his stead out of fear of US sanctions.

In 2017, the AD boss announced that four governors from the party had “expelled themselves” after they swore in before the National Constituent Assembly. The elected officials remain members of AD to this day.

PJ ruling

The TSJ ruling was followed by a similar one on Tuesday suspending the leadership of the right-wing Justice First (PJ) party. National Assembly Deputy Jose Brito, who broke with opposition leader Juan Guaido over a series of mutual corruption allegations late last year, was named national coordinator of the party. Following his expulsion from PJ in December, the lawmaker filed a TSJ motion for his reinstatement, claiming that his exclusion was “illegal” and demanding internal party elections.

Brito has likewise confirmed that PJ will participate in AN elections, stating that the majority of the party rank-and-file “want to go to elections.”

PJ’s national coordinator Julio Borges blasted the attempt to “steal” the party, adding that the party is “united and in high spirits, with the goal of restoring freedom to Venezuela.” Borges, who serves as opposition representative before the Lima Group, is sought by Venezuelan prosecutors for his alleged involvement in the 2018 assassination attempt against President Nicolas Maduro.

EU weighs in

The European Union also released a statement criticizing the CNE appointment and TSJ rulings.

“These decisions reduce the democratic space in the country to a minimum and create additional obstacles to the resolution of the profound political crisis in Venezuela,” the statement read, before urging the Venezuelan government and opposition to “engage in meaningful and inclusive negotiations” concerning the CNE and electoral participation.

In response, President Maduro blasted the EU’s “colonialist vision” and urged the body to “leave Venezuela alone.”

“Venezuela will have its elections. We do not care about the European Union,” he said in a televised address on Monday.

On Tuesday, Maduro held a conference call with members of the ruling Socialist Party (PSUV), urging the party to nominate fresh candidates for AN elections, to open the door to grassroots candidates and strengthen alliances with other parties.

Opposition leader Juan Guaido, who declared himself “interim president” last year with the support of Washington, has vowed to boycott the elections, proposing to extend the opposition-controlled AN’s mandate through 2021.

Under Venezuela’s constitution, legislative elections must be held before the end of the year.

June 19, 2020 Posted by | Aletho News | , , | Leave a comment

Venezuela’s US-backed opposition probed over links to terrorism

By Jesús Silva | Press TV | June 19, 2020

Caracas – Over the past few days, the US-backed Venezuelan opposition parties have been hit by decisions of the country’s Supreme Court of Justice.

The court has ordered an investigation into one party’s possible links to terrorism while appointing new heads for three other parties.

Voluntad Popular, the main opposition party, which is related to politicians Leopoldo López and Juan Guaido, is now being investigated over possible involvement in acts of terror and may be declared a terrorist group by the Judiciary in the upcoming days.

By the same token, Primero Justicia, Acción Democrática and UNT, three of the largest political organizations who oppose President Nicolas Maduro, were sued by many of their own members over impeding internal elections. The nation’s top Court responded by appointing new provisional authorities for the parties and ordering internal elections to be held as soon as possible.

The opposition says the judges are politically biased and some have described the move as an attempt by the government to bring the National Assembly under its control.

However, the court says the decisions were part of a necessary restructuring process. Some say the rulings are all based on the facts and the rule of law.

Persident Maduro has once again accused opposition parties of robbing Venezuela of its wealth and plotting a foreign invasion to end his socialist government.

This year’s parliamentary elections are being organized by Caracas despite Washington’s meddling and boycott threats from the US-backed opposition. Experts say that the socialist ruling party has a good chance of winning the vote since the opposition is divided.

June 19, 2020 Posted by | Aletho News | | Leave a comment

Who needs ‘Russian hackers’? Report reveals CIA incompetence to blame for Vault 7 breach

By Nebojsa Malic | RT | June 18, 2020

An internal CIA report about the Vault 7 fiasco paints a damning picture of the main US spy agency. WikiLeaks released the CIA’s hacking tools, likely leaked by an insider, while CIA chiefs were too busy cooking up Russiagate.

Vault 7 was the name given to cyber attack tools developed by the CIA’s Center for Cyber Intelligence (CCI), and published by WikiLeaks in March 2017. It was the largest data breach in Langley’s history, with long-lasting consequences. For example, Chinese cybersecurity companies recently used Vault 7 evidence to show that the US has been hacking China for over a decade.

According to a just-released internal CIA report, “CCI had prioritized building cyber weapons at the expense of securing their own systems. Day-to-day security practices had become woefully lax.”

“Most of our sensitive cyber weapons were not compartmented, users shared systems administrator-level passwords, there were no effective removable media controls, and historical data was available to users indefinitely,” the report goes on to say.

The heavily-redacted document actually dates back to October 2017 and was only made public Tuesday by Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon), in an effort to pressure the new Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe into imposing new security measures. While the CIA ineptitude is the obvious takeaway, no one seems to have noticed the real bombshell: the timing of the breach and its implications.

The report says the CIA “did not realize the loss had occurred until a year later, when WikiLeaks publicly announced it in March 2017.” Now, what all was happening between March 2016 and a year later? You guessed it: Russiagate!

Even as his own cyber arsenal was getting swiped from under his very nose, CIA chief John Brennan was obsessing about “Russian hackers” of the Democratic National Committee, or Hillary Clinton’s emails, or something – and pushing the bogus ‘Steele Dossier’ alleging Donald Trump’s collusion with Russia, which eventually made it into the infamous ‘Intelligence Community Assessment’ that accused Moscow of meddling in the 2016 US presidential election.

It gets worse. According to the report, “Had the data been stolen for the benefit of a state adversary and not published, we might still be unaware of the loss—as would be true for the vast majority of data on Agency mission systems.”

So if the mythic bogeymen ‘Russian hackers’ had actually wanted to harm the US, they could have just used the CIA’s own, unprotected cyberweapons to stage false flags and wreak havoc across the world? None of which happened, obviously. Yet Brennan and his confederates have been telling everyone for years that the Kremlins wanted to “hack our democracy” by publishing some Democrat emails and posting memes on social media!

Note that Mike Pompeo, who took over at Langley before he moved to Foggy Bottom, bought into Brennan’s fable hook, line and sinker, denouncing WikiLeaks as a “hostile intelligence service” and a “cut-out” for Russia in April 2017.

In an irony of ironies, the Trump administration – run by a man who denounced the Iraq war and was falsely accused of working with WikiLeaks and Russia to get elected – is now seeking extradition of Julian Assange from the UK on trumped-up hacking charges related to the 2010 WikiLeaks revelations of US atrocities in Iraq.

As for how Vault 7 got to WikiLeaks, the jury is still out on that. Joshua Schulte, the employee charged with leaking the files, is being prosecuted again after a hung jury at his first trial in March. His lawyers have argued the CIA security was so lax, anyone else on the team, or even outsiders, could have done it.

The next time the media report some incendiary claim based on US intelligence “assessments,” try to keep all this in mind.

June 18, 2020 Posted by | Deception, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

After the West Bank When (How Soon) Will the East Follow?

By Jeremy Salt | American Herald Tribune | June 17, 2020

Whatever percentage of the West Bank Israel begins to annex in July, it will eventually annex the rest. Will it then turn to the east bank of the Jordan river?

Since the 19th century, the Zionist project was based on the seizure of all Palestine, including territory east of the Jordan. The map of ‘Israel’ presented to the Paris peace conference in 1919 extended northwards into what is now Lebanon and included the city of Sidon; in the northeast, all the Golan Heights and Syria almost as far as Damascus; in the southeast the entire Jordan River valley, with the territory it desired extending almost to the town limits of Amman.

Water was integral to Zionist calculations from the beginning. In the imperial carve-up between Britain and France, however, the headwaters of the Jordan on Mt Hermon, fed by the Hasbani and Baniyas rivers, stayed within the French mandate for Syria (later divided into Lebanon and Syria). The water flows into the Sea of Galilee, from where it feeds the Jordan River before emptying into the Dead Sea.

In the 1950s and 60s the Zionists made repeated attempts to divert the waters of the Golan, apart from bombing Syrian attempts to make better use of the water by building pumping stations. In its 1967 attack on Egypt and Syria, Israel seized two-thirds of the Golan, ensuring the flow of its waters south into Lake Galilee. About 100,000 Syrians fled or were expelled, along with several thousand Palestinians. About 100 of their villages were demolished and their land given to the 22,000 settlers who now live on the heights. An entire city, Quneitra, was also reduced to rubble by Israeli army sappers.

Currently, Israel takes about 60 percent of its fresh water needs from Lake Galilee and the West Bank. From the Galilee the water is pumped south to feed the Naqab, while 80 percent of the West Bank’s aquifers is drained so Israeli needs can be met and the settlers (about 450,000 excluding occupied East Jerusalem) can water their lawns and fill their swimming pools. By comparison, the Palestinians (2.2 million are allowed scarcely enough for domestic use, they have to endure frequent cuts and they have been prevented from drilling new wells since 1967 despite population growth.

With the Dead Sea dying and the Sea of Galilee drying up, falling to its lowest level for a century in 2018, Israel is increasingly dependent on desalinated water. In 2018, in an attempt to revive the Sea of Galilee, the government approved a plan for it to be refilled with desalinated water. The drought of 2018 forced a reduction in the water pumped from the Sea of Galilee from an annual 400 million cubic meters to 30-40 million. With a growing population and a diminishing supply of fresh water, control of both banks of the Jordan river is bound to be a critical element in zionist forward planning once the latest stage of expansion – the annexation of the West Bank – has been completed.

A false dichotomy

The mainstream Zionists, led by Chaim Weizmann and David Ben-Gurion, attached themselves to British imperial designs like a limpet, promising to be faithful to British interests in the Middle East. They were rewarded with key positions in the civilian administration (control of ‘immigration’ and the attorney-generalship) as well as military and police protection for their purchase and settlement of land, and the ejection of the Palestinian farmers which followed.

In the history of the Zionist movement a false dichotomy has been created between the mainstream ‘practicals’ and Vladimir Jabotinsky’s Revisionist stream of ‘politicals.’ Jabotinsky – “your fascist” as Mussolini described him to a Zionist delegation – was indifferent to the rights, needs and aspirations of the Palestinians but open about his intentions. The Palestine he intended to take in its entirety extended not just from the sea to the Jordan river but to the other side of the river, originally placed within the mandate but removed by Britain in 1922 and converted into the puppet state of Transjordan.

Jabotinsky knew ‘the Arabs’ of Palestine would resist the seizure of their land, and thus intended to build an ‘iron wall’ of military force to overcome them. Once defeated, having been forced to see reason, as Jabotinsky put it, peace could be established between the two peoples.

The  ‘practicals’ projected an entirely different image. They reviled Jabotinsky’s fascistic Revisionists. They were socialists, so they declared, irrespective of the fact that their kibbutzes, their moshavs, their labor unions and their peak union body, the Histadrut, were for Jews only. They intended no harm to ‘the Arabs’. All they wanted was to work the land to the benefit of everyone and live in peace with their neighbors. They were happy to share irrespective of another fact, that Palestine was not theirs to share in the first place. When partition was first suggested in 1937 they accepted it and they accepted it again in 1947. It was ‘Arab’ obstructionism that was blocking the road to peace.

The diaries of their senior figures told the real story behind the dissimulation. Only there did they reveal their true intentions, to take the land and get rid of the people. The ‘practicals’ knew as well as the Revisionists that an ‘iron wall’ would have to be built against ‘the Arabs.’ An ‘Eretz Israel’ which included the other side of the Jordan was their map as well. The differences between themselves and the Revisionists were no more than tribal infighting over power. Tactics differed but the strategic end objective – the seizure of all of Palestine as delineated on the 1919 map – was the same.

Having served its purpose,  the UN partition plan was dumped almost immediately. The Zionist leadership never had any intention of abiding by UN resolutions or international law. It could do neither, if Israel was to be established as a Jewish state. As Ben-Gurion made clear, war would give the Zionists what they wanted, all of Palestine, not just the 54 percent allocated in the partition plan and but for international intervention in 1948-9, they might well have succeeded. Partition was accepted by the Zionists only because at that stage they could go no further.

Having seized 78 percent of Palestine, Israel was admitted to UN membership only on the condition that it comply with General Assembly resolution 194 of 1948, giving expelled Palestinians the right of repatriation or compensation.

As it has never complied with this resolution and never had any intention of doing so, there is a clear legal reason to regard Israel’s membership of the world body as null and void. Another distinctive characteristic of Israel’s UN membership is that it remains a state without declared borders. This is not just because of the state of war that still exists between itself and two adjoining Arab states (Lebanon and Syria) but because Israel does not want to declare its borders. This seemingly anomalous situation is deliberate, allowing Israel to continue its expansionist drive towards the borders of the ‘national home’ as inked on the map in 1919.

Annexation of the West Bank takes it a further step in this direction. Netanyahu is a Revisionist. His Arab-hating father was for some time Jabotinsky’s secretary. Since the election of Menachem Begin in 1977, Revisionists have been in government for more than 40 years, with even more extreme extremists (Naftali Bennett and Ayelet Shaked) now taking center stage. In the Zionist context they almost make Netanyahu seem a moderate.

No one should doubt that beyond his lies and deceit, Netanyahu remains faithful to his Revisionist roots. In his 1993 book A Place Among the Nations: Israel and the World Netanyahu reaffirmed the “right” of the Jewish “people” to the entire ‘land of Israel.’

There should be no confusion about this. The ‘land of Israel’ is not (not yet) synonymous with the state of Israel.

The land is there only for Jews, not to be shared with anyone else, a principle pursued since the beginning of Zionist colonization and a commitment which Netanyahu took a step further with the nation-state law of 2018 and has now taken another step further with his declaration that the Palestinians of the annexed West Bank will not be citizens but “subjects”, a term usually applied to the subjects of a king or emperor. Again, this is consistent with the long-term view held along the political spectrum that Israel is the state of the Jewish ‘people’, and not of its citizens.

Last September Netanyahu pledged to annex the West Bank if re-elected. He now rules Israel under a power-sharing arrangement with Benny Gantz, army chief of staff during the 2014 onslaught on Gaza that killed 2200 people, including 1492 civilians (551 of them children). The Israeli military also shelled UNRWA shelters, killing civilians there as well as in the streets and their apartments. Annexation of the West Bank was part of the unity deal between these two unindicted war criminals.

How much will be annexed in the first stage won’t be known until Netanyahu issues the first decree but it will definitely include a 100-km long stretch of the Jordan River valley between the Hussein and Karameh (formerly Allenby) bridges. Violence will follow as surely as night follows day, the Zionists using resistance, as they always do, as a pretext to take more land and further tighten their grip.

There may well be a third intifada on the West Bank  and it would take only a few shots across the river for Israel to have the ‘security’ pretext (the protection of its 11,000 illegal settlers in the Jordan valley) for crossing the water and establishing itself on the east bank. An immediate acquisition would be King Abdullah (formerly the East Ghor) canal on the east bank, from which is pumped 90 million cubic meters of fresh water a year to the residents of Amman.

On the basis of all past Zionist practice, the steady expansion into and settlement of Jordanian territory would soon follow, over the futile objections of the ‘international community.’ This is hardly far-fetched. Zionism is an opportunistic ideology and where opportunities have not arisen fortuitously to seize more of Palestine over the past seven decades, Israel has created them.

Those beating their breasts because annexation will mean an end to the ‘peace process’ and the two-state solution are delusional. The Zionists never intended there to be a two-state solution in Palestine and the ‘peace process’ died long ago, if it was ever intended to live. In reality, it was no more than a cost-effective war process fought behind closed doors at Camp David and giving Israel time to consolidate its hold on the West Bank.

Once the annexation of the West Bank begins the Palestinian Authority will collapse. Mahmud Abbas has already severed links with Israel and the US, not that this counts for anything at this stage. King Abdullah has already warned of the “massive crisis” that will follow once the West Bank is annexed but there is little he can do to stop it. The king can respond by sending the Israeli ambassador home and he can suspend the 1994 ‘peace’ treaty in whole or part but he cannot stop annexation any more than King Canute could stop the incoming tide.

The ‘international community’ is already reacting negatively but is likely to do little in practice. The US is giving Israel a free hand and the lobby will ensure King Abdullah stays in line. He is dependent on the US, where pressure is already being exerted through Congress for the extradition of Ahlam al Tamimi, implicated in the bombing of a Jerusalem pizzeria in 2001, and released in 2011 as part of a Hamas-Israel prisoner exchange. As US nationals died in the bombing, Al Tamimi is wanted for prosecution in the US. Refusal or delay by Jordan in handing her over would completely play into Israel’s hands. It is the “child killer” – Israel of course never kills children – that would capture the US media headlines and not the annexation of occupied Palestinian territory.

Israel’s ‘peace treaty’ with Jordan is no more than a tactical tool, just as the ‘peace process’ was, to be tossed aside when it has outlived its usefulness. The Israel army is already stationed on the West Bank of the Jordan. No one should expect it to stay there once the annexation of the West Bank has been completed. The east bank of the Jordan River is as much a part of the 1919 map as the Golan Heights or southern Lebanon, where only the resistance of Hizbullah has held the Zionists at bay. Almost certainly Israel is going to cross the Jordan river one day.

*(Top image: Three members of the Beit Ommar National Committee against the Wall and Settlements were injured on May 7, 2011, in a demonstration near the Israeli Karmei Tsur settlement. Yousef Abu Marya, age 36, had his wrist broken in two places by Israeli soldiers, while Ahmed Abu Hashem, age 42, and Mousa Abu Marya, 33, sustained leg injuries. Credit: Palestine Solidarity Project/ Flickr)

Jeremy Salt has taught at the University of Melbourne, Bosporus University (Istanbul) and Bilkent University (Ankara), specialising in the modern history of the Middle East. His publications include “The Unmaking of the Middle East. A History of Western Disorder in Arab Lands” (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008.) His latest book is “The Last Ottoman Wars. The Human Cost 1877-1923” (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2019).

June 18, 2020 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

Pro-Palestine group wins legal battle against MailOnline over false anti-Semitism claim

MEMO | June 18, 2020

Key figures at the centre of the anti-Semitism row which rocked the Labour Party under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn have suffered an embarrassing legal defeat. Two British right-wing newspapers, the Mail on Sunday and MailOnline, have been ordered to pay full damages and issue a written apology for publishing “grotesque” allegations about the Palestinian Return Centre (PRC) in their serialisation of Tom Bower’s biography of Corbyn, Dangerous Mind.

In the unauthorised biography of the former Labour leader, Bower, an investigative journalist, alleged that the PRC, an advocacy group for Palestinian refugees with links to Corbyn, was an anti-Semitic group. The 73-year-old alleged that the PRC is “known to blame the Jews for the Holocaust,” in his Mail on Sunday and MailOnline serialisation which tries to convince readers that the former Labour leader is unfit for office. The book was published it 2019 prior to the UK general election presumably to inflict the most damage on Corbyn.

“The article (along with Mr Bower’s book) contained the grotesque, but utterly false, allegation that the PRC (and, it was implied, its Chairman) is a group ‘known to blame the Jews for the Holocaust’,” said the PRC in a statement following their victory yesterday mentioning its chairman Majed Al-Zeer. Both papers have “acknowledged, there was no truth whatsoever in this allegation.”

The fabricated comment attributed to the PRC, a UN accredited NGO, was made in the House of Lords by an individual from the audience speaking at an event hosted by the advocacy group in 2016.  Although the remarks were “strongly condemned by the PRC at the time”, Bower misused this false allegation to paint the PRC as an anti-Semitic group in what seems to be a desperate attempt to make Corbyn guilty by association. Though the former Labour leader was not a speaker at the event, he has spoken in several conferences and parliamentary meetings hosted by the PRC and made a trip to refugee camps in the Middle East during cross party parliamentary delegations organised by the centre.

As well as publishing full apologies in the Mail on Sunday and MailOnline website, Associated Newspapers has been ordered to pay substantial damages and pay the Palestinian Return Centre’s legal costs.

PRC also confirmed that Harper Collins, the publisher of Corbyn’s biography, along with Bower will have to publish a full statement expressing their regret and confirming their unqualified withdrawal of the allegation while acknowledging that the PRC does not and never has blamed the Jews for the Holocaust. The false allegation will also be removed from all future editions and the paperback version of the book.

This is the second legal victory in under two years for the PRC. Last year its Chairman Majed Al-Zeer won a High Court battle in the UK after being falsely labelled a terrorist. The entire case centred on Israel’s designation of the PRC and its chairman as terrorists. World-Check, which supplies private information on potential clients for corporations, businesses and even governmental agencies, such as police and immigration, appears to have bypassed British authorities in its designation and used Israel’s false depiction of the PRC.

 

June 18, 2020 Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , | Leave a comment

International community rejects Canada’s bid for a seat on Security Council

e2ed081f-4155-40dd-92db-5ea3595a69ac

By Yves Engler | June 17, 2020

The international community’s rejection of Canada’s bid for a seat on the United Nations Security Council isn’t a surprise. In the below introduction to my recently published House of Mirrors: Justin Trudeau’s Foreign Policy I detail how Liberal foreign policy has largely mimicked Stephen Harper’s who lost a bid for the Security Council in 2010.

***

Justin Trudeau presents himself as “progressive” on foreign affairs. The Liberals claim to have brought Canada “back” after the disastrous Stephen Harper government. But, this book will demonstrate the opposite.

While promising to “make a real and valuable contribution to a more peaceful and prosperous world”, Trudeau has largely continued the Conservatives pro-corporate/empire international policies. The Liberals have followed the previous government’s posture on a wide range of issues from Russia to Palestine, Venezuela to the military.

In 2017 the Liberals released a defence policy that called for 605 more special forces, which have carried out numerous violent covert missions abroad. During the 2015 election campaign defence minister Jason Kenney said if re-elected the Conservatives would add 665 members to the Canadian Armed Forces Special Operations Command. The government’s defence policy also included a plan to acquire armed drones, for which the Conservatives had expressed support. Additionally, the Liberals re-stated the previous government’s commitment to spend over one hundred billion dollars on new fighter jets and naval ships.

The Harper regime repeatedly attacked Venezuela’s elected government and the Liberals ramped up that campaign. The Trudeau government launched an unprecedented, multipronged, effort to overthrow Nicolás Maduro’s government. As part of this campaign, they aligned with the most reactionary political forces in the region, targeting Cuba and recognizing a Honduran president who stole an election he shouldn’t have participated in. Juan Orlando Hernández’ presidency was the outgrowth of a military coup the Conservatives tacitly endorsed in 2009.

In Haiti the Liberals propped up the chosen successor of neo-Duvalerist President Michel Martelly who Harper helped install. Despite a sustained popular uprising against Jovenel Moïse, the Liberals backed the repressive, corrupt and illegitimate president.

The Trudeau government continues to justify Israeli violence against Palestinians and supports Israel’s illegal occupation. Isolating Canada from world opinion, they voted against dozens of UN resolutions upholding Palestinian rights backed by most of the world.

Initiated by the Conservatives, the Liberals signed off on a $14 billion Light Armoured Vehicle sale to Saudi Arabia. The Liberals followed Harper’s path of cozying up to other repressive Middle East monarchies, which waged war in Yemen. They also contributed to extending the brutal war in Syria and broke their promise to restart diplomatic relations with Iran, which the Conservatives severed.

The Liberals renewed Canada’s military “training” mission in the Ukraine, which emboldened far-right militarists responsible for hundreds of deaths in the east of that country. In fact, Trudeau significantly bolstered Canada’s military presence on Russia’s doorstep. Simultaneously, the Trudeau government expanded Harper’s sanctions against Russia.

On China the Liberals were torn between corporate Canada and militarist/pro-US forces. They steadily moved away from the corporate sphere and towards the militarist/US Empire standpoint. (During their time in office the Conservatives moved in the opposite direction.) Ottawa seemed to fear that peace might break out on the Korean Peninsula.

Trudeau backed Africa’s most bloodstained politician Paul Kagame.

Unlike his predecessor, Trudeau didn’t sabotage international climate negotiations. But the Liberals flouted their climate commitments and subsidized infrastructure to expand heavy emitting fossil fuels.

Ignoring global inequities, the Liberals promoted the interests of corporations and wealth holders in various international forums. They backed corporate interests through trade accords, Export Development Canada and the Trade Commissioner Service. Their support for SNC Lavalin also reflected corporate influence over foreign policy.

In a stark betrayal of their progressive rhetoric, the Trudeau regime failed to follow through on their promise to rein in Canada’s controversial international mining sector. Instead they mimicked the Conservatives’ strategy of establishing a largely toothless ombudsperson while openly backing brutal mining companies.

To sell their pro-corporate/empire policies the Liberals embraced a series of progressive slogans. As they violated international law and spurned efforts to overcome pressing global issues, the Liberals crowed about the “international rules-based order”. Their “feminist foreign policy” rhetoric rested uneasily with their militarism, support for mining companies and ties to misogynistic monarchies.

Notwithstanding the rhetoric, the sober reality is that Trudeau has largely continued Harper’s foreign policy. The “Ugly Canadian” continued to march across the planet, but with a prettier face at the helm.

My 2012 book The Ugly Canadian: Stephen Harper’s Foreign Policy detailed the first six and a half years of Harper’s rule. This book looks at the first four years of Trudeau’s reign. I will discuss the many ways Canadian foreign policy under Conservative and Liberal governments remained the same. Support for empire and a pro-corporate neoliberal economic order is the common theme that links the actions of conservative and self-described “progressive” prime ministers.

 

Please sign this petition calling for a fundamental reassessment of Canadian foreign policy.

June 17, 2020 Posted by | Book Review | , | Leave a comment

Russia: UN chief report blaming Iran for attacks on Saudi oil facilities not based on convincing evidence

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova
Press TV | June 17, 2020

The Russian Foreign Ministry says the UN chief’s report on Iran’s involvement in the last year attacks on Saudi oil facilities is biased and not substantiated by facts.

“What we surely won’t argue with is, unfortunately, that the report can hardly be called balanced and calibrated,” the ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova said during a press briefing on Wednesday.

She added Russia will present a “detailed analysis” of the UN report during the relevant discussion at the Security Council later on June 30.

“We can also speak about a lack of impartiality and the absence of strong facts to support the accusations leveled at Iran,” she noted, stressing “Nobody has ever presented any convincing evidence of Iran’s violations to the Security Council members.”

The Russian official said that the report was not valid, arguing the “self-appointed inspectors” had claimed based on their “personal observations” that what they saw was “roughly reminiscent of what Iran had once demonstrated at arms exhibitions.”

Last week, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres said in a report to the Security Council that cruise missiles used in attacks on oil facilities and an airport in Saudi Arabia last year were of “Iranian origin.”

He also said the “items may have been transferred in a manner inconsistent” with UN Security Council Resolution 2231, which endorses the international nuclear deal – officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – signed between Iran and major world powers in 2015. The allegations were roundly rejected by Iran’s Foreign Ministry.

The ministry said in a statement that the claims appear to have been made under political pressure from the US and Saudi regimes.

“Preparing reports with political motivation will not change the facts and it is clear to all that the current circumstances in the region have directly resulted from the wrong policies of the United States and the child-killing Saudi regime,” the statement said.

The ministry highly recommended that the UN Secretariat not play into the hands of the US in its “pre-planned scenario to annul the cancellation of Iran’s arms embargo.” It also warned the UN against contributing to such a dangerous trend by preparing illegal reports.

Separately, Iran’s UN Mission also responded to the report on Friday, saying, “Iran categorically rejects the observations contained in the report concerning the Iranian connection to the export of weapons or their components that are used in attacks on Saudi Arabia and the Iranian origin of alleged US seizures of armaments.”

US President Donald Trump withdrew Washington from the JCPOA in 2018 and reinstated Washington’s unilateral sanctions against Tehran. His administration has also been piling up pressure on the United Nations to extend and strengthen the embargo on Iran, which is set to expire in October under the nuclear deal.

Washington seeks to restore all Security Council sanctions lifted against Iran if the 15-member body fails to preserve the UN ban on selling conventional arms to Iran.

June 17, 2020 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ukraine receives Javelin anti-tank missiles & other US military aid worth $60mn – embassy

RT | June 17, 2020

Kiev has received military aid worth more than $60 million from Washington, including Javelin anti-tank missiles, the United States embassy said on Wednesday.

The first shipment of Javelin systems worth around $47 million was sent to Ukraine in April 2018, according to Reuters.

Military aid to Ukraine was at the center of a House of Representatives impeachment inquiry in December into US President Donald Trump, on charges of obstruction of Congress and of pressuring Ukraine to investigate the son of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden. Trump was acquitted by the Republican-controlled Senate in February.

Pentagon Comptroller Elaine McCusker, who was reported to have questioned the suspension of US military aid to Ukraine, a key element in the inquiry leading to Trump’s impeachment, resigned on Tuesday, Defense Secretary Mark Esper said.

June 17, 2020 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

British politicians and the MSM have sent a clear message to the white working class for decades: ‘You don’t matter’

By Guy Birchall | RT | June 17, 2020

“Far right”, “Nazis” and “racists” are epithets used by the liberal elite as an excuse to demonise patriotic Brits who offend their metropolitan sensibilities. This is class hatred, plain and simple.

Bigotry is alive and well in the UK. One form, in particular, is actively encouraged, lauded and laughed about. The victims of it are demonised in the press and for entertainment. These people don’t matter, their opinions don’t matter, their tastes are low-grade, the things they enjoy are looked upon with scorn, and whenever they kick off about all this, they’re vilified or ignored. They are, of course, the white working class.

The difference in the tone of coverage of last weekend’s protests compared with the ones the weekend before won’t have passed you by. When Black Lives Matter descended on Westminster to have a riot because a man had been killed 4,000 miles away, the media could not have been more sympathetic.

These weren’t just people who were wound up and bored after the Government had locked them all inside for a quarter of the year. They weren’t troublemakers – they were protesters. They weren’t “far-left thugs” – they were “anti-racism activists”. Their pulling down of statues, defacing national monuments or attempting to set fire to the Union Flag was just being done to “raise awareness” of “systemic racism” in Britain today.

The weekend of civil unrest was reported by the BBC to be “largely peaceful”, despite 27 police officers being injured in one day, some requiring serious hospital treatment. But, of course, they were a “diverse” group of ethnic minorities and middle-class Marxist poseurs fighting for a cause endorsed by every corporation going, from Ben & Jerry’s to the Premier League.

They were good people who’d been wound up. Even those who dared to criticise them did so only with the heavy caveat that they “understood their grievances”.

However, it was all very different for another group of people who got pissed off by what they saw, with war memorials being desecrated and monuments to national heroes being covered in graffiti. They were incensed by police inaction and what they felt was an assault on their national identity and history, so decided to go out and protect these monuments.

And what did the government and media call them? “Far right”, “racists” and “Nazis”, because, obviously, Hitler supporters would want to defend a statue of Winston Churchill. For a demonstration that was a tenth of the size at best as the one the previous weekend, the area was flooded with police.

The Mayor of London told them their “hate wasn’t welcome” in the city. The BBC described the “more than 100 arrests, after violent clashes with the police” (though just six cops were injured, in comparison with the previous event’s 27). It was a stark contrast to the coverage of the “mostly peaceful protests” that had taken place the weekend before. These new protesters weren’t legitimately concerned about the actions of communist and anarchist agitators – they were just racists. That was the only possible reason they’d assembled.

And what evidence did the media provide for them being racist? It boiled down to ‘Well, just look at them.’ Shaven-headed, pasty-faced, tattooed men covering themselves in the Cross of St George. Every front-page headline on every paper might as well have read, “Look at them – aren’t they ghastly?”. People wilfully misconstrued images to say they were performing Sieg Heil salutes, when they were clearly raising their hands and chanting “England” in a fashion anyone who has ever seen a football match can clearly recognise.

The hero of the hour was a black protester who was photographed carrying an injured white counter protester away from the fray – an undoubtedly noble act on his behalf. But when the Daily Mail covered this, they described a “far-right statue defender” as having been rescued by a BLM activist.

It had no way of knowing this man’s politics. It didn’t even bother to find out his name before labelling him an extremist. And what about those “mostly peaceful” protesters he had to be rescued from? Were they about to lovingly kick his head in for thinking that Churchill was basically a good bloke? Did they shove him to the ground to educate him about the wonders of diversity?

The double standard is appalling. The photos taken before that counter protestor was hauled to safety in an admirable act of humanity show a baying masked mob of mostly black men around him. Can you imagine the outrage if a picture emerged with those dynamics reversed? There would be hell to pay.

The disparity is obvious yet again in the coverage accorded to the man pictured urinating near the memorial for policeman Keith Palmer, who was murdered by a terrorist outside Parliament in 2017. The photo was circulated by MPs and media outlets alike, all of them accusing a man who was clearly out of his head drunk as engaging in some sort of dirty protest against the memory of a fallen officer.

Within a day, he’d handed himself into police custody and was up before the magistrates on Monday. He told the court he’d been out in London the night before, where he’d necked at least 16 pints, not gone to bed, then decided to join fellow football supporters to “protect the statues” – but he didn’t know which statues. He said he was ashamed of himself and admitted guilt and, within 15 minutes, he was sentenced to 14 days in prison. The usual punishment for this offence is an £80 fine and results in no criminal record.

Remind me again how long the gang of thugs that tore down a statue, rolled it through the streets of Bristol and dumped it in the harbour got? I seem to recall that entire incident being filmed as well, but none of the perpetrators have even been arrested, let alone had the contrition and decency to hand themselves in to the authorities.

While we’re on the topic of Bristol’s “racist” statues, let’s consider the latest public art installation that has arrived in that city. Next to the plinth where the statue of Edward Colston once stood there’s now another sculpture.

This one depicts a morbidly obese skinhead wearing a string vest and standing in a wheelie bin. His enormous belly spills over its lip as he looks at a phone with “England for the English” as a background in one hand while holding a globe in the other. On the bin are the words “Spoiler alert: St George was Turkish”. Can you imagine the outcry if a statue exaggerating the stereotypes of any other group were to be put up? It would be smashed before lunchtime.

The statue is a material manifestation of the attitude the elite has towards this section of society, which is simply: “You don’t matter”. The Labour Party was formed to represent working-class people, but stood idly by as their jobs went abroad and their communities were completely transformed by immigration.

“You’re just racist,” they told them, or as Gordon Brown, the former Labour prime minister, once famously got caught out admitting in 2010 while unknowingly still mic’ed up, “You’re just bigoted” – in other words, you don’t deserve to matter.

They ignored these people after they voted for Brexit in 2016, prompting them to plump for the Conservatives for the first time in decades in 2019. But the Tories won’t listen to them, either: they also regard these white people as toxic, and the party doesn’t want to be accused of being racist.

So, we end up with the appalling scenario of our police standing by as white girls across England were raped by gangs of predatory Muslim men. Because these white girls don’t matter.

The white working class’s love of cheap EasyJet flights to Spain and Greece have to go because they’re killing the planet – while we ignore China and India belching out millions of tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere. But we can end all that because they don’t matter.

Even football is being taken away from them, as the price of Premier League tickets go up and up and the grounds are ever more gentrified to appeal to the middle classes who derided the game for so long, but like it now that it’s fashionable and lucrative. The old lot would just fight anyway, so they don’t matter.

I don’t believe the vast majority of these people are far right – those who make that accusation don’t even know what that means. They just, rightly, feel ignored. There will be racists in their midst, but you can’t dismiss millions of people on the basis of a few extremists. Black Lives Matter and the Labour Party should both be dismissed, if that were the case.

They are, for the most part, patriots who feel abandoned by the country they love. They deserve to be heard. And they deserve to know that they do matter.

Guy Birchall, British journalist covering current affairs, politics and free speech issues. Recently published in The Sun and Spiked Online. Follow him on Twitter @guybirchall

June 17, 2020 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Progressive Hypocrite | | Leave a comment

How an Internet ‘Persona’ Helped Birth Russiagate

By Ray McGovern | Consortium News | June 15, 2020

Four years ago today, on June 15, 2016, a shadowy Internet persona calling itself “Guccifer 2.0” appeared out of nowhere to claim credit for hacking emails from the Democratic National Committee on behalf of WikiLeaks and implicate Russia by dropping “telltale” but synthetically produced Russian “breadcrumbs” in his metadata.

Thanks largely to the corporate media, the highly damaging story actually found in those DNC emails — namely, that the DNC had stacked the cards against Bernie Sanders in the party’s 2016 primary— was successfully obscured.

The media was the message; and the message was that Russia had used G-2.0 to hack into the DNC, interfering in the November 2016 election to help Donald Trump win.

Almost everybody still “knows” that — from the man or woman in the street to the forlorn super sleuth, Special Counsel Robert Swan Mueller III, who actually based indictments of Russian intelligence officers on Guccifer 2.0.

Blaming Russia was a magnificent distraction from the start and quickly became the vogue.

The soil had already been cultivated for “Russiagate” by Democratic PR gems like Donald Trump “kissing up” to former KGB officer Vladimir Putin and their “bromance” (bromides that former President Barack Obama is still using). Four years ago today, “Russian meddling” was off and running — on steroids — acquiring far more faux-reality than the evanescent Guccifer 2.0 persona is likely to get.

Here’s how it went down:

1 — June 12: WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange announced he had “emails related to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication.”

2 — June 14: DNC contractor CrowdStrike tells the media that malware has been found on the DNC server and claims there is evidence it was injected by Russians.

3 — June 15: Guccifer 2.0 arises from nowhere; affirms the DNC/CrowdStrike allegations of the day before; claims responsibility for hacking the DNC; claims to be a WikiLeaks source; and posts a document that forensic examination shows was deliberately tainted with “Russian fingerprints.” This to “corroborate” claims made by CrowdStrike executives the day before.

Adding to other signs of fakery, there is hard evidence that G-2.0 was operating mostly in U.S. time zones and with local settings peculiar to a device configured for use within the U.S., as Tim Leonard reports here and here.)

Leonard is a software developer who started to catalog and archive evidence related to Guccifer 2.0 in 2017 and has issued detailed reports on digital forensic discoveries made by various independent researchers — as well as his own — over the past three years. Leonard points out that WikiLeaks said it did not use any of the emails G2.0 sent it, though it later published similar emails, opening the possibility that whoever created G2.0 knew what WikiLeaks had and sent it duplicates with the Russian fingerprints.

As Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) told President Trump in a memorandum of July 24, 2017, titled “Was the ‘Russian Hack’ an Inside Job?”:

“We do not think that the June 12, 14, & 15 timing was pure coincidence. Rather, it suggests the start of a pre-emptive move to associate Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been ready to publish and to ‘show’ that it came from a Russian hack.”

We added this about Guccifer 2.0 at the time:

“The recent forensic studies fill in a critical gap. Why the FBI neglected to perform any independent forensics on the original ‘Guccifer 2.0’ material remains a mystery – as does the lack of any sign that the ‘hand-picked analysts’ from the FBI, CIA, and NSA, who wrote the misnomered ‘Intelligence Community’ Assessment dated January 6, 2017, gave any attention to forensics.”

Guccifer 2.0 Seen As a Fraud

In our July 24, 2017 memorandum we also told President Trump that independent cyber investigators and VIPS had determined “that the purported ‘hack’ of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 was not a hack, by Russia or anyone else. Rather it originated with a copy (onto an external storage device – a thumb drive, for example) by an insider. Information was leaked to implicate Russia. We do not know who or what the murky Guccifer 2.0 is. You may wish to ask the FBI.” [Emphasis added.].

Right. Ask the FBI. At this stage, President Trump might have better luck asking Attorney General William Barr, to whom the FBI is accountable — at least in theory. As for Barr, VIPS informed him in a June 5, 2020 memorandum that the head of CrowdStrike had admitted under oath on Dec. 5, 2017 that CrowdStrike has no concrete evidence that the DNC emails published by WikiLeaks on July 22, 2016 were hacked — by Russia or by anyone else. [Emphasis added.] This important revelation has so far escaped attention in the Russia-Russia-Russia “mainstream” media (surprise, surprise, surprise!).

Back to the Birth of G-2

It boggles the mind that so few Americans could see Russiagate for the farce it was. Most of the blame, I suppose, rests on a thoroughly complicit Establishment media. Recall: Assange’s announcement on June 12, 2016 that he had Hillary Clinton-related emails came just six weeks before the Democratic convention. I could almost hear the cry go up from the DNC: Houston, We Have a Problem!

Clinton at the 2016 convention. (Wikimedia Commons)

Here’s how bad the problem for the Democrats was. The DNC emails eventually published by WikiLeaks on July 22, 2016, just three days before the Democratic convention, had been stolen on May 23 and 25. This would have given the DNC time to learn that the stolen material included documents showing how the DNC and Clinton campaign had manipulated the primaries and created a host of other indignities, such that Sanders’ chances of winning the nomination amounted to those of a snowball’s chance in the netherworld.

To say this was an embarrassment would be the understatement of 2016. Worse still, given the documentary nature of the emails and WikiLeaks’ enviable track record for accuracy, there would be no way to challenge their authenticity. Nevertheless, with the media in full support of the DNC and Clinton, however, it turned out to be a piece of cake to divert attention from the content of the emails to the “act of war” (per John McCain) that the Russian “cyber attack” was said to represent.

The outcome speaks as much to the lack of sophistication on the part of American TV watchers, as it does to the sophistication of the Democrats-media complicity and cover-up. How come so few could figure out what was going down?

It was not hard for some experienced observers to sniff a rat. Among the first to speak out was fellow Consortium News columnist Patrick Lawrence, who immediately saw through the Magnificent Diversion. I do not know if he fancies duck hunting, but he shot the Russiagate canard quite dead — well before the Democratic convention was over.

Magnificent Diversion

Patrick Lawrence

In late July 2016, Lawrence was sickened, as he watched what he immediately recognized as a well planned, highly significant deflection. The Clinton-friendly media was excoriating Russia for “hacking” DNC emails and was glossing over what the emails showed; namely, that the Clinton Dems had pretty much stolen the nomination from Sanders.

It was already clear even then that the Democrats, with invaluable help from intelligence leaks and other prepping to the media, had made good use of those six weeks between Assange’s announcement that he had emails “related to Hillary Clinton” and the opening of the convention.

The media was primed to castigate the Russians for “hacking,” while taking a prime role in the deflection. It was a liminal event of historic significance, as we now know. The “Magnificent Diversion” worked like a charm — and then it grew like Topsy.

Lawrence said he had “fire in the belly” on the morning of July 25 as the Democratic convention began and wrote what follows pretty much “in one long, furious exhale” within 12 hours of when the media started really pushing the “the Russians-did-it” narrative.

Below is a slightly shortened text of his article:

“Now wait a minute, all you upper-case “D” Democrats. A flood light suddenly shines on your party apparatus, revealing its grossly corrupt machinations to fix the primary process and sink the Sanders campaign, and within a day you are on about the evil Russians having hacked into your computers to sabotage our elections …

Is this a joke? Are you kidding? Is nothing beneath your dignity? Is this how lowly you rate the intelligence of American voters? …

Clowns. Subversives. Do you know who you remind me of? I will tell you: Nixon, in his famously red-baiting campaign — a disgusting episode — … during his first run for the Senate, in 1950. Your political tricks are as transparent and anti-democratic as his, it is perfectly fair to say.

I confess to a heated reaction to events since last Friday [July 22] among the Democrats, specifically in the Democratic National Committee. I should briefly explain …

The Sanders people have long charged that the DNC has had its fingers on the scale, as one of them put it the other day, in favor of Hillary Clinton’s nomination. The prints were everywhere — many those of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who has repeatedly been accused of anti-Sanders bias. Schultz, do not forget, co-chaired Clinton’s 2008 campaign against Barack Obama. That would be enough to disqualify her as the DNC’s chair in any society that takes ethics seriously, but it is not enough in our great country. Chairwoman she has been for the past five years.

Last Friday WikiLeaks published nearly 20,000 DNC email messages providing abundant proof that Sanders and his staff were right all along. The worst of these, involving senior DNC officers, proposed Nixon-esque smears having to do with everything from ineptitude within the Sanders campaign to Sanders as a Jew in name only and an atheist by conviction.

Wasserman fell from grace on Monday. Other than this, Democrats from President Obama to Clinton and numerous others atop the party’s power structure have had nothing to say, as in nothing, about this unforgivable breach.They have, rather, been full of praise for Wasserman Schultz. Brad Marshall, the D.N.C.’s chief financial officer, now tries to deny that his Jew-baiting remark referred to Sanders. Good luck, Brad: Bernie is the only Jew in the room.

The caker came on Sunday, when Robby Mook, Clinton’s campaign manager, appeared on ABC’s “This Week” and … CNN’s “State of the Union” to assert that the D.N.C.’s mail was hacked “by the Russians for the purpose of helping Donald Trump.” He knows this — knows it in a matter of 24 hours — because “experts” — experts he will never name — have told him so. …

What’s disturbing to us is that experts are telling us that Russian state actors broke into the DNC, stole these emails, and other experts are now saying that Russians are releasing these emails for the purpose of helping Donald Trump.

Is that what disturbs you, Robby? Interesting. Unsubstantiated hocus-pocus, not the implications of these events for the integrity of Democratic nominations and the American political process? The latter is the more pressing topic, Robby. You are far too long on anonymous experts for my taste, Robby. And what kind of expert, now that I think of it, is able to report to you as to the intentions of Russian hackers — assuming for a sec that this concocted narrative has substance?

Making lemonade out of a lemon, the Clinton campaign now goes for a twofer. Watch as it advances the Russians-did-it thesis on the basis of nothing, then shoots the messenger, then associates Trump with its own mess — and, finally, gets to ignore the nature of its transgression (which any paying-attention person must consider grave).

Preposterous, readers. Join me, please, in having absolutely none of it. There is no “Russian actor” at the bottom of this swamp, to put my position bluntly. You will never, ever be offered persuasive evidence otherwise.

Reluctantly, I credit the Clinton campaign and the DNC with reading American paranoia well enough such that they may make this junk stick. In a clear sign the entire crowd-control machine is up and running, The New York Times had a long, unprofessional piece about Russian culprits in its Monday editions. It followed Mook’s lead faithfully: not one properly supported fact, not one identified “expert,” and more conditional verbs than you’ve had hot dinners — everything cast as “could,” “might,” “appears,” “would,” “seems,” “may.” Nothing, once again, as to the very serious implications of this affair for the American political process.

Now comes the law. The FBI just announced that it will investigate — no, not the DNC’s fraudulent practices (which surely breach statutes), but “those who pose a threat in cyberspace.” … it is the invocation of the Russians that sends me over the edge. My bones grow weary …

We must take the last few days’ events as a signal of what Clinton’s policy toward Russia will look like should she prevail in November. … Turning her party’s latest disgrace into an occasion for another round of Russophobia is mere preface, but in it you can read her commitment to the new crusade.

Trump, to make this work, must be blamed for his willingness to negotiate with Moscow. This is now among his sins. Got that? Anyone who says he will talk to the Russians has transgressed the American code. … Does this not make Hillary Clinton more than a touch Nixonian?

I am developing nitrogen bends from watching the American political spectacle. One can hardly tell up from down. Which way for a breath of air?”

A year later Lawrence interviewed several of us VIPS, including our two former NSA technical directors and on Aug. 9, 2017 published an article for The Nation titled, “A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year’s DNC Hack.”

Lawrence wrote, “Former NSA experts, now members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), say it wasn’t a hack at all, but a leak—an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system.”

And so it was. But, sadly, that cut across the grain of the acceptable Russia-gate narrative at The Nation at the time. Its staff, seriously struck by the HWHW (Hillary Would Have Won) virus, rose up in rebellion. A short time later, there was no more room at The Nation for his independent-minded writing.

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. His 27-year career as a CIA analyst included preparing and briefing The President’s Daily Brief and leading the Soviet Foreign Policy Branch. In retirement he co-founded Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.

June 16, 2020 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

The Miracle of Salisbury

By Craig Murray | June 16, 2020

It turns out that the BBC really does believe that God is an Englishman. When the simple impossibility of the official story on the Skripals finally overwhelmed the dramatists, they resorted to Divine Intervention for an explanation – as propagandists have done for millennia.

This particular piece of script from Episode 2 of The Salisbury Poisonings deserves an induction in the Propaganda Hall of Fame:

Porton Down Man: I’ve got the reports from the Bailey house
Public Health Woman: Tell me, how many hits?
Porton Down Man: It was found in almost every room of the house. Kitchen, bathroom, living room, bedrooms. It was even on the light switches. We found it in the family car too. But his wife and children haven’t been affected. I like to think of myself as a man of science, but the only word for that is a miracle.

Well, it certainly would be a miracle that the family lived for a week in the house without touching a light switch. But miracle is not really the “only word for that”. Nonsense is a good word. Bullshit is a ruder version. Lie is entirely appropriate in these circumstances.

Because that was not the only miracle on display. We were told specifically that the Skripals had trailed novichok all over Zizzis and the Bishops Mill pub, leaving multiple deadly deposits, dozens of them in total, which miraculously nobody had touched. We were told that Detective Bailey was found to have left multiple deadly deposits of novichok on everything he touched in a busy police station, but over several days before it was closed down nobody had touched any of them, which must be an even bigger miracle than the Baileys’ home.

Perhaps even more amazingly, as the Skripals spread novichok all over the restaurant and the pub, nobody who served them had been harmed, nobody who took their payment. The man who went through Sergei’s wallet to learn his identity from his credit cards was not poisoned. The people giving first aid were not poisoned. The ducks Sergei fed were not poisoned. The little boy he fed the ducks with was not poisoned. So many miracles. If God were not an Englishman, Salisbury would have been in real trouble, evidently.

The conclusion of episode two showed Charlie Rowley fishing out the perfume bottle from the charity bin at least two months in the timeline before this really happened, thus neatly sidestepping one of the most glaring impossibilities in the entire official story. I think we can forgive the BBC that lie – there are only so many instances of divine intervention in the story the public can be expected to buy in one episode.

It is fascinating to see that the construction of this edifice of lies was a joint venture between the BBC and the security services’ house journal, the Guardian. Not only is all round pro-war propagandist “Colonel” Hamish De Bretton Gordon credited as Military Advisor, but Guardian journalists Caroline Bannock and Steven Morris are credited as Script Consultants, which I presume means they fed in the raw lies for the scriptwriters to shape into miracles.

Now here is an interesting ethical point for readers of the Guardian. The Guardian published in the last fortnight two articles by Morris and Bannock that purported to be reporting on the production of the drama and its authenticity, without revealing to the readers that these full time Guardian journalists were in fact a part of the BBC project. That is unethical and unprofessional in a number of quite startling ways. But then it is the Guardian.

[Full disclosure. I shared a flat with Caroline at university. She was an honest person in those days.]

Again, rather than pepper this article with links, I urge you to read this comprehensive article, which contains plenty of links and remains entirely unanswered.

June 16, 2020 Posted by | Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Meet The Company Who Created More Than 500 Police Snitching Apps

MassPrivateI | June 16, 2020

The company responsible for creating a network of police snitching apps in the U.S. and Canada is trying to convince the public to use a new app.

Want to report your neighbor for not social distancing, report them for being a George Floyd protester, or perhaps you have seen something suspicious? Chances are pretty good that OCV, LLC has created that app.

OCV has created a mind-boggling 500 law enforcement apps.

“With over nine years of experience serving public safety agencies, OCV, LLC. has developed over 500 custom mobile apps and proudly serves over 40 states and Canada.”

As The Daily Globe explains, OCV’s latest app allows users to “lookup jail inmates and wanted lists, as well as submit anonymous tips about crime.”

In Rock County, Minnesota, the Sheriff’s department has already received a tip from a concerned citizen. Because who doesn’t want to send police an anonymous tip about their neighbors?

OCV’s “TheSheriffApp.com” is particularly good at masking its real purpose.

“TheSheriffApp.com will help your office brand itself as innovative leaders in law enforcement within your community and provide easy access to important information to your citizens.”

Want to help re-brand law enforcement’s image? OCV has at least 500 apps that will help convince the public that law enforcement is here to help.

OCV is so good at masking what TheSheriff App’s real purpose is, it is easy to miss.

“App users have the ability to receive instant push notifications from your sheriff’s office, submit a tip, view the most wanted page, see a map of sex offenders in their area and more – all from an app!”

TheSherrifApp is specifically designed to allow users to send anonymous tips to law enforcement. The first thing they mention in their “Common Features” section is submitting a tip.

“Submit tips right from your smartphone. Use your smartphone capabilities to include pictures, GPS location and more in your tip.”

TheSherrifApp has taken public snitching to a whole new level by combining real-time social media accounts.

“Combine all social media accounts into one continuous stream within the app. Updated in real time.”

Would anyone like to guess what the “Main Feature” of TheSheriffApp is? If you guessed public snitching, congratulations.

“Submit a tip with a tap by using our tip submission feature! Users can easily submit tips directly from their smartphone. Take advantage of a mobile app and use your smartphone to be as detailed as possible with your submission: upload pictures, videos… even include the GPS location of an incident! Users also have the option to submit a tip anonymously.”

During the coronavirus outbreak, the news has been littered with stories of neighbors snitching on each other. Private companies like, NextDoor have even gone so far as to shower law enforcement with gifts so they can spread public snitching to every neighborhood in America.

 “As part of the chosen group, Charles Husted, the chief of police in Sedona, Arizona would be flown to San Francisco on President’s Day, along with seven other community engagement staffers from police departments and city offices across the country. Over two days, they’d meet at Nextdoor’s headquarters to discuss the social network’s public agency strategy. Together, the plan was, they’d stay at  the Hilton Union Square, eat and drink at Cultivar, share a tour of Chinatown, and receive matching Uniqlo jackets. All costs — a projected $16,900 for the group, according to a schedule sent to participants — were covered by Nextdoor.”

Hasn’t law enforcement learned anything about the recent slew of “Karen’s” calling police on black people? The last thing American’s need or want is a “Karen” police app disguised as “TheSherrifApp.” (To find out more about NextDoor’s “Karen” problem, click here.)

If there is to be any hope of police reform, then we must demand an end to the culture of police surveillance, and the corporations who profit from it.

June 16, 2020 Posted by | Aletho News | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »