Archive | December 4th, 2016

Too Funny Not to Share: Donald Trump’s First Day in Office

trump élection

Trump’s first day at the Oval Office after being elected President.

First briefing to the President by CIA, Pentagon, FBI:

Trump: We must destroy ISIS immediately. No delays.

CIA: We cannot do that, sir. We created them along with Turkey, Saudi, Qatar and others.

Trump: The Democrats created them.

CIA: We created ISIS, sir. You need them or else you would lose funding from the natural gas lobby.

Trump: Stop funding Pakistan. Let India deal with them.

CIA: We can’t do that.

Trump: Why is that?

CIA: India will cut Balochistan out of Pak.

Trump: I don’t care.

CIA: India will have peace in Kashmir. They will stop buying our weapons. They will become a superpower. We have to fund Pakistan to keep India busy in Kashmir.

Trump: But you have to destroy the Taliban.

CIA: Sir, we can’t do that. We created the Taliban to keep Russia in check during the 80s. Now they are keeping Pakistan busy and away from their nukes.

Trump: We have to destroy terror sponsoring regimes in the Middle East. Let us start with the Saudis.

Pentagon: Sir, we can’t do that. We created those regimes because we wanted their oil. We can’t have democracy there, otherwise their people will get that oil – and we cannot let their people own it.

Trump: Then, let us invade Iran.

Pentagon: We cannot do that either, sir.

Trump: Why not?

CIA: We are talking to them, sir.

Trump: What? Why?

CIA: We want our stealth drone back. If we attack them, Russia will obliterate us as they did to our
buddy ISIS in Syria. Besides we need Iran to keep Israel in check.

Trump: Then let us invade Iraq again.

CIA: Sir, our friends (ISIS) are already occupying 1/3rd of Iraq.

Trump: Why not the whole of Iraq?

CIA: We need the Shi’ite gov’t of Iraq to keep ISIS in check.

Trump: I am banning Muslims from entering US.

FBI: We can’t do that.

Trump: Why not?

FBI: Then our own population will become fearless.

Trump: I am deporting all illegal immigrants to south of the border.

Border patrol: You can’t do that, sir.

Trump: Why not?

Border patrol: If they’re gone, who will build the wall?

Trump: I am banning H1B visas.

USCIS: You cannot do that.

Trump: Why?

Chief of staff: If you do so we’ll have to outsource White House operations to Bangalore. Which is in India.

Trump (sweating profusely by now): What the hell should I do as President???

CIA: Enjoy the White House, sir! We will take care of the rest!!

Posted in USAComments Off on Too Funny Not to Share: Donald Trump’s First Day in Office

The UN Will Cease to Publish Iraq Military Casualty Figures


ERBIL, Kurdistan Region – The UN mission in Iraq, UNAMI, will stop publicizing military casualty figures after the Joint Operations Command of the Iraqi military complained the UN’s figures for November were “much exaggerated.”

“UNAMI acknowledges that the military figures were largely unverified,” reads a statement published by the UN’s Iraqi mission on Saturday.

On Thursday, UNAMI reported that 1,959 Iraqi Security Forces, including army, police, and Peshmerga, had been killed in the month of November.

In their statement on Saturday, UNAMI admitted that obtaining accurate figures was difficult given the active conflict and few reliable sources. They noted that their requests for numbers from official government sources had gone unanswered.

“As such the Mission shall discontinue the publication of military casualty figures unless a sound methodology of verification can be found to better substantiate the figures being reported,” UNAMI stated.

Earlier on Saturday morning, the War Media Cell of the Joint Operations Command had published a statement saying the UN’s information was inaccurate. They added that such a false report “comes in the favor of Daesh [ISIS] who is working on exaggerations intended to influence the course of Ninawa operations.”

On Thursday, the Kurdistan Regional Government released figures of the number of Peshmerga killed in the two and a half years of war against ISIS. From mid-2014 through to November 21, 2016, they stated, 1,604 Peshmerga have been killed, 9,461 have been wounded, and 62 are missing.

Posted in IraqComments Off on The UN Will Cease to Publish Iraq Military Casualty Figures

When Truth-Telling Becomes Russian Propaganda

media fail

Fake news is a US government, mainstream media specialty – proliferating managed news misinformation agitprop, truth-telling suppressed on issues mattering most.

Propaganda wars precede hot ones. Deception, popular fiction and Big Lies launch them. Intense Russia bashing risks world peace, stability and security.

Washington’s imperial war machine is humanity’s greatest threat. Is Trump up to taming it? Will he try once in office?

Or were his campaign pledges just bluster? World peace and stability depends on which way he goes – along with whether he’ll defend waning freedoms or eliminate ones left, making America more of a police state than already.

A previous article discussed House passage of the draconian US Intelligence Authorization Act, calling it a huge leap backwards, Senate passage and Obama signing it into law virtually certain.

It aims to counter nonexistent “measures by Russia to exert covert influence, including exposing falsehoods, agents of influence, corruption, human rights abuses, terrorism and assassinations carried out by the security services or political elites of the Russian Federation or their proxies.”

It calls truth-telling by writers like myself and many others “fake news.” It threatens speech, independent media (especially online) and academic freedoms – the hallmark of a fascist dictatorship, wanting information and views contrary to official ones suppressed.

Does supporting Russia’s good faith efforts to resolve conflicts in Syria and Ukraine equitably make me a Kremlin agent or propagandist? Does praising Putin for wanting peace, not war, multi-world polarity, and mutual cooperation among all nations?

Does opposing Washington’s imperial war machine mean I’m unpatriotic? Does patriotism require supporting lawless government policies?

Does opposing might makes right make me an enemy of the state? Does wanting real democracy, not America’s fantasy version? Does believing in the inviolability of international and constitutional law principles?

Does wanting peace and security, imperial wars ended? Does believing in equity and justice for everyone, not just America’s privileged few?

Am I and many others like me endangered if we pursue truth-telling? In 1893, Finley Peter Dunne (1867 – 1936) said “(t)he job of the newspaper is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.”

He said it before the electronic media age, including the Internet, letting activist writers express views freely.

Will the US Intelligence Authorization Act change things? Are First Amendment rights threatened with annulment?

Will fascist tyranny replace remaining freedoms? Will truth-telling be criminalized?

Are my days able to write and speak freely numbered – despite committing no wrongdoing now or earlier? Just truth-telling on vital domestic and geopolitical issues, what journalism is supposed to be all about.

Posted in Media, RussiaComments Off on When Truth-Telling Becomes Russian Propaganda

Fake News in Overdrive: President Assad “Created ISIS”

Journalist Roy Gutman’s Hakawati
Assad carte

The so called “journalist” Roy Gutman is marketing an old fairy tale in three acts. It was the Syrian President Assad who created ISIS. Assad also faked the Al-Qaeda bombings in Syria to get sympathy in the “west”. The Daily Beast even paid Gutman to publish this nonsense:

This series charts Assad’s major role in the rise of Islamic extremism from the inside.

the regime likely staged bombings of its own security facilities in 2011 and 2012 to foster the impression that al Qaeda had an armed presence in Syria long before it did.

Syrian intelligence received orders to stand by when al Qaeda fighters crossed from Iraq into Syria in 2012.

But where did Gutman get such extraordinary information? On would think that some very credible witnesses were needed and on-the-ground research would be necessary to verify these claims. But as he himself writes:

Raed Ilawy, an Islamist recruit from Hama, was among the Syrians who traveled to the mosque. Some of the trainers, he recalled in an interview at an Istanbul café, …


Dendal was introduced to this reporter by a former regime judge from Aleppo who deserted to the opposition. Interviewed in a café in Istanbul’s popular Fatih district, …

Deserters and Islamist activists telling stories which blame their declared enemies – excellent witnesses. Those stories then must be true. Right? Gutman himself writes that the CIA does not believe the fairy tales he was told over coffee in Istanbul, nor does anyone else who is knowledgeable about the issue. Gutman is unable to get any official confirmation for his claims. Indeed the DNI refutes his tales:

The CIA declined to comment but did not dispute the validity of the question. “I looked into this, and there is nothing we can add,” a spokeswoman said.

The CIA declined to comment.

After bombings in Damascus Jan. 6 and Aleppo Feb. 10, 2012, James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence, told Congress in mid-February that the explosions “had all the earmarks of an al Qaeda-like attack.” He added: “And so we believe al Qaeda in Iraq is extending its reach into Syria.

In 2012 Rania Abouzeid interviewed Jabhat al Nusra (al-Qaeda) fighters in Raqqa and wrote about it for Time. They confirm that many came from Iraq and were silently in Syria even before the “revolution”.

But whatever – activists say the Syrian government did it … – is all the validity Gutman needs.

In the second act of the farce Gutman meets another witness:

the actual numbers were smaller, according to Abdullah Hakawati, an activist who helped organize anti-government protests in Aleppo … Hakawati provided the name of the officer, but he could not be reached to verify the account.

Elijah Magnier urged Gutman (who does not speak Arabic) to find out what that activist’salleged surname means.

From the description of a book titled The Hakawati we learn:

As the family gathers, stories begin to unfold: Osama’s grandfather was a hakawati, or storyteller, and his bewitching tales are interwoven with classic stories of the Middle East.

So this was one of Gutman’s witnesses?

Pic: Syria: ‘al-Hakawati’ – the Storytelling Tour in Sweden 2015

Ha! Some Syrian activist made a joke over duping a gullible journalist over coffee in Istanbul by giving his name as Mr. Storyteller! Dumb as bricks the journalist and his editors at the Daily Beast fall for it.

Gutman stenographed a great fairy tale just as the various hakawatis in Istanbul’s cafes tell it. With that he vividly demonstrated how “fake news” are created. I doubt though that this was his intention.

Posted in Media, SyriaComments Off on Fake News in Overdrive: President Assad “Created ISIS”

The Virtue of Protest: Democracy, Refugees and Australia’s Parliament


There is no greater single human rights dilemma facing the Australian parliament at the moment: refugees, declining, mouldering, decaying in detention centres in carceral conditions, being shifted, carted, moved from one base to another, from one nation state to another.  Camps funded with Australian tax payer dollars.  Camps run by privatised security firms and brutal local police forces.

The message from protesters of the Whistleblowers Activists and Citizens Alliance to Parliament was unvarnished in its simplicity: “We are here today because we have become world leaders in cruelty.” There were also chants of “close the camps” and “bring them here.”

Members of the WACA also managed to superglue themselves to the railings in Parliament’s public gallery, while two protesters on Thursday managed to abseil down Parliament House with a banner sporting the message of “Close the Bloody Camps Now”.

Appointed doyens of propriety were out there to hector and question the wisdom of these actions.  Government senator James McGrath thought the protesters “absolute grubs” and “Kmart Castros”.[1]  The speaker of the House, Tony Smith, adjourned the proceedings as members of the Australian Federal Police and security forces mopped up the irate protesters.

Our purpose here is to conduct the business of the House and in the period of time we have been suspended it is very clear we are unable to do that and the dignity of the House would have been severely compromised.

Such words: dignity, business, the integrity of the House, like an unsoiled Church of sombre ritual. Generally, the Australian parliament has been a financially minded, dull entity indifferent to the finer points of rights and liberties.  Common law and parliamentary wisdoms have tended to make that consideration less important.  Taxing backpackers and balancing the budget is of greater interest than abiding by the provisions of the UN Refugee Convention.

Nor does Australia have a clearly enshrined right to protest, despite the High Court’s inventiveness to identify a hidden implied right to express opinions on the subject of political communication.  Such rights are considered generally cosmetic apparel for the body polity, observed as much in the breach as anything else.

The Australian variant of democracy has tended to be a Westminster hybrid, wedded to the Senate principle of state representation.  When confronted about what was meant by democracy in the house, Peter Lalor of the Legislative Council, in a letter the Ballarat Star (Jan 1, 1857) though it merely “opposition to a tyrannical press, a tyrannical people, or a tyrannical government”. He accepted that he was hardly democratic in any Republican, Chartist or communist sense.

The content of how democracy is practiced remains something distinctly linked to politician over citizenry, with the latter’s voices mysteriously exercised through the representative body of parliament after each election.  At best, it is a rude compact enshrouded by the pretence of democratic practice.

Deferral to a wise, paternalistic Parliament has tended to be the norm.  The result is an unsophisticated form of political engagement, with elected representatives suspicious of protesters as errant children indifferent to the broader interests of Australians.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull was one of the first to take that line.  The assumption there was very much in the representative and administrative mould: the voter’s voice is only relevant to the point of casting the ballot for the representative.  “We are representatives and our forebears, over centuries, fought and died to preserve our democratic freedoms that are practiced in this Parliament.”

From thereon, the wisdom of Parliament is total, and all other voices are mere noises of unwise interruption, and even disruption.  In Turnbull’s words uttered on Adelaide’s 5AA Radio, “What those demonstrators did in the House of Representatives’ gallery, let alone the following day when they actually defaced the Parliament, was not democratic.”[2]

The crude, ruffled response to the protests made clear how quickly the debate became a security one.  Forget speaking about the refugees condemned to administrative limbo; Australian Parliamentarians had more serious things to worry about, such as the prospect of a 2.6 metre-high-fence to be erected along the sloping grass lawns, with similar structures to be placed outside entrances to the ministries and the Senate. Then there was the looming Christmas recess.

For all that, Turnbull could still claim that politicians had to “make sure the people’s house… is as open and accessible as it can be and we try to get the right balance there.”  The Greens leader, Senator Richard Di Natale expressed some concern that the new security measures would reverse the symbolic significance of Australia’s elected representatives relative to the voter. “The building was designed so that people were able to stand above their politicians.  It was designed so that politicians served at the feet of the people.”

Not all of the protests that took place over Wednesdayand Thursday can be put down to the insensible nature of youthful anger, the response of middle class scorn. The points were made clearly, the message with merit. The Pacific offshore system of de facto prison camps, appalling resettlement options that deprive the country of enterprising refugees, and an entire world of euphemisms spiced with the cologne of administration, has done Australia no favours.

The country’s officials may well lead in the field of cruelty, as the protesters claim, but when it comes to a vibrant culture of democratic protest, those same officials show scant regard for the limits in placing one’s total trust in political representatives.

Posted in EuropeComments Off on The Virtue of Protest: Democracy, Refugees and Australia’s Parliament

Is the Donald Trumped? Clinton Scheming to Seize White House Through Backdoor


Next month, Donald J. Trump, with hand on Bible, will be sworn in as the 45th President of the United States. Or will he? The recent talk about recounting votes and ‘faithless electors’ suggests this highly contentious power struggle is far from over.

In fact, it may be just beginning.

Anybody who believes Hillary Rodham Clinton has been sent to the political graveyard by a Manhattan real estate developer has forgotten the cruel surprises of recent history (Remember the Greek referendum? Brexit anyone?). Democratic due process has devolved into something like ‘The Hunger Games’ for the rich – a sensational televised spectacle to entertain the elite every four years, while keeping the people believing they can effect real change.

Although it may seem implausible to some, Donald J. Trump may be denied the presidency due to a democratic system that has been corrupted to the bone by excessive wealth, power and collusion at the highest levels.

Countdown to disaster?

As the world media continues to eulogize Cuban leader Fidel Castro, the neocon-liberal establishment is quietly positioning their chess pieces for a power grab of epic proportions. As far as I can tell, there are three stages of this silent coup presently being carried out on behalf of Hillary Clinton.

The first step in the process was to perpetuate the news that although Donald Trump won the Electoral College (306-232), he failed to win the popular vote – reportedly by 2.5 million votes, at last count.

Clinton’s alleged victory in the popular vote count, which continued for three weeks after Nov. 9 (keep in mind that most of the vote monitors had already gone home as these votes were being quietly tallied), could present serious complications for Trump and his chances of entering the White House, as will become clear a bit later.

Meanwhile, the blatantly anti-Trump media is conducting “thought experiments” to show how Clinton would have, could have, should have won the Electoral College if only the Electoral map had been spliced and diced here and there across the nation. The implicit media message behind all of this tomfoolery, of course, is that Wall Street-approved Clinton deserves her coronation, because, well, that is what the elite want, democratic procedure be damned.

This ongoing campaign on behalf of Clinton is much more than just sour grapes; in fact, it is a war of attrition designed to exert undue pressure on the Electoral College, the rickety institution that got Trump elected in the first place. And although it has never robbed an election from a candidate who has gained the majority of Electoral College votes, there is a possibility – and a very high one in this particular battle – of so-called “faithless electors”tipping this contest in Clinton’s favor.

This represents the second stage of Clinton’s attempt at reversing the results of the presidential election in her favor.

Will the Electoral College go rogue?

The Electoral College is scheduled to meet on December 19 to perform what, under normal circumstances, would be a mere formality of voting for either Clinton or Trump, according to the will of their constituents.

Needless to say, however, we are not dealing with “normal circumstances.” This is a battle the Democrats have no intention of losing, no matter what the Electoral College results tell us.

The 2016 presidential campaign represents an epic power struggle that will determine the trajectory of US domestic and foreign policy like no other contest in recent history. No surprise, then, that neo-liberal lobbying groups have been exerting immense pressure on these electors to ignore the will of the people and “vote their conscience.”

You’d be very wrong to think this couldn’t work. If 37 Republican electors essentially break the law and vote against Trump, it will block him from winning the presidency. The Democrat’s team of lawyers and political consultants are now working around the clock to make this happen.

Micheal Baca, a Denver Democrat and a member of the state’s Electoral College delegation, is one of the individuals attempting to persuade Republican electors to discard the will of the people and vote for anybody but Trump.

Baca makes no secret about his intentions to override the Constitution and go rogue.

“This is not about Hillary,” he said. “This is about trying to stop Donald Trump.”

The Democrat full-court press is getting results. Art Sisneros, a Texas Republican elector, confirmed this week that he would resign his position rather than perform his Constitutionally mandated task.

Before continuing, let’s take a moment and perform our own “thought experiment” and consider would would happen if Hillary Clinton somehow gets the nod for the presidency instead of Trump. If the country is not completely overwhelmed by coast-to-coast riots and protests, and there is somehow a peaceful transition of power, then Clinton can expect to face four years of the most hostile, uncooperative (Republican) Congress in American history. Although given the number of neocons who openly support Clinton and her hawkish tendencies, there could be points of agreement.

In a best-case scenario, there would be – aside from carrying out the necessary task of maintaining ‘law and order’ at home, while continuing on a war footing abroad – a four-year-long government shutdown. America would get its first real taste of what martial law feels like.

The American Conservative painted the following picture as to what would happen if Trump’s Electoral College victory were rescinded: “Constitutional government would have broken down, and we would be facing something like a Latin American presidential dictatorship. For several years, Washington’s political debate would be reduced to something like a Hobbesian war of all against all.”

Is that something we really need? Apparently it is for some folks, and not least of all Green Party presidential candidate, Jill Stein.

And this brings us to the final stage of a possible Clinton coup.

Civil War, anyone?

It is generally assumed that it was Jill Stein, the Green Party presidential candidate who masterminded the call for a recount of votes in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. That’s not quite right.

New York magazine reported that on November 17 Hillary Clinton was “urged by a group of prominent computer scientists and election lawyers to call for a recount in three swing states won by Donald Trump… The group is so far not speaking on the record about their findings and is focused on lobbying the Clinton team in private.”

Just one day after the above article appeared (Nov. 22), Jill Stein, who came in dead last with about 3 million votes less than Gary ‘What is Aleppo?’ Johnson, announced she would be collecting money to recount votes in the swing states. One of the interesting things about Stein’s choice of swing states to hold recounts is that these are the very same places where Trump emerged victorious. Coincidence or not, that alone should have set off some alarms.

In any case, the reason Jill Stein and not Hillary Clinton is calling for the recount is evident: Throughout the campaign, the media hounded Trump with a single annoying question never asked of the future loser: Would he accept the results of the election in the event he lost? When Trump said he would take a “wait and see” approach, Clinton assumed a holier than thou position.

“Now make no mistake,” Clinton solemnly told supporters, “by doing that, he is threatening our democracy. The peaceful transition of power is one of the things that sets us apart. It’s how we hold our country together no matter who’s in charge.”

So now that the tables are turned, Stein is in the kitchen doing the dirty work. And the media suddenly can’t get enough of this woman who haunted the 2016 election campaign like a rare phantom sighting.

Here’s how News Busters tallied her sudden stardom: “When Jill Stein was the Green Party’s candidate for US president, the networks only gave her 36 seconds of coverage. However, as soon as she launched a campaign to contest the presidential election and demand a recount of ballots in several key states, the evening news shows on ABC, CBS and NBC managed to find 7 minutes and 26 seconds of coverage for her in just four days. That’s more than 12 times as much coverage as in the entire campaign.”

But it gets better. Stein has managed to accumulate a massive war chest to carry out the recount – $7 million at last count (or about seven times what she received during her entire presidential campaign). At one point, her recount drive was pulling in almost $5,000 every minute. Somehow that doesn’t sound like Joe Voter digging deep in his Levi’s; that sounds more like big league spenders stepping up to the plate. Incidentally, when Stein first started passing the hat around, she said $2.5 million would be plenty, thank you very much. Yet every time she hit the target, a higher threshold was introduced.

Is Stein’s recount campaign really about collecting some easy money while giving the Green Party some much-needed attention? Or is Stein just trying to shed some light on the dry rot gnawing away at the foundation of US democracy? All that, however necessary, seems very unlikely. After all, the recount plan was initially floated to Hillary Clinton, not Jill Stein. Thus, we must assume this is all part of a major power push for the Democrats to steal the White House from Donald Trump.

As Paul Joseph Watson summed up the situation: “Her entire campaign was backed by an establishment that wouldn’t hesitate to exploit a recount to carry out the vote fraud they thought they didn’t need on Election Day.”


And here is where we can fit the last piece into the puzzle to understand what is really going on here. If the recount effort alone won’t make much of a difference to either Clinton or Stein’s chances of overturning the massive edge that Trump now enjoys, then why are they bothering themselves? Hold onto your seats, folks, this gets interesting.

The answer boils down to simple arithmetic, as well as some monkey play in the system.

Presently, Michigan has already agreed to a recount, which will be carried out this weekend and require hand-counting of ballots in the regions. This process will take many days. Federal law requires the recount to be finished by Dec. 13 – just six days before the Electoral College is expected to cast its votes.

Wisconsin has already agreed to a recount, while Pennsylvania is dragging its feet. In other words, this process will probably take us right up to Dec. 19 – the date the Electoral College is supposed to cast their votes (Why the Electoral College vote isn’t valid without these voters, who could go rogue, is a question for another day).

Keep in mind that the total number of Electoral College Votes in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania equals 46. Now take Trump’s 306 Electoral votes and subtract that amount. This leaves you with 260, which is below the 270 required for a candidate to be automatically considered the winner of a presidential election. Do you see where this is going?

Now if this recount should start to point toward a Clinton victory in these three swing states, this will present Trump with a very serious quandary. Should he kick up a fuss and protest the recount on the grounds that he won the Electoral College, this could provoke some sort of “constitutional crisis” that prevents the recount from being completed by the Dec. 13 deadline.

Now, if the matter remains unsettled by Dec. 19 this could – technically speaking – give the Electoral College’s “faithless electors” yet more reason for not aligning themselves with their constituents. Or, on the other hand, the Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania votes could be considered forfeited because they failed to resolve the issue by the Dec. 19 deadline.

So if it did come down to this, who do you think will be selected – possibly by the very Supreme Court that Trump hopes to disband once in office – to be the 45th president of the United States?

Yes, Hillary Rodham Clinton, the candidate we have been told got 2.5 million more popular votes than Donald Trump (I would suggest Trump start a serious process to challenge those votes right now).

For those who still doubt this possibility, please consider the two latest failed grassroots movements of our times – Brexit and the Greek referendum – two examples of ‘democracy in action’ that the political elite has de facto canceled or put on hold indefinitely.

Such dramatic setbacks, which are becoming the rule rather than the exception, lend credence to Mark Twain’s famous observation that “If voting made any difference they wouldn’t let us do it.”

In other words, the elite will always get what they want, regardless how the votes goes.

Clinton seizing the White House through the backdoor would not be the strangest thing to happen in old Washington. Just ask George W. Bush how he got elected president in 2000 by the Supreme Court, not We the People.

Posted in USAComments Off on Is the Donald Trumped? Clinton Scheming to Seize White House Through Backdoor

Aleppo Has Sent the West into Panic Overdrive


Till the very end of November both the EU and Washington sought to convince international community that none of the parties to the Syrian conflict are strong enough to have a decisive advantage over the opponent on the field of battle.

At the same time, Western political circles took all possible steps to prevent Damascus and Russia from intensifying their offense against ISIS in Syria, particularly in Aleppo. To this end, US Secretary of State John Kerry has stepped up diplomatic efforts to reach an agreement with Russia on Syria before the sitting administration leaves office, The Washington Post would note. According to this newspaper, the Secretary of State doesn’t care about the alleged “humanitarian crisis” in Aleppo, what he fears is that the Trump administration can strike a different kind of deal with Moscow, which would essentially put the United States on the same side with Bashar al-Assad.

It’s curious that EU officials have pushed their propaganda sources into an overdrive, forcing them to publish all sorts false accusations against Moscow and Damascus, saying that they have been bombing schools and hospitals specifically. Yet, there was a complete media blackout about hundreds of civilians in Aleppo butchered by radical militants, that prevented local population from fleeing the territories they occupied through humanitarian corridors that the government opened. Yet, we were led to believe that the Islamists are some kind of heroes, while those who risked their lives to purge the city of this “black plague” were portrayed as criminals.

At this point the UN stage was used by the governments of Britain, France and German to demand Damascus to introduce a “humanitarian pause” in Aleppo. However, these were not used to provide relief for the inhabitants of the besieged city, since the West made no attempt to send a single humanitarian convoy to Aleppo. The representatives of the above mentioned three countries, just like the US representatives, didn’t even have the courage to lead the convoys provided by Russia into the city to prevent them from being ambushed.

Instead, the West used these pauses to redeploy more Islamists to Aleppo and provide them with additional equipment. There’s been a number of publications that prove that in this period the Ansar al-Islam jihadists were provided with AA capabilities, when massive arms deals were made in Eastern Europe and Ukraine, to smuggle massive amounts of Soviet-made weapons to Syria.

However, Syrian troops have been pretty successful so far in the liberation of Aleppo, which resulted in Washington finding itself in a pretty peculiar position. The Financial Times has already reported that the Syrian opposition leaders are engaged in secret talks with Russia to put an end to hostilities in Aleppo. This can result in the US being pushed out of the equation in a number of key conflicts in the Middle East, including Syria. As Washington’s concept of “moderate opposition” fails it’s losing any grounds to have a say in Syria, as those “moderate” militants turned out to be Jabhat Al-Nusra radicals.

The US and EU have been in a frank panic from the developments in Syria since that they can expose the true role that the US and its European allies played in the creation of ISIS. The US State Department spokesman Mark Toner has gone as far as publicly urging to prevent Russia from fighting international terrorism in Syria. Immediately after this statement, representatives of France, Britain and Germany tried to increase the pressure on Russia via the UN Security Council.

The delirious state of the ruling European elites has been displayed on public when the Guardian published their last demand:

European leaders, notably the French, are privately warning Vladimir Putin that if he permits Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, to turn an expected capture of Aleppo into a military victory across most of the country, it will be up to Russia to foot the bill for reconstruction

It looks that those in power in London, Paris, Berlin are completely brain dead, since they seem to be unable to recall who destroyed Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan and a number of other countries. The United States, with the avid support provided by the EU, have killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, while destroying the homes and the infrastructure that supported those that they spared, which resulted in a veritable exodus of migrants from the Middle East and Africa to Europe. So, maybe they should be paying the bills instead of forcing smaller European countries to provide shelter for the refugees they created in the first place. And what about Washington’s responsibility?

Posted in USA, Russia, SyriaComments Off on Aleppo Has Sent the West into Panic Overdrive

Obama TV: Is Obama Planning A “Fake News” Outlet Of His Own?


After spending the past month blaming Hillary’s loss on the rampant spread of “fake news,” because choosing a failed candidate subject to numerous active federal criminal investigations and/or Obama’s failed policies couldn’t possibly be to blame, Mic is reporting that Obama is contemplating starting a propaganda machine media company of his own after leaving the White House.

 President Barack Obama has been discussing a post-presidential career in digital media and is considering launching his own media company, according to multiple sources who spoke on background because they were not authorized to speak for the president.

Obama considers media to be a central focus of his next chapter, these sources say, though exactly what form that will take — a show streaming on Netflix, a web series on a comedy site or something else — remains unclear. Obama has gone so far as to discuss launching his own media company, according to one source with knowledge of the matter, although he has reportedly cooled on the idea of late.

According to another source, Obama met privately with Facebook CEO and co-founder Mark Zuckerberg in Lima, Peru, on the sidelines of the recent APEC summit to discuss the matter.

While Obama has been on a crusade against “fake news” of late, we’re not exactly sure how adding yet another MSNBC substitute to the media arm of the democratic party will change anything in a meaningful way.  While Obama continues to “rethink his storytelling,” he and other democrats simply continue to prove that they’ve learned absolutely nothing from the 2016 election.  The entire election was a rejection of “storytelling” in favor of action, it was a rejection of establishment politicians, like Obama, who have proven time and again that, while they’re great at delivering emotional speeches on “Hope and Change,” they are completely void of any substance beyond their rhetoric. 

 When Rolling Stone asked the president about his future plans, Obama said he would begin “organizing my presidential center,” where a top subject would be, “How do we rethink our storytelling, the messaging and the use of technology and digital media, so that we can make a persuasive case across the country?”

In recent days — even before Trump’s surprising victory — Obama also mused openly about what he views as the dangerous state of media and his desire to play a role in fixing it. According to the New Yorker, Obama apparently obsessed over a BuzzFeed story that documented how more than 100 pro-Trump websites peddling fake news reports had originated in one small Macedonian town. The president worried aloud that the way stories are displayed on various platforms “means everything is true and nothing is true” and that “an explanation of climate change from a Nobel Prize-winning physicist looks exactly the same on your Facebook page as the denial of climate change by somebody on the Koch brothers’ payroll.”

Obama has been outspoken in recent days about the faux news phenomenon, arguing that the rise of conspiracy theories and the easy propagation of fake stories has made it difficult to establish basic facts to frame a debate. ”And now we just don’t have that,” he told New Yorker editor David Remnick.

Of course, if true an Obama media company would threaten a long-standing tradition of former Presidents withholding criticism of their successors.

 Depending on what form it takes, a hard dive into media could also put Obama at odds with presidential precedent. For decades, former presidents have followed a tradition of remaining quiet about their successors in public. During his recent visit to Peru, Obama said he would uphold that convention after leaving office, but also hinted he might speak out when he feels necessary. “If there are issues that have less to do with the specifics of some legislative proposal or battle or go to core questions about our values and ideals, and if I think that it’s necessary or helpful for me to defend those ideals, I’ll examine it when it comes,” Obama told reporters.

Remember when Obama scolded Republicans with his “Elections have consequences. Tough luck, you lost. Get over it” line.  We guess that only applies when his team wins.

Posted in USAComments Off on Obama TV: Is Obama Planning A “Fake News” Outlet Of His Own?

China Is Laughing At Trump’s Twitter Feed

trump élection

Donald Trump’s phone call with Taiwan’s Republic of China president Tsai Ying-wen upended 37 years of precedent in U.S. foreign policy and potentially raised tensions with China, but his tweets afterwards didn’t help matters.

Since the phone call made the news, Trump tweeted, “The President of Taiwan CALLED ME” in an attempt to deflect some of the responsibility, and then added, “Interesting how the U.S. sells Taiwan billions of dollars of military equipment but I should not accept a congratulatory call.” (Taiwan’s government said that both sides agreed to the call ahead of time and agreed that Tsai would formally initiate the call, according to the Straits Times.)

What these tweets show is Trump is ignorant of world affairs and doesn’t give much consideration to how his words could affect foreign relations. Does he not know the rest of the world can read his Twitter feed, too? More likely he just doesn’t care.

Since 1979, the U.S. has had diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China. China demands that any country with whom they have diplomatic relations not recognize Taiwan as an independent country. While America continues to have under-the-table relations with Taiwan, America doesn’t openly recognize Taiwan as a country and doesn’t have an official embassy on the island. (The American Institute in Taiwan, technically a non-profit organization, serves the functions of an embassy.)

To call Tsai the President of Taiwan is taken by many in China as to imply that Taiwan is a sovereign nation.

Next he tweeted about the fact that America sells weapons to Taiwan. (He could have also mentioned the fact that his company is trying to develop hotels in Taiwan.)

Of course everyone knows that Taiwan has a de facto president and that America sells them weapons–he’s not sharing confidential information. But such comments and actions could unnecessarily provoke China. He could start a conflict through his own ignorance.

Moreover, the DPP, which supports greater autonomy from China and pushes for formal recognition of independence, could use Trump’s ignorance to push for its own agenda. A DPP legislator praised the call as a breakthrough in the Straits Times.

His tweets were widely shared on China’s Weibo microblog:

Wang Jingyu, a professor of law at the National University of Singapore, remarked about how Trump called Tsai the “President of Taiwan” and said there was a risk of provocation. “How can the people in China who welcomed Trump taking office console themselves?”


To that effect, another Weibo user said, “Chinese Trumpsters, be careful what you wish for!”

There was a narrative in China that Trump, due to his calls to stay out of foreign interventions and threats to withdraw from Korea and Japan, would be better for China than “warmongering” Hillary Clinton. Now one can see that complete ignorance of the world can be more dangerous than cold-hearted pursuit of a nation’s national interests.


Thomas Chen, a news editor for Sina, wrote that Trump’s comments about weapons were “very funny!”

Wei Peng wrote, “Trump must be receiving widespread criticism from America’s diplomatic circle.”

Posted in USA, ChinaComments Off on China Is Laughing At Trump’s Twitter Feed

Urgent Alert: The “21st Century Cures Act” That Will Expand the Use of Coerced Drug “Treatments”


Action by CCHR The Mental Health Watch Dog



On November 30th, the House passed HR 34, a 996-page bill, known as the 21st Century Cures Act. They are now rushing to get it introduced and passed by the Senate on Monday, December 5th, at 5:30 EST. This bill must be defeated because it contains some very dangerous provisions relating to psychiatric treatments.  This is an urgent call to action as we must let our Senators know that they need to oppose it.  We have less than 72-hours to do this.

Talking Points on Why This Bill Must Be Opposed:

  •  It drastically broadens the criteria for who qualifies for forced psychiatric treatment.  For example, if you are labeled mentally ill, you can be court-ordered for psychiatric treatment just because you are “substantially unlikely to voluntarily participate in treatment.”  All states already have their own laws regarding involuntary treatment and so there is no need for Federal legislation, especially with such dangerously broad language.
  • It undermines FDA regulations that are essential for making sure medical and drug research is conducted ethically, scientifically and safely.  Meaning it could cost lives.
  • Additionally, this 996-page bill is being fast-tracked through as it is being introduced with no time for the Senators to fully study and understand the broad implications of it.

If you live in the United States, we need you to do the following, very simple actions-it will take you less than 10 minutes:

  1. Find your Senators (you have TWO) at the end of this e-mail. They are listed alphabetically by state.
  2. Call the listed numbers and, using any or all of the above talking points, tell them you want to urge the Senator to vote NO on HR 34. Note: Calls are the most effective way to make your voice heard.
  3. Click on the contact link for each of your TWO senators. This brings you to a form to fill out which you follow the steps to email your message that you want them to vote NO on HR 34.
  4. Forward this e-mail to ALL family members, friends, or colleagues that live in the United States and urge them to do the same.

Please make your calls and send your e-mails right away, then e-mail us back to let us know you have done so.


Carla Moxon

Director of Public Activities

CCHR International


List of U.S. Senators, in Order by State:

Murkowski, Lisa – (R – AK)709 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-6665


Sullivan, Daniel – (R – AK)

702 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-3004



Sessions, Jeff – (R – AL)

326 Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-4124



Shelby, Richard C. – (R – AL)

304 Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-5744



Boozman, John – (R – AR)

141 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-4843



Cotton, Tom – (R – AR)

124 Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-2353



Flake, Jeff – (R – AZ)

413 Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-4521



McCain, John – (R – AZ)

218 Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-2235



Boxer, Barbara – (D – CA)

112 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-3553



Feinstein, Dianne – (D – CA)

331 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-3841



Bennet, Michael F. – (D – CO)

261 Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-5852



Gardner, Cory – (R – CO)

354 Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-5941



Blumenthal, Richard – (D – CT)

706 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-2823



Murphy, Christopher – (D – CT)

136 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-4041



Carper, Thomas R. – (D – DE)

513 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-2441



Coons, Christopher A. – (D – DE)

127A Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-5042



Nelson, Bill – (D – FL)

716 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-5274



Rubio, Marco – (R – FL)

284 Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-3041



Isakson, Johnny – (R – GA)

131 Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-3643



Perdue, David – (R – GA)

383 Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-3521



Hirono, Mazie K. – (D – HI)

330 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-6361



Schatz, Brian – (D – HI)

722 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-3934



Ernst, Joni – (R – IA)

111 Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-3254



Grassley, Chuck – (R – IA)

135 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-3744



Crapo, Mike – (R – ID)

239 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-6142



Risch, James E. – (R – ID)

483 Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-2752



Durbin, Richard J. – (D – IL)

711 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-2152



Kirk, Mark – (R – IL)

524 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-2854



Coats, Daniel – (R – IN)

493 Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-5623



Donnelly, Joe – (D – IN)

720 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-4814



Moran, Jerry – (R – KS)

521 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-6521



Roberts, Pat – (R – KS)

109 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-4774



McConnell, Mitch – (R – KY)

317 Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-2541



Paul, Rand – (R – KY)

167 Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-4343



Cassidy, Bill – (R – LA)

703 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-5824



Vitter, David – (R – LA)

516 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-4623



Markey, Edward J. – (D – MA)

255 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-2742



Warren, Elizabeth – (D – MA)

317 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-4543



Cardin, Benjamin L. – (D – MD)

509 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-4524



Mikulski, Barbara A. – (D – MD)

503 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-4654



Collins, Susan M. – (R – ME)

413 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-2523



King, Angus S., Jr. – (I – ME)

133 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-5344



Peters, Gary C. – (D – MI)

724 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-6221



Stabenow, Debbie – (D – MI)

731 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-4822



Franken, Al – (D – MN)

309 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-5641



Klobuchar, Amy – (D – MN)

302 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-3244



Blunt, Roy – (R – MO)

260 Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-5721



McCaskill, Claire – (D – MO)

730 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-6154



Cochran, Thad – (R – MS)

113 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-5054



Wicker, Roger F. – (R – MS)

555 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-6253



Daines, Steve – (R – MT)

320 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-2651



Tester, Jon – (D – MT)

311 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-2644



Burr, Richard – (R – NC)

217 Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-3154



Tillis, Thom – (R – NC)

185 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-6342



Heitkamp, Heidi – (D – ND)

110 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-2043



Hoeven, John – (R – ND)

338 Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-2551



Fischer, Deb – (R – NE)

454 Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-6551



Sasse, Ben – (R – NE)

386A Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-4224



Ayotte, Kelly – (R – NH)

144 Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-3324



Shaheen, Jeanne – (D – NH)

506 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-2841



Booker, Cory A. – (D – NJ)

359 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-3224



Menendez, Robert – (D – NJ)

528 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-4744



Heinrich, Martin – (D – NM)

303 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-5521



Udall, Tom – (D – NM)

531 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-6621



Heller, Dean – (R – NV)

324 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-6244



Reid, Harry – (D – NV)

522 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-3542



Gillibrand, Kirsten E. – (D – NY)

478 Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-4451



Schumer, Charles E. – (D – NY)

322 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-6542



Brown, Sherrod – (D – OH)

713 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-2315



Portman, Rob – (R – OH)

448 Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-3353



Inhofe, James M. – (R – OK)

205 Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-4721



Lankford, James – (R – OK)

316 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-5754



Merkley, Jeff – (D – OR)

313 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-3753



Wyden, Ron – (D – OR)

221 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-5244



Casey, Robert P., Jr. – (D – PA)

393 Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-6324



Toomey, Patrick J. – (R – PA)

248 Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-4254



Reed, Jack – (D – RI)

728 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-4642



Whitehouse, Sheldon – (D – RI)

530 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-2921



Graham, Lindsey – (R – SC)

290 Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-5972



Scott, Tim – (R – SC)

520 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-6121



Rounds, Mike – (R – SD)

502 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-5842



Thune, John – (R – SD)

511 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-2321



Alexander, Lamar – (R – TN)

455 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-4944



Corker, Bob – (R – TN)

425 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-3344



Cornyn, John – (R – TX)

517 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-2934



Cruz, Ted – (R – TX)

404 Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-5922



Hatch, Orrin G. – (R – UT)

104 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-5251



Lee, Mike – (R – UT)

361A Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-5444



Kaine, Tim – (D – VA)

231 Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-4024



Warner, Mark R. – (D – VA)

475 Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-2023



Leahy, Patrick J. – (D – VT)

437 Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-4242



Sanders, Bernard – (I – VT)

332 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-5141



Cantwell, Maria – (D – WA)

511 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-3441



Murray, Patty – (D – WA)

154 Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-2621



Baldwin, Tammy – (D – WI)

717 Hart Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-5653



Johnson, Ron – (R – WI)

328 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-5323



Capito, Shelley Moore – (R – WV)

172 Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-6472



Manchin, Joe, III – (D – WV)

306 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-3954



Barrasso, John – (R – WY)

307 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-6441



Enzi, Michael B. – (R – WY)

379A Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-3424


Posted in USA, HealthComments Off on Urgent Alert: The “21st Century Cures Act” That Will Expand the Use of Coerced Drug “Treatments”

Shoah’s pages


December 2016
« Nov   Jan »