The facts are in and you're an idiot. You continue to vote in these 'law and order' assholes and you've managed to turn the greatest country on the planet into a zoo. While the politicians, pharmaceutical CEOs, Big Oil and Wall Street bankers laugh all the way to their offshore bank accounts.

Sunday, April 30, 2017

Chinese Leader gifts Donald Trump with 21 underage Hookers

By Christopher R Rice

I've watched our so called leaders make promises or as I see it, lie to our faces over and over. Obama promised to get tough on trade with China when he campaigned in '08 but when he got into office the Chinese threatened to stop buying T-notes (treasury bonds that we pay for through our taxes/debt) and the Treasury Secretary Timothy I cheated on my taxes Geithner, I think was his name, had to run to China and offer up his anus or as the Obama administration called it QE2 , 3, whatever.

I never understood how Obama could promise sweeping "change" and then turn around and promote everyone from the last administration from Petraeus on down, but that's American democracy for you, nothing but a sham. Prove me wrong and tell me that Gitmo is closed. 

So when Trump started making promises about NAFTA and trade surpluses with China all I heard was Bush Sr. saying "Read my lips, no new taxes." But, I didn't expect this charlatan to fold so quickly after all that tough talk, so I did some digging. Checking the flight logs is pretty easy. It turns out that the President of China does not regularly fly with a bunch of underage hookers but on the day that he traveled to Florida to meet President Trump he had 21 hookers on board and some of these were underage. These girls were temporarily "gifted" to President Trump upon the Chinese leaders arrival.

I understand that one of these young ladies has stayed behind as Trumps personal mistress and was responsible for talking Trump out of any trade sanctions against China. According to flight records her name is Lee Kim and according to hospital records she is a 16 year old hermaphrodite, a "he-she".

All 21 of these girls came from a pool of 800 volunteers who went through rigorous training such as martial arts, hacking and basic boot camp. Young Lee Kim came in third in her class after an 8 month grueling course that most Navy SEAL's couldn't handle according to our sources.

Why report on this, it's simple, during I don't know how many wars the US is in the middle of, because I simply lost count, but during all this we sent a businessman to Washington to fix NAFTA and our trade imbalance, right, not to get us into more war. And Trump didn't come back with anything at all. On NAFTA he folded, on China he folded, and no one blows that much steam, to just turn around and fold. Trump made trade and his business savvy his main asset and reason to vote for this admitted womanizer in the first place. But Trump got us nothing, not one concession, nothing, nada, zip, zilch, the big goose egg. What happened to the "Art-of-the-Deal" man? The only deal here is that you lied to get elected. Will the people continue to allow politicians to get away with this? Lining up like trained seals at the voting booth or will the people finally go on strike and take their country back from special interest and secret PAC's? Only time will tell.

Nah, the people can't wait to get fooled again. Remember "No child left behind"? What a joke and Americans are just dumb enough to fall for it every time. They didn't dumb down the American education system and brainwash us with corporate media for nothing you know. The people are hopelessly reliant upon a government that threw them under the bus decades ago. Brainwashed that voting is the only way out of this mess but every politician has been bought and paid for, leaving us in a vicious cycle of digging ourselves deeper in. With no way out.

Saturday, April 29, 2017


Deescalate the declared war in Afghanistan, then invade Iraq,  then deescalate the war in Iraq and escalate the war in Afghanistan.  Then pull out of Afghanistan and fund civil war in Libya. Then escalate a war in Syria,  then deescalate in Syria and go back to Iraq.  It's like a game of leap frog from country to country with military involvement.  Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand and North Korea were the focus. Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, four nuns raped, murdered priest, death squads paid for by US taxpayers. Now it's Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Yemen and Iran. Still undetonated bombs all over Laos to this day. Fuck USA. How can they live with themselves?

Read more: 35 Reasons why I hate America

The CIA used this airline in Laos to transport drugs to America. The locals grew and sold them to Americans who paid in guns and got millions to invest in other wars. It was the first time the CIA got into military covert wars, it can be read about 'War on Sacred Mountain.' From a person who was there. In 1971 with the help of the CIA there was more junkies in the US army than on the American territory itself.

Read more: CIA Black Ops 

Years ago I used to deliver to the feed-mill in Luckenbach Tx. which is almost across the road from the LBJ ranch. I never failed to stop and piss all over the big iron gate, hoping the secret cervix guys got a laugh too. LBJ was worthy of America's hatred.

Best Film Archives:
►My channel:

Venezuela to withdraw from OAS, denounces campaign by Washington

(Reuters) - Venezuela said on Wednesday it was withdrawing from the Organization of American States, deepening the diplomatic isolation of the socialist-run nation that is already out of step with Latin America's steady shift to the right.

Critics of President Nicolas Maduro have said Venezuela could be expelled from the group, accusing his government of eroding the country's democracy by delaying elections and refusing to respect the opposition-led Congress.

Venezuela said the move was a response to a Washington-backed campaign against the ruling Socialist Party that is meant to trample on the sovereignty of Venezuela, the United States' principal ideological adversary in the region.

"Tomorrow, as ordered by President Nicolas Maduro, we will present a letter of resignation from the Organization of American States, and we will begin a procedure that will take 24 months," Foreign Minister Delcy Rodriguez said in a televised statement.

The announcement came after the OAS agreed on Wednesday to hold a meeting of foreign ministers to discuss the situation in Venezuela. Maduro had warned on Tuesday that Venezuela would quit the group if the meeting were called.

The decision extends Venezuela's drift toward the fringes of international diplomacy. But the limited influence of the OAS means its exit will have few economic implications for the OPEC nation that is already struggling under triple-digit inflation, chronic product shortages and a crippling recession.

More than 15 years of diplomatic tensions between Caracas and Washington have done little to disrupt the flow of oil and fuel toward U.S. shores.

The OAS, once dominated by influential leftist governments from countries such as Argentina and Brazil, has clashed for months with Venezuela. Recent changes in governments in both countries brought in leaders openly hostile toward Maduro.

OAS chief Luis Almagro has said Venezuela should be suspended if it does not hold general elections "as quickly as possible."

Maduro's government calls the OAS a pawn of U.S. policy and dismisses Almagro, a former Uruguayan foreign minister once friendly with Venezuela's socialists, as a turncoat working for Washington.

Maduro's adversaries accuse him of delaying elections to avoid suffering ballot-box defeats, disregarding the country's opposition-led Congress and overseeing an economic crisis that has left the many in the country unable to eat properly.

Unprecedented Bleaching Leaves the Great Barrier Reef Terminal

By Liz Green

In 2016, the Great Barrier Reef saw the worst bleaching event on record — two-thirds (67 percent) of corals in the northern sector of the reef died after being exposed to unusually warm currents. While experts warned that these bleaching events would continue to happen with more frequency as global temperatures rose, no one expected to see it happen two years in a row.

In a new aerial survey covering more than 8,000 kilometers (5,000 miles), researchers found that 1,500 kilometers (or 932 miles) of the Great Barrier Reef has been bleached. Whereas last year’s bleaching affected the northern part of the reef, this latest damage is concentrated in the middle section, and has extended farther south than ever before.

Though there have been a handful of other significant bleaching events in the past two decades, this marks the first time it’s known to have happened in two consecutive years. Because of the proximity of the two events, experts fear the damaged coral will have little chance to recover.

“It takes at least a decade for a full recovery of even the fastest-growing corals, so mass bleaching events 12 months apart offers zero prospect of recovery for reefs that were damaged in 2016,” according to ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies senior research officer James Kerry.


Bleaching is the result of unusually warm waters stressing the corals to the point that they eject the photosynthetic algae, called zooxanthellae, from their cells. This algae not only gives the corals their brilliant color, it provides them with crucial nutrients and removes waste. Without the zooxanthellae, the corals are more vulnerable to disease and starvation. If normal conditions return, the corals can recolonize the algae and recover. However, if the stress continues, the corals can die.

The previous four severe bleachings of the Great Barrier Reef occurred in 1998, 2002, 2006 and 2016 — all El Niño years wherein the world saw unusually warm ocean currents. What’s especially concerning is that 2017 is not an El Niño year. This means that, to the experts’ absolute horror, the reef is now bleaching in both non-El Niño years and in consecutive years.

Though El Niño has typically been a naturally occurring climate phase, it’s been exacerbated by man-made climate change. Since humans began emitting carbon pollution, the world has warmed roughly 1.8°F (1°C). This warming is projected to continue, and scientists predict that coral will likely go extinct if the world reaches the 2.7°F (1.5°C) mark.

Robert Richmond, a coral reef expert and director of the University of Hawaii’s Kewalo Marine Laboratory, told National Geographic that the data was “daunting.”

“These massive bleaching events have become more severe, are longer lasting and are coming closer together,” he said. “There just is no question that this is tied to climate change.”


This bleaching is more than just a bummer for tourists looking to snap underwater pictures of brightly colored coral. The Great Barrier Reef is home to the world’s largest collection of coral reefs, featuring around 400 types of coral. It houses 3,000 varieties of mollusks, more than 100 types of jellyfish, 1,625 species of fish, hundreds of shark and ray species, and 30-plus kinds of whales and dolphins. What’s more, it’s also the main habitat of a number of endangered species, including the large green turtle and the dugong. Without the corals that make up the reef, many of these animals will die.

Recovery of the bleached coral is currently uncertain. Though the full extent of this year’s damage won’t be known until in-water surveys are conducted, Kerry isn’t optimistic. “We anticipate high levels of coral loss,” he said.

Despite the fact that we live in an age of global warming, some world leaders refuse to admit there’s a problem. Without the measures being put in place to limit our emissions, temperatures will continue to rise, bleaching events will continue to happen, and we’ll see even more damage than we already have. It’s a scary thought, but it may well be reality — we might be the last generation to see the true beauty of the Great Barrier Reef.

Friday, April 28, 2017

Mother Superior Jumped the Gun (France vs Reality)

This is NOT about conspiracies, this is about the facts


From ABC News: France said Wednesday that the chemical analysis of samples taken from a deadly sarin gas attack in Syria earlier this month "bears the signature" of President Bashar Assad's government and shows it was responsible. Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said France came to this conclusion after comparing samples from a 2013 sarin attack in Syria that matched the new ones. The findings came in a six-page report published Wednesday. Russia, a close ally of Assad, promptly denounced the French report, saying the samples and the fact the nerve agent was used are not enough to prove who was behind it.

From AFP: French intelligence services have scientific proof that the Syrian regime was responsible for a suspected chemical attack that killed 88 people, France's foreign minister said Wednesday.

Jean-Marc Ayrault said analysis of samples taken at the scene of the April 4 attack in rebel-held Khan Sheikhun, in which 31 children were among the dead, showed "there is no doubt that sarin gas was used" and that it was produced by Syrian laboratories.

"There is no doubt about the responsibility of the Syrian regime given the way that the sarin used was produced," Ayrault told journalists after the report was presented at a meeting of French defence chiefs.

He said the substance France believes was used in the attack contains hexamine, a component that was also found in a gas attack in Saraqib, northwest Syria, in 2013.

"We are able to confirm that the sarin used on April 4 is the same sarin that was used in an attack in Saraqib on April 29, 2013," he said.

Ayrault said the chemical fingerprint is "typical of the method developed in Syrian laboratories".

"This (production) method bears the regime's hallmarks and allows us to determine its responsibility for this attack," he said.

The report added that "the presence of hexamine indicates that this manufacturing process is that developed by the Scientific Studies and Research Centre for the Syrian regime".

The report said the analysis was carried out by comparing "environmental samples" found at Khan Sheikhun with unexploded ordnance found at the site of the 2013 attack.

- Washington convinced -

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, backed by his ally Russia, has strongly denied allegations that his forces used chemical weapons against the town, describing it as a "100 percent fabrication".

He has said repeatedly that his forces turned over all chemical weapons stockpiles in 2013, under a deal brokered by Russia to avoid threatened US military action.

That agreement was later enshrined in a UN Security Council resolution.

In a policy U-turn, US President Donald Trump ordered air strikes on the Syrian airbase from which Washington believes the attack was launched.

US Defence Secretary Jim Mattis said on Friday there was "no doubt" Syria has retained some chemical weapons and warned Assad's regime not to use them.

"There can be no doubt in the international community's mind that Syria has retained chemical weapons in violation of its agreement and its statement that it had removed them all," Mattis said during a visit to Israel.

Mattis added that the Damascus regime would be "ill-advised to try to use any again", adding: "We've made that very clear with our strike."

On Monday, the US government placed 271 Syrian chemists from the Syrian Scientific Studies and Research Centre and other officials on its financial blacklist in response to their alleged role in the chemical weapons attack.

Washington says the SSRC was responsible for developing the alleged sarin gas weapon.

EDITORS NOTE: Are you ready boyz and gurls? France and the US think they can take Russia and China. Are you ready to sacrifice your children for another oil pipeline? Because really, why else would they put Trump in the White House? Trump has zero political or military experience and therefore he will do as he is told.

Sarin gas? Chlorine was the gas used, not sarin.. In videos and pictures shown around the world, you can clearly see that 'rescuers' are either handling the 'victims' bare hand and no breathing apparatus whatsoever. Had this been sarin, they would also have died. The 2013 'gassing' was, according to Del Ponte done by the terrorists. It's beyond shameful that the western powers will stoop so low as to publicly lie about such an alleged event. The 'white helmets', which is a terrorist organization supported again by the west, is involved.  They have staged numerous 'rescue' videos and to take their word at face value is irresponsible.

Syria was winning the war, had Russia helping to eliminate ISIS and had for the first time an American government who had said they would not push the ouster of Assad and would let the Syrian people decide that. There is no way in hell I'm buying that Assad would completely throw that leverage down the toilet and slide everyone into the "Assad must be ousted" camp again. And for what? What military value was there in killing 88 people in a mostly civilian area? I might have bought it if say it was an attack that killed a few thousand people, maybe buy that he would think the benefit outweighed the consequences because he wanted to wipe out an area that had a large volume of terrorist fighters, but not to kill 88 people (mostly civilians) which would do nothing to advance military objectives and only hurt his 80% approval rating among the Syrian people. This has false flag written all over it by the same globalist puppet states who have been staging a bunch of false flag terror attacks in our countries to get the brain dead sheep on board with their geopolitical agendas. The agenda has nothing to do with ISIS it was always about ousting Assad and inserting a puppet. If it was about ISIS we wouldn't be funding them, arming them, and training them in Jordan prior to and during the conflict.

The anti-tank missiles used by the terrorists are US manufactured, not to mention all the rest of their arsenal which are from one Western country or another and their allies in the region. So, what do we make of this? How do we judge this situation? Notice how even the reporters are having a hard time backing the US's claims. Forced to admit the truth just like in Afghanistan when the US claimed Russia had attacked when all along the CIA was training 'rebels' to draw Russia into their own Vietnam. And it was Russia being attacked but in the US no one believed the Russians did they?

This should not be a right, left, liberal, conservative issue, either you value your own children's lives more than oil or you don't. You decide. It's not our civil-war. Not our business. If you want to stop WWIII and I'm not joking here, start calling your Senators and Congresspersons now and tell them #NoMoreWar, period. Tell them in no uncertain terms that you are not interested under any circumstances, in any more wars. Bring the troops home, seal the borders and put America first.

I've done the hard work all that you have to do is press the social media buttons found below. And call: 

Member of Congress: US Capitol Switchboard (202) 224-3121 To locate your Member on-line: U.S. House of Representatives: U.S. Senate:

Stay informed:

MIT expert claims latest chemical weapons attack in Syria was staged

 False Flag: How the U.S. Armed Syrian Rebels to Set Up an Excuse to Attack Assad

LiveLeak Chemical Attack in Syria FAKED

The US Government Sent Blackwater Veteran To Syria to stage chemical attack  

UK & France to join U.S. military action in event of new false flag Syria chemical attack: Johnson

Damn, didn't Putin say last week to expect more bogus chemical attacks and then proceed to warn the US that attacks on a sovereign nation (Syria) would not be tolerated in the future? So, kick it up a notch, turn this into all-out world war for OIL.

(Reuters) - Britain would find it difficult to refuse a request for military assistance in Syria from the United States if President Donald Trump decided to take action against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad over chemical weapons use, foreign minister Boris Johnson said.

The United States accused the Syrian army of carrying out an April 4 attack in which scores of people died from poison gas. It responded by launching cruise missiles against a Syrian air base, and has said it would not tolerate use of chemical weapons by the Assad government.

Britain endorsed the U.S. response to the chemical attack, but was not directly involved. However, Johnson suggested the government would back Trump militarily if requested to do so in the event of any future chemical weapons attack.

"If the Americans were once again to be forced by the actions of the Assad regime ... and they ask us to help it would be very difficult to say no," Johnson told BBC radio.

Johnson said it remained to be seen whether such military assistance might need the permission of parliament, which in 2013 voted against bombing Assad's forces in Syria to deter them from using chemical weapons.

The April attack in Syria has raised tension between Western powers and Russia, which has provided military backing to Assad's government. 

EDITORS NOTE: There's your signal ISIS. Time for another false flag. NAZI-NATO could not destroy Syria like Libya by supporting terrorists. SO they decided to do it in-person. But the problem is they need an excuse like how they started the Iraq war. We all know it was fake. Because they create fake evidence and then present it to the UN as fact. Where's Colin Powell when you need him? So they decide to play dirty games without evidence just their thin lips.

I'm wondering, why don't we want international investigation of that attack in accordance with all rules as Russia and Assad are offering, ha? If there was sarin at that base, it easy to find, especially after bombing. What is our problem, I'm wondering.

All politicians who take Saudi/Qatar/UAE money, agree that Assad must go, Republicans agree with Democrats on this one... FOX news agrees with Democracy Now, Boris Johnson agrees with Hillary and Trump.... Who both just happened to agree with Bernie Sanders.... Assad must go. The unanimity of politicians and their respective media outlets sends chills down my spine. I've kind of counted on an adversarial process between Democrats and Republicans.... and I am concerned that money is the secret to unanimous positions on any policy.

Good is bad and bad is good.. Orwell sure knew what he was writing about..

Stay informed:

MIT expert claims latest chemical weapons attack in Syria was staged

 False Flag: How the U.S. Armed Syrian Rebels to Set Up an Excuse to Attack Assad

LiveLeak Chemical Attack in Syria FAKED

The US Government Sent Blackwater Veteran To Syria to stage chemical attack  

Thursday, April 27, 2017

The Google backlash is growing

By REUTERS/Stephen Lam

In the wake of the leaked FTC report indicating that Google threatened web sites with removal from its search engine if they didn't let Google use their content, the backlash against Google is rising again.

A few years ago, Google faced a lot of criticism, for everything from letting some of its Street View cars collect people's Wi-Fi data, to showing ads from Canadian pharmacies who violated US laws.

And, “The conduct under investigation includes alleged preferential placement of Google vertical search services, demotion of rivals in Google’s search results rankings, and the unauthorized use of user reviews, star ratings, and other content that Google scrapes from competing vertical search sites,” Abbott said in court documents in June 2012, when he filed allegations that Google refused to turn over materials related to the probe. “If Google is maintaining its monopoly in horizontal search through exclusionary conduct directed at vertical competitors, or monopolizing the search advertising market through exclusive contracts, the Attorney General’s Office may bring an enforcement action against Google for monopolization.” Ted Cruz

But the criticism seemed to have died down in the year or so.

Now, a consumer advocacy group in the US in calling on the Federal Trade Comission (FTC) to reopen its investigation into Google, while at least one lawmaker in Europe is calling for a crackdown on its practices.  

At the heart of the matter is the internal FTC report's finding that Google was effectively blackmailing competing sites like Yelp and Amazon into using their data in its own search result. If they didn't agree, they would get blacklisted from search results entirely. 

The report recommended that the FTC file charges, but instead Google underwent some voluntary changes and the investigation was closed.

In the European Union, however, investigations into Google's allegedly anticompetitive practices are still going on. Outtspoken Google critic and European Parliament member Ramon Tremosa Balcells has used the report as ammunition in his fight for the European Union to take a strong stand against the search giant.

Some have criticized the EU's scrutiny of Google as kneejerk reactionism against a successful American company invading European territory. The fact that the FTC could have, but didn't, file charges, show that the issues are serious and that it's not a “protectionist E.U. war against a U.S. company,” said Tremosa, according to a New York Times report.

Meanwhile, Consumer Watchdog, a California-based advocacy group, says that the report's findings indicate that it's time for the US Senate Antitrust Committee to reopen an investigation and figure out exactly how Google escaped prosecution.

"It is unfathomable that the FTC declined to sue the Internet giant, in the face of pervasive and persuasive evidence from its expert staff. The only way the FTC can redeem itself and regain public trust is to re-open the case. Indeed, Google's anticompetitive and abusive practices of favoring its own services in search results continue," said John M. Simpson, Consumer Watchdog's Privacy Project director, in a press release. 

Google continues to insist on its innocence, while the FTC stands by its decision not to press charges.

Stay informed:

Google Alternatives: DuckDuckGo / StartPage

CIA's Stress Position

By focusing on waterboarding, we can sometimes forget that the other "alternative techniques" for "enhanced interrogation" are also forms of torture, even when they leave no permanent marks, or, in the words of AEI's John Yoo, do not cause major organ failure. The term "stress position" for example, when uttered by someone like Rush Limbaugh, who described some of what happened at Abu Ghraib as nothing more serious than fraternity hazing, can seem banal, even defensible. These positions, which the president strongly supports, can nonetheless become very quickly hideous acts of cruelty. Here's a photo of what the Nazis called Pfahlbinden. 

You can seen that individuals are contorted just by the weight of their own bodies into positions of excruciating pain that lasts until it is unbearable. In this picture, it does not appear that the methods are being used to interrogate. They are being used for sadistic purposes. They are worse than the 'stress positions" we have evidence of in US custody because the Nazi prisoners were literally suspended in the air, their feet barely touching the ground. But the victims of US stress positions were chained to fixtures and walls with hands chained above and behind the head, with feet barely on the ground. They had a tiny bit more support for their feet, but it often made the procedure longer and in end, therefore, more painful.

When you hear a banal phrase like "stress position", and hear people dismiss it, remember that everything is in the doing. And when human beings are given total control over others, they are capable of great evil. Sane and civilized societies do not give permission for such things. And they do not make excuses for them. And when they discover they have been done, they investigate and prosecute those who broke the law.

Stay informed: 

35 Types of Torture approved by the CIA 

Empires in Chaos and the House of Saud

The Saudi role in this war has been to come up with the oil price shock – which is hurting not only Russia but also Iran and Venezuela, among others.

This is an attempt to limit the supply of Russian oil and gas to the EU, thus increasing the share of supply obtained by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the other Gulf allies of the US. Also to increase the price of non Russian oil and gas.

When the Civil War in Ukraine failed to draw Putin directly into the war on the side of the rebels and the sanctions thus far applied against Russia failed to have any meaningful effects a different tactic was tried by the US and Saudi Arabia by dropping the oil price to below $50 to cause the Ruble to collapse and (they thought) to destabilize Russia's economy.

Both oil and Rubles have dropped by 50% so Russia is still getting the same number of Rubles for it's oil, but the number of Rubles Russia gets for it's natural gas sales has increased substantially because the price of gas hasn't dropped nearly as much as oil. (This is reflected in Russia's record government budget surplus of $23bn from January to November 2014.)

The major cause of concern for Russia are large capital outflows, but China has stepped into the breach by supporting the Ruble and by saying it will up it's levels of investments in Russia. China has $4tn of Foreign Currency Reserves.

This is a huge bonus for China who will be buying Rubles and Russian assets while they are undervalued. This is on top of the bonus to China of the 50% drop in the oil price (China is the largest importer of oil after the US).

N.B. the devaluation of the Ruble is causing high price inflation in Russia from the increased costs of imports. This will encourage Russia to produce more itself and to import less from abroad, increasing Russia's already substantial trade surplus.

The BRICS increasingly successful actions have marginalized the US Dollar in international trade and will put an end to the Petrodollar system and the Dollar as Reserve Currency.

The US created ISIS in the hopes that they would be able to remove Assad so that Saudi Arabia and Qatar could build a pipeline through Iraq, Syria and Turkey to supply Europe with gas that is currently being supplied by Russia. When this plan failed a false-flag chemical attack was blamed on Assad in the hopes of justifying a complete invasion. So far that full scale invasion is being blocked by the Russians.


Goldman Sachs On The Myths & Realities Of Russia's Oil Sector

Financial Times Lex: Russia is a Creditor to the World - Default Risk Non-existent

China's medium term plans are to replace the US Dollar as Reserve Currency by forming a coalition with the BRICS


1. Washington's New Iron Curtain to drive a wedge between Russia and the EU to the detriment of both and the high level meeting in Yalta in September 2013 that discussed Ukraine's future

It Was All Planned at Yalta

In September 2013, one of Ukraine’s richest oligarchs, Viktor Pinchuk, paid for an elite strategic conference on Ukraine’s future that was held in the same Palace in Yalta, Crimea, where Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill met to decide the future of Europe in 1945. The Economist, one of the elite media reporting on what it called a “display of fierce diplomacy”, stated that: “The future of Ukraine, a country of 48m people, and of Europe was being decided in real time.” The participants included Bill and Hillary Clinton, former CIA head General David Petraeus, former U.S. Treasury secretary Lawrence Summers, former World Bank head Robert Zoellick, Swedish foreign minister Carl Bildt, Shimon Peres, Tony Blair, Gerhard Schröder, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Mario Monti, Lithuanian president Dalia Grybauskaite, and Poland’s influential foreign minister Radek Sikorski. Both President Viktor Yanukovych, deposed five months later, and his recently elected successor Petro Poroshenko were present. Former U.S. energy secretary Bill Richardson was there to talk about the shale-gas revolution which the United States hopes to use to weaken Russia by substituting fracking for Russia’s natural gas reserves. The center of discussion was the “Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement” (DCFTA) between Ukraine and the European Union, and the prospect of Ukraine’s integration with the West. The general tone was euphoria over the prospect of breaking Ukraine’s ties with Russia in favor of the West.
Read more at:-

Previous Related articles
Why Obama visited Riyadh to pay tribute to the largest funders of Islamic Extremist Terrorism in the world 

Further Reading
Russian Sanctions Might Be Obama’s Greatest Blunder - pushing Russia and China closer together faster

The $700bn+ (over ten years) deal to supply China with more energy, together with the required pipeline expansions

The Russian supply of advanced weapons to China (previously only older technology was supplied)

The replacement of Exxon with Chinese and Asian partners to develop Russia's newly discovered Arctic and other oil fields

The use of China's $4tn Foreign Currency Reserves to bolster the Ruble and invest in Russia
and more

FBI drones are the biggest threat to privacy in America today

I am really getting sick of this crap the federal alphabet agencies are pulling and that more people don't understand what damage they are doing to the whole damn country.

From the federal-bureau-of-(deliberate)-ineptitude dept

The FBI's assessment of its drones' impact on the privacy of Americans has never been made public. It's been nearly a decade since it first deployed drones, and the agency has yet to provide anything on the subject. FOIA requests (there are several out there) have been greeted with nothing -- every single page withheld under the government's go-to exception, b(5).

Now, it's telling FOIA clearinghouse that its obfuscatory efforts have buried the documents so deep even the FBI doesn't know where its Privacy Impact Assessment is.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation refused to release its plans to tackle privacy risks posed by drone surveillance. Now the agency claims it can’t track them down at all. So does the one Justice Department office responsible for making sure such reports get filed in the first place.

The FBI's continued secrecy runs contrary to both the FOIA and its own obligations to the general public in terms of its surveillance programs' impact on the American public.

The Justice Department confirmed that neither the FBI nor OPCL had been able to find anything despite “an adequate, reasonable search for such records.”

So… did the FBI toss the troublesome document into the nearest shredder (as if it isn't stored online somewhere within its internal network)? Or is it simply uninterested with fulfilling the minimal requirements of its accountability to the public? The latter appears to be the likeliest answer.

The White House has set vague privacy policies for government agencies using drones. Trump issued a directive that sets limits on how unmanned aircraft may be used by federal agencies to gather information on people. The White House said government drones must be used lawfully and “consistent with the Constitution,” and gathering information on American citizens may only be done for an “authorized purpose.”

That doesn’t really restrict what law enforcement can use drones for, or even require a search warrant from a judge.

It's Not Just the NSA

By Mike Masnick TechDirt

The federal government illegally spies on Americans. The details of the NSA's "backdoor searches" have been revealed but that's only the beginning.

It's not just the NSA, remember, the CIA is not supposed to be doing any surveillance on US persons (like the NSA), but that's not what's happening at all. At least the CIA tracks some (but not all) of its abuse of backdoor searches:
In calendar year 2013, CIA conducted fewer than 1900 queries of Section 702-acquired communications using specific U.S. person identifiers as query terms or other more general query terms if they are intended to return information about a particular U.S. person. Of that total number approximately 40% were conducted as a result of requests for counterterrorism-related information from other U.S. intelligence agencies. Approximately 27% of the total number are duplicative or recurring queries conducted at different times using the same identifiers but that CIA nonetheless counts as separate queries. CIA also uses U.S. person identifiers to conduct metadata-only queries against metadata derived from the FISA Section 702 collection. However, the CIA does not track the number of metadata-only queries using U.S. person identifiers.
This involves big collections of content and metadata (so, no, not "just metadata" as meaningless as that phrase is) under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act (FAA). This is part of the program that the infamous PRISM effort operates under, and which allows the NSA to collect all sorts of content, including communications to, from or about a "target" -- where a "target" can be incredibly loosely defined (i.e., it can include groups or machines or just about anything).

But it's not just the NSA doing these searches, but the CIA and FBI as well. This is especially concerning with regards to the FBI. This means that the FBI, who does surveillance on Americans, is spying on Americans communications that were collected by the NSA and that they're doing so without anything resembling a warrant. Oh, and let's make this even worse: the FBI isn't even tracking how often it does this. It's just doing it willy nilly:
The FBI does not track how many queries it conducts using U.S. person identifiers. The FBI is responsible for identifying and countering threats to the homeland, such as terrorism pilots and espionage, inside the U.S. Unlike other IC agencies, because of its domestic mission, the FBI routinely deals with information about US persons and is expected to look for domestic connections to threats emanating from abroad, including threats involving Section 702 non-US. person targets. To fulfill its mission and avoid missing connections within the information lawfully in its possession, the FBI does not distinguish between U.S. and non- U.S. persons for purposes of querying Section 702 collection. It should be noted that the FBI does not receive all of Section 702 collection; rather, the FBI only requests and receives a small percentage of total Section 702 collection and only for those selectors in which the FBI has an investigative interest.

Moreover, because the FBI stores Section 702 collection in the same database as its "traditional" FISA collection, a query of "traditional" FISA collection will also query Section 702 collection. In addition, the FBI routinely conducts queries across its databases in an effort to locate relevant information that is already in its possession when it opens new national security investigations and assessments. Therefore, the FBI believes the number of queries is substantial. However, only FBI personnel trained in the Section 702 minimization procedures are able to View any Section 702 collection that is responsive to any query.
Basically, the FBI often asks the NSA for a big chunk of data that the NSA probably shouldn't have in the first place -- including tons of Americans' communications, and the FBI gets to dump it into the same database that it is free to query. And the FBI tracks none of this, other than to say that it believes that there are a "substantial" number of such queries. This would seem to be a pretty blatant attempt to end run around the 4th Amendment, giving the FBI broad access to searching through the communications of Americans with what appears to be almost no oversight.

The CIA is doing these kinds of warrantless fishing expeditions into the communications of Americans as well, but at least the CIA tracks how often it's doing so. Of course, when it comes to metadata searches, the CIA doesn't bother. It's also a bit bizarre that the CIA is apparently carrying out a bunch of those searches for "other U.S. intelligence agencies," when the CIA should be especially limited in its ability to do these searches in the first place.

Russian and western dispute over Syria chemical attack

By Patrick Wintour Diplomatic editor, The Guardian

An increasingly bitter dispute between Russia and the west over an inquiry into the recent chemical weapons attack that killed about 80 people in Syria has revealed the extent to which the two sides are unable to agree on basic facts – or even agree a process to ascertain the truth. 

The row has also brought into questions of future international support for the Organisation for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the internationally respected multilateral body responsible for overseeing control of chemical weapons.

OPCW leadership said on Thursday it had found incontrovertible proof that sarin gas or a similar substance had been released, but did not reach a view on responsibility for its deployment.

At the meeting in The Hague the OPCW executive rejected a Russian-led plan for an OPCW investigation to be restarted, prompting the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, to claim that the west was not interested in the truth of the incident – only in finding excuses to oust President Bashar al-Assad from power.

The west has blamed the Syrian air force for the attack on Khan Sheikhun area in southern Idlib on 4 April to which Donald Trump responded with cruise missile attacks that led to the destruction of more than 20 Syrian warplanes. It was the most decisive US military intervention since the war began, and raised the question of whether America will launch fresh attacks if evidence of further chemical weapons emerges. 

Russia, meanwhile, has variously claimed that Syrian opposition fighters may have mounted a false flag operation, and that the Syrian air force bombed opposition targets where munitions filled with poisonous substances were being made.

Following a meeting with the EU foreign affairs chief, Federica Mogherini, on Monday, Lavrov again called for the OPCW to send its experts to Khan Sheikhun and the Shayrat airfield to look into the alleged chemical incident.

The Russian move was rejected by 21 to six with 13 abstentions, as countries such as the UK said the existing impartial assessment should not be undermined, adding on-the-ground assessments could occur but only if the security position allowed.

Russian media reported this position as a decision to block on-site assessments.

In the past, shots have been fired at OPCW expert assessors operating in Syria, and the OPCW says it is currently impossible to guarantee the safety of experts if they personally visited the site of the attack. The Syrian air force has offered to suspend attacks in the region to allow the inquiry to go ahead.

The OPCW insists the samples gathered from the attack site both from those killed and from victims in Turkish hospitals are genuine.

The French government has also said it will produce evidence, believed to be intelligence intercepts of phone calls, that the attack was mounted by Syrian air force planes, and could not have been a false flag operation.

The OPCW has in the past avoided politics and operated through consensus, but such neutrality has been challenged in Syria.

Lavrov condemned the “complete incompetence” on the part of his western colleagues, who he said were “prohibiting the OPCW from sending their experts to the site of the incident, as well as to the airfield from where aircraft loaded with chemical weapons allegedly flew out”.

Lavrov said both the OPCW fact-checking missions tasked with looking into the Idlib incident are being headed by UK citizens, which Lavrov called “a very strange coincidence” that “runs contrary to the principles of an international organization”.

The director general of the OPCW, Ahmet Üzümcü, responded by saying that he had full confidence in the professionalism and impartiality of his investigators.

In a statement, Üzümcü said that samples had been collected from three dead victims and seven survivors and had been analysed at OPCW-designated laboratories. The results of the analysis indicate that the victims were exposed to sarin or a sarin-like substance. 

Russia has also questioned how members of the White Helmets civilian rescue mission were able to operate in the area so soon after the attack. 

But Dr Alistair Hay, professor of environmental technology at the University of Leeds, said: “It is quite possible the concentrations of sarin would have dispersed by the time White Helmets arrived.

But sarin adheres to a lot of different material and it should be possible to gather evidence in soil or clothing.”

On Monday, the US issued sanctions against 271 people linked to the Syrian agency responsible for producing non-conventional weapons.

The sanctions target employees of Syria’s Scientific Studies and Research Center, which the US claims partly enables the use of chemical weapons.

EDITORS NOTE: WHY would the west blocked any investigation? And just lip out the conclusion without ANY evidence? Meanwhile all the past so called attacks blamed on Assad all turned out to be done and faked by NAZI NATO and their moderate headchoppers. This time, can it be different? That must be WHY the west refused any investigation. The real EVIL has always pretended to be god. Like 666. 

THIS IS ONE OF THOSE UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES when one needs no more information than is already available from uncontested public information to exonerate the Syrian government for culpability for the chemical attack in question. These was simply no motive for them to do it. None. The west and its jihadist operatives on the ground in Syria, on the other hand, had everything to gain from staging a false flag chemical incident. One simply can't fathom Assad and his top military commanders sitting around pondering what they could do to invite direct American military intervention and then ordering it done.

Stay informed:

MIT expert claims latest chemical weapons attack in Syria was staged

 False Flag: How the U.S. Armed Syrian Rebels to Set Up an Excuse to Attack Assad

LiveLeak Chemical Attack in Syria FAKED

The US Government Sent Blackwater Veteran To Syria to stage chemical attack  

Wednesday, April 26, 2017

10 companies control everything you buy

A small number of companies create brands and products you might not know are theirs. Only 10 companies control almost every large food and beverage brand in the world.

These companies - Nestlé, PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, Unilever, Danone, General Mills, Kellogg's, Mars, Associated British Foods and Mondelez - each employ thousands and make billions of dollars in revenue every year.

In an effort to push these companies to make positive changes - and for customers to realize who controls the brands they're buying - Oxfam created a mind-boggling infographic that shows how interconnected consumer brands really are.

Read more:

CIA says that as an "enemy combatant Assange may be waterboarded or worse"

By Christopher R Rice

I posted an article wrote by the Guardian about the CIA's involvement in the Kennedy murders and someone left a comment about wasting their time, which got me to thinking: I've been writing and re-publishing for 35 years now, waiting for my fellow Americans to rise up with me. And, well, where the fuck is everyone? Oh yeah, their at the mall. So you, dear reader, have obviously been wasting a lot of my time, so go fuck yourselves.

Remember, I quit the other day, but no one knows what that means, huh? It means that since you refuse to pay me anything at all for all of my hard work, that I no longer work for you, Joe Public, go fuck yourselves.

So if I want to publish something just to make you waste your time so be it, I don't work for you any more remember? So I'm free to do and say anything that comes into my crazy little head and if you don't like it, guess what? Too god damn bad, who cares? Not me, you beat the care right out of me, now I hate everyone, especially you. And I plan on getting even by any means necessary. Fuck all ya'll.

I told you 10 years ago what the fuck was going to happen when they brought back torture and bragged about it on national fucking television. But you was too damn busy playing Angry Birds and jerking off to Backpages, now you don't know where you've been or even where you're going. Americas are dumb sorry ass bitches and you deserve everything you've got coming. Fuck you and your mama.

Do you know how many of you stood up with me? NONE. Do you know how much money I've made from this? NONE, now how much do you suppose I'm going miss you? NONE! Bye, bye worthless bitches.  

Facebook group:





Read more: Free Julian #FirstTheyCameForAssange

Pulitzer-Prize Winning Reporter Sy Hersh: Benghazi Is a HUGE Scandal … But Not For the Reason You Think

Pulitzer-prize winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh – who broke the stories of the Mai Lai massacre in Vietnam and the Iraq prison torture scandals, which rightfully disgraced the Nixon and Bush administrations’ war-fighting tactics – reported:

The Senate Intelligence Committee released a report on the assault by a local militia in September 2012 on the American consulate and a nearby undercover CIA facility in Benghazi, which resulted in the death of the US ambassador, Christopher Stevens, and three others. The report’s criticism of the State Department for not providing adequate security at the consulate, and of the intelligence community for not alerting the US military to the presence of a CIA outpost in the area, received front-page coverage and revived animosities in Washington, with Republicans accusing Obama and Hillary Clinton of a cover-up.

That’s the part you’ve heard about: failure to protect the personnel at the embassy.
But then Hersh breaks the deeper story wide open:

A highly classified annex to the report, not made public, described a secret agreement reached in early 2012 between the Obama and Erdoğan administrations. It pertained to the rat line. By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi’s arsenals into Syria. A number of front companies were set up in Libya, some under the cover of Australian entities. Retired American soldiers, who didn’t always know who was really employing them, were hired to manage procurement and shipping. The operation was run by David Petraeus, the CIA director who would soon resign when it became known he was having an affair with his biographer. (A spokesperson for Petraeus denied the operation ever took place.)

The operation had not been disclosed at the time it was set up to the congressional intelligence committees and the congressional leadership, as required by law since the 1970s. The involvement of MI6 enabled the CIA to evade the law by classifying the mission as a liaison operation. The former intelligence official explained that for years there has been a recognized exception in the law that permits the CIA not to report liaison activity to Congress, which would otherwise be owed a finding. (All proposed CIA covert operations must be described in a written document, known as a ‘finding’, submitted to the senior leadership of Congress for approval.) Distribution of the annex was limited to the staff aides who wrote the report and to the eight ranking members of Congress – the Democratic and Republican leaders of the House and Senate, and the Democratic and Republicans leaders on the House and Senate intelligence committees. This hardly constituted a genuine attempt at oversight: the eight leaders are not known to gather together to raise questions or discuss the secret information they receive.

The annex didn’t tell the whole story of what happened in Benghazi before the attack, nor did it explain why the American consulate was attacked. ‘The consulate’s only mission was to provide cover for the moving of arms,’ the former intelligence official, who has read the annex, said. ‘It had no real political role.’
Hersh isn’t the first to report on this major scandal.
We’ve extensively documented that the bigger story behind the murder of ambassador Chris Stevens at the Benghazi embassy in Libya is that the embassy was the center of U.S. efforts to arm jihadis in Syria who are trying to topple the Syrian government.
We’ve also noted that this is not a partisan issue … both parties greenlighted regime change in Syria years ago, and both parties have tried to cover up what was really going on in Benghazi.
Last August, CNN touched on the weapons smuggling aspect of Benghazi.
The Wall Street JournalTelegraph and other sources confirm that the US consulate in Benghazi was mainly being used for a secret CIA operation.
They say that the State Department presence in Benghazi “provided diplomatic cover” for the previously hidden CIA mission. WND alleges that it was not a real consulate.  And former CIA officer Philip Giraldi confirms:
Benghazi has been described as a U.S. consulate, but it was not. It was an information office that had no diplomatic status. There was a small staff of actual State Department information officers plus local translators. The much larger CIA base was located in a separate building a mile away. It was protected by a not completely reliable local militia. Base management would have no say in the movement of the ambassador and would not be party to his plans, nor would it clear its own operations with the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli. In Benghazi, the CIA’s operating directive would have been focused on two objectives: monitoring the local al-Qaeda affiliate group, Ansar al-Sharia, and tracking down weapons liberated from Colonel Gaddafi’s arsenal. Staff consisted of CIA paramilitaries who were working in cooperation with the local militia. The ambassador would not be privy to operational details and would only know in general what the agency was up to. When the ambassador’s party was attacked, the paramilitaries at the CIA base came to the rescue before being driven back into their own compound, where two officers were subsequently killed in a mortar attack.
Retired Lt. General William Boykin said in January that Stevens was in Benghazi as part of an effort to arm the Syrian opposition:
More supposition was that he was now funneling guns to the rebel forces in Syria, using essentially the Turks to facilitate that. Was that occurring, (a), and if so, was it a legal covert action?
Boykin said Stevens was “given a directive to support the Syrian rebels” and the State Department’s Special Mission Compound in Benghazi “would be the hub of that activity.”
Business Insider reports that Stevens may have been linked with Syrian terrorists:
There’s growing evidence that U.S. agents—particularly murdered ambassador Chris Stevens—were at least aware of heavy weapons moving from Libya to jihadist Syrian rebels.
In March 2011 Stevens became the official U.S. liaison to the al-Qaeda-linked Libyan opposition, working directly with Abdelhakim Belhadj of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group—a group that has now disbanded, with some fighters reportedly participating in the attack that took Stevens’ life.
In November 2011 The Telegraph reported that Belhadj, acting as head of the Tripoli Military Council, “met with Free Syrian Army [FSA] leaders in Istanbul and on the border with Turkey” in an effort by the new Libyan government to provide money and weapons to the growing insurgency in Syria.
Last month The Times of London reported that a Libyan ship “carrying the largest consignment of weapons for Syria … has docked in Turkey.” The shipment reportedly weighed 400 tons and included SA-7 surface-to-air anti-craft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades.

Reuters reports that Syrian rebels have been using those heavy weapons to shoot down Syrian helicopters and fighter jets.
The ship’s captain was “a Libyan from Benghazi and the head of an organization called the Libyan National Council for Relief and Support,” which was presumably established by the new government.
That means that Ambassador Stevens had only one person—Belhadj—between himself and the Benghazi man who brought heavy weapons to Syria.
Furthermore, we know that jihadists are the best fighters in the Syrian opposition, but where did they come from?
Last week The Telegraph reported that a FSA commander called them “Libyans” when he explained that the FSA doesn’t “want these extremist people here.”
And if the new Libyan government was sending seasoned Islamic fighters and 400 tons of heavy weapons to Syria through a port in southern Turkey—a deal brokered by Stevens’ primary Libyan contact during the Libyan revolution—then the governments of Turkey and the U.S. surely knew about it.
Furthermore there was a CIA post in Benghazi, located 1.2 miles from the U.S. consulate, used as “a base for, among other things, collecting information on the proliferation of weaponry looted from Libyan government arsenals, including surface-to-air missiles” … and that its security features “were more advanced than those at rented villa where Stevens died.”
And we know that the CIA has been funneling weapons to the rebels in southern Turkey. The question is whether the CIA has been involved in handing out the heavy weapons from Libya.
In other words, ambassador Stevens may have been a key player in deploying Libyan terrorists and arms to fight the Syrian government.
Other sources also discuss that the U.S. consulate in Benghazi as mainly being used as a CIA operation to ship fighters and arms to Syria.
Many have speculated that – if normal security measures weren’t taken to protect the Benghazi consulate or to rescue ambassador Stevens – it was because the CIA was trying to keep an extremely low profile to protect its cover of being a normal State Department operation.
That is what I think really happened at Benghazi.


Why the CIA created ISIS 

WikiLeaks: Obama sent Blackwater to start Syrian civil-war

ISIS is a creation of Israel's MOSSAD

By John Moody, FOXNews Coping with this week’s violent attacks by ISIS sympathizers, a popular Shi’ite preacher in California who cla...