Friday, June 22, 2018

Gareth Porter: An Elite Coalition Emerges Against a Trump-Kim Agreement



 Posted on 
An implicit coalition of corporate media, Democratic partisans and others loyal to the national security state are actively hostile to any agreement that would endanger the continuation of the 70-year-old Cold War between the United States and North Korea. 

The hostility toward Donald Trump on the part of both corporate media (except for Fox News) and the Democratic Party establishment is obviously a factor in the negative response to the summit. Trump’s dysfunctional persona, extremist domestic strategy and attacks on the press had already created a hyper-adversarial political atmosphere that surrounds everything Trump says or does. 

But media coverage of the Singapore summit shows that something much bigger and more sinister is now in play: a consensus among foreign policy and national security elites and their media allies that Trump’s pursuit of an agreement with Kim on denuclearization threatens to undo seventy years of U.S. military dominance in Northeast Asia. 

Those elites are determined to resist the political-diplomatic thrust of the Trump administration in negotiating with Kim and have already begun to sound the alarm about the danger Trump poses to the US power position. Not surprisingly Democrats in Congress are already aligning themselves with the national security elite on the issue.

The real concern of the opposition to Trump’s diplomacy, therefore, is no longer that he cannot succeed in getting an agreement with Kim on denuclearization but that he will succeed.

The elite media-security framing of the Trump-Kim summit in the initial week was to cast it as having failed to obtain anything concrete from Kim Jong-un, while giving up immensely valuable concessions to Kim. Almost without exception the line from journalists, pundits and national security elite alike compared the joint statement to the texts of previous agreements with North Korea and found that it was completely lacking in detail.

Ignoring Kim’s Concessions

Thus The Washington Post quoted a tweet by Richard Haas, chairman of the über-establishment Council on Foreign Relations, that the summit “changed nothing” but “makes it harder to keep sanctions in place, further reducing pressure on North Korea to reduce (much less give up) its nuclear weapons and missiles.” 

The New York Times cited the criticism of former CIA official Bruce Klingner, now at the Heritage Foundation, that the joint statement failed to commit North Korea to do as much as promised in agreements negotiated in 1994 and 2005. And CNN reported that the Joint Declaration “did not appear to make any significant progress” in committing the North Koreans to complete denuclearization, citing the use of the word “reaffirmed” in the document, which it opined “highlighted the lack of fresh commitments.” 

Those criticisms of the joint statement conveniently ignored the fact that Kim had already made the most significant concession he could have made in advance of detailed negotiations between the two states when he committed North Korea to ending the testing of both nuclear weapons and long-range missiles in April following meetings with then CIA Director Mike Pompeo earlier in the month. That commitment by Kim meant that North Korea was entering negotiations with the United States before it had achieved a credible threat to hit the United States with an ICBM armed with a nuclear weapon.

The fact that no mention of Kim’s centrally important concession can be found in any of the reports or commentaries on the summit underlines the scarcely hidden agenda at play. Mentioning that fact would have pointed to understandings that Pompeo had already reached with Kim and his envoy to Washington before the summit and were not reflected in the brief text. Pompeo actually confirmed this in remarks made in Detroit on June 18, which only Bloomberg news reported. 

Furthermore, the trashing of the summit also employed the politically motivated trick of deliberately ignoring the vast difference between a joint statement of the first ever meeting between the two heads of state and past agreements on denuclearization reached after weeks or months of intensive negotiations. 

What really alarmed and even outraged the media and their elite national security allies, however, was that Trump not only announced that he would suspend U.S.-South Korean joint exercises or “war games” as long as the North Koreans were negotiating in good faith on denuclearization, but even called the exercises “very provocative.”

One journalist and commentator after another, including CNN and the Times’ Nicholas Kristof, denounced that description as “adopting” his adversary’s “rhetoric” about the exercises. In a podcast with former National Security Council spokesperson Tommy Vietor, former NSC official Kelley Magsamen, now at the Democratic Party’s Center for American Progress, rather than acknowledging that a vital principle of diplomacy is to put oneself in the position of one’s opponent, charged that Trump had “internalized the language of our adversaries.” 

The media and critics deploring Trump’s willingness to suspend the joint U.S.-South Korean war games have portrayed it as a betrayal of the security alliance with South Korea. But that claim merely dismisses the desires of South Korean President Moon and betrays ignorance of the history of U.S.-South Korean war games. 

Been Called ‘Provocative’ Before

When Trump called the drills “provocative,” he was merely expressing the same view that some US officials adopted as long ago as the mid-1980s. These officials also called the exercises “provocative,” according to a State Department official interviewed by historian Leon Sigal for his authoritative account of US nuclear diplomacy with North Korea. 

Donald Gregg, the US Ambassador to South Korea from 1989 to 1993, observed in an interview with Sigal that the North Koreans mobilized their forces at great expense every time the drills, called “Team Spirit,” were held in the 1980s and early 1990s. 

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who was an Army general and chief of US military intelligence in Korea in the early 1990s, later confirmed to Sigal that the North Koreans would “go nuts” during the annual Team Spirit exercises. Part of the reason for that extreme North Korean anxiety about the drills was that the United States routinely flew nuclear capable B-52s over South Korea as part of the exercises – a practice resumed in recent years after a long hiatus and no doubt reviving the trauma of the US devastation of North Korea from 1950-53.

Ambassador Gregg had supported the idea of suspending the annual Team Spirit exercise in 1992 as part of a proposed effort to get North Korea to change its mind about wanting nuclear weapons. Furthermore the South Korean government itself formally announced in January 1992 that the Team Spirit exercises were being suspended in light of “progress” on North-South nuclear issues. Furthermore, the Clinton administration canceled Team Spirit drills each year from 1994 to 1996 in an effort to demonstrate the US seriousness in pursuing an agreement with North Korea for an end to its production of plutonium for nuclear weapons.

The provocative character of the joint U.S.-South Korean military drills became even more pronounced after North Korea began testing nuclear weapons and then intercontinental ballistic missiles. In 2015, the US and South Korea adopted a new war plan codenamed OPLAN 5015, which calls for surgical strikes on North Korea’s nuclear and missiles sites and command-and-control facilities, as well as “decapitation” raids targeting senior North Korean leaders, according to the South Korean Yonhap News Agency. 

Although the US Command in South Korea has always insisted that all joint exercises are defensive in nature, press reports said that the war plan, which could only be based on a first strike strategy, would be the basis of the publicly announced Ulchi Freedom Guardian war games scheduled for August 2017. 

What the national security elite and their media allies are really upset about is the real possibility that Trump will succeed in negotiating a denuclearization deal with North Korea that includes a formal end to the Korean War. That could complicate the Pentagon’s continuing strengthening of the US military posture vis-à-vis China. 

Fareed Zakaria, CNN’s establishment foreign policy pundit, recalled the Pentagon’s aim during the Clinton administration to maintain at least 100,000 U.S. troops in Northeast Asia, and worried that, if the US military alliance with South Korea is de-emphasized, the US would “fall below that threshold.”

Ian Bremmer, the CBS News national security pundit, explained that Trump’s willingness to suspend military exercises means that “the United States is probably going to be a much more marginal player at the end of the day in this region.” 

Magsamen suggested a similar concern about Trump weakening the alliance with South Korea in an interview with Vietor, commenting that “a lot of us…see the North Korean challenge in a broader context vis-à-vis our adversaries, like China and Russia.”

These are early indications of a showdown between Trump and the elite alliance arrayed against him. Senate Democrats can be expected to push back against any agreement that portends possible withdrawal from South Korea, as indicated by the bill proposed by Senators Chris Murphy and Tammy Duckworth to forbid troops withdrawal without Pentagon approval. 

If his opponents are dissatisfied with the agreement Trump negotiates, the Senate probably wouldn’t ratify a treaty to end the Korean War that Pyongyang would certainly demand. The most promising diplomatic development in East Asia in seven decades could thus be nullified by the shared interests of the loose coalition in preserving a status quo of tension and possible war. 

Gareth Porter, an investigative historian and journalist specializing in US national security policy, received the UK-based Gellhorn Prize for journalism for 2011 for articles on the U.S. war in Afghanistan. His new book is Manufactured Crisis: the Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare. He can be contacted at porter.gareth50@gmail.com. Reprinted from Consortium News with the author’s permission.

 

Read more by Gareth Porter

Author: Gareth Porter

Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specializing in U.S. national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam, was published in 2006.

Thursday, June 21, 2018

Professor Doom: Campus Hiring Bias: 78% of Departments have ZERO Republicans


Campus Hiring Bias: 78% of Departments have ZERO Republicans


     The whole point of a university is to include the entire universe of ideas. It seems noble enough, but what happens when you allow people in whose ideas don’t allow any other ideas in? The seed for the takeover was planted decades ago when it was decided letting such people in was nevertheless part of the university mission.

     Eventually, you get a lockdown. It’s not a fast process, mind you, but as these people with exclusionary ideas put their chokehold on campus, it accelerates. Past a certain point (namely, control of the hiring committees), the only people who can become faculty must hold those ideas, and nothing else.

      And so it is that we now have campuses drowning in ideology, more importantly, drowning in exactly one ideology. How bad is it?

  
Have No



     How clear is it that there must be bias in the hiring process at these schools? Our schools scream about how much they want diversity…but as far as hiring goes, there is to be no diversity in political views. It is worth noting that even at the schools which may have some Republicans…they’re pretty rare.

      Looking at the statistics further, we get more interesting details, but first let us consider the data set:

Langbert sampled 8,688 tenure track Ph.D.-holding professors from the top 51 liberal arts schools, …used only full-time, tenure track faculty (full, associate, or assistant professors) and excluded all part-time professors (adjunct, visiting, and emeritus).

     They removed all the adjuncts and temp workers from the data, for good reason. The majority of college professors are adjuncts today, with minimal pay and no benefits. You can spend a decade or more as an adjunct, and if you make any waves (and God forbid you have a pro-Trump bumper sticker…), you’re gone. These poor adjuncts aren’t about to interrupt the ideological narrative being instilled in the students, so it’s fair to look at just the full-time tenure track faculty.

     He also excluded 101 professors—a little more than one percent of the total sample—from the analysis, because they were registered as members of minor parties (cue big-L libertarian weeping).

      Our “two party” system is ridiculously corrupted at this point. My entire life it seems my only choices from the two big parties in a Presidential election are either the candidate for “massive debts, huge social programs, and endless war” or the candidate for “massive debts, endless war, and huge social programs.” There are other parties, and allow me to at least mention the Libertarian party, which thinks you should be allowed to keep your money, believes it’s far better for you to take care of yourself, and understands that murder is bad—basically diametrically opposed in every way to the only two parties you can realistically choose from in any election.

     Throwing out these “weird” third parties from the study is a little unfair but, seeing as that’s how alternative political parties are treated everywhere else, I guess I’ll overlook it here.

      While there is a definite Democrat bias on campus, there are some exceptions in certain departments:

…the hard sciences—engineering, chemistry, physics, and mathematics—had more even ratios of Democrats to Republicans…

     It’s “almost” curious that Republicans are often described as Bible-thumping, science-denying ignorant rubes, while the data from our campuses indicates that if you’re in a discipline which requires scientific thought and respects empirical evidence, you’re vastly more likely to be Republican. I put the “almost” in quotes because those offensive descriptions of Republicans are being provided by the media…which in turn is predominantly Democrat (incidentally, there are many hysterical videos on YouTube watching these media guys lose their minds at the outcome of the last Presidential election, and I encourage the gentle reader to watch a few, to see just how strong the bias evidently is).

     What departments are heaviest with the Democrats?

 …sociology, english, religion, and anthropology. Communications ranked highest in terms of ideological homogeneity skewed toward the left.

     Hmm, a few of those departments have the reputation of being academic slums. I’m rather surprised Education isn’t here, but the study is focusing on the higher tier schools, which probably don’t have Education departments.

…could not find a single Republican with an "exclusive appointment" to gender studies, Africana studies, or peace studies.

--and yet somehow Communications was most skewed? The article doesn’t explain the contradictions here.

   I’ve never even heard of “peace studies.” In any event, we clearly are seeing a trend as far as the most disreputable departments also being the most filled with Democrats. It’s funny, our metropolitan areas most controlled by Democrats also have a vile reputation. Hmm.

      Now there are some small schools with a number of Republican faculty, but they tend to be religious or military schools. You can’t shout “ah ha!” here, because while it’s trivial to find schools which are exclusively Democrat schools, there are no schools with exclusively Republican faculty. It’s almost as though one side actually believes in diversity, while the other only uses it as a tool to grab power.

       Overall, the bottom line is a student can easily go his entire college education without exposure to any non-Democrat ideas:

…around 78 percent of departments did not contain a single full-time professor who identifies as Republican.

      Now, higher ed is already making holding certain political views part of the job requirement for faculty, even to teach mathematics. It’s safe to say that these departments with “perfect” Democrat representation are going to be that way forever more. Meanwhile, the departments which allow Democrats in are clearly endangered, because, sooner or later, there will be a Democrat lockdown, and then it’s all over for them.

     As I’ve said before, once a school becomes converged, controlled by this particular set of political beliefs, the only quick solution is bulldozers. This solution is not on the table, of course, and so instead these schools will die a slow death, as they invariably get a reputation for race riots and, more importantly, extreme indoctrination at the expense of all education. People don’t want to go to such schools, much less go deep into debt for the privilege of doing so.

       Will these schools take all of higher education down with them? I hope not, but at this point I can’t be certain.

Iran already exonerated of role in 9/11 attacks, Docs display Israel’s complicity


FNA- A prominent Iranian political activist dismissed the Southern District Court of New York’s ruling ordering Iran to pay more than $6 billion of reparation for the 2001 terrorist attacks, stressing Israel’s role in killing nearly 3,000 Americans at the time.
The Southern District Court’s ruling “found the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and The Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran” liable for the deaths of more than 1,000 people as a result of the September 11 attacks.
Judge George B Daniels of the Southern District Court of New York said that Iran is ordered to pay “$12,500,000 per spouse, $8,500,000 per parent, $8,500,000 per child, and $4,250,000 per sibling” to the families and estates of the deceased.
A default judgment is issued when a defendant does not contest the case in court.
Daniels issued other default judgments against Iran in 2011 and 2016 that ordered the Islamic Republic to pay victims and insurers billions of dollars for damages and deaths in the hijacker attacks.
Iran has rejected all cases, but it says it doesn’t recognize the US courts for judging such cases.
Last week, thousands of American professors, politicians, experts and former members of the US Congress in a letter to the Iranian Ministries of Justice and Foreign Affairs called on the country to immediately appeal the Southern District Court of New York’s ruling, and vowed to testify in support of the Islamic Republic in an appeals court after Tehran files for it.
Nader Talebzadeh, a prominent political expert and activist, referred to the letter, and stressed the need for Iran to end its tradition of not appealing the US courts’ rulings and challenge the mainstream media’s story about the 9/11 incident with the help of the US political activists at the court.
He told FNA on Saturday that “the September 11 fact-finding groups are ready to speak to the benefit of Iran in any court and testify that Iran has not been involved in the attack. They are ready to show presence in an official court and elaborate on the 9/11 incident. But the Iranian government is first required to appeal the ruling”.
According to Talebzadeh, Iran has never appealed to the US courts’ rulings and it has adopted the same approach in the recent case. “Now it has an opportunity only until next Tuesday to appeal the ruling.”
He described the 9/11 as the US Achilles Heel which was used as a pretext for military intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan, stressing Israel’s role in the deadly incident.
“There are documents to prove Israel’s role and we should allow the Americans themselves to speak about it. Even the official commission which has investigated the 9/11 incident has clearly underlined that Iran has played no role. How a judge in New York, who has certainly received money from Saudi Arabia and has issued such a ruling for the second time, sentences Iran, and the country does not react?” Talebzadeh said.
He noted that investigations have proved that C4 explosive material was used during the 9/11 incident, adding, “The Americans fear reopening of the 9/11 case as all its details are secret and it is an opportunity for Iran on which it can maneuver.”
The letter wrote by the American professors, politicians, experts and former members of the US Congress to the Iranian government to testify in support of the Islamic Republic in an appeals court is as follows:
“We (over 5000 US professors, experts and politicians) are willing and ready to provide court testimony in support of Iran’s innocence; the extremely weak case against Iran is predicated on the 9/11 Commission’s version of events, according to which 19 alleged hijackers (15 of whom were Saudis, and none of whom were Iranians) precipitated a series of miracles, including gross violations of the laws of physics. we can prove absolutely, beyond any reasonable doubt, that this version of events is false, thereby nullifying the case against Iran,” the statement said.
To watch, "9/11: Who was responsible and why", click here
The signatories of the statement underlined their firm belief that by strongly contesting this matter in a US court, Iran can win a major media victory over its enemies, and will likely win the legal case as well, adding, that for while the US courts can be corrupt, they follow procedural rules, and create legal records, that will in this case make it very difficult for the anti-Iran forces to achieve their objectives.
They said that the alternative—not contesting the judgment—hands the anti-Iran forces a victory that they do not deserve, adding that for although they have no valid evidence against Iran, if Iran fails to defend itself, it appears to be admitting guilt.
“We believe that the following organizations would likely be available to assist with Iran’s defense, whether in the capacity of expert witnesses or as friends of the court; Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth  (https://www.AE911Truth.org), Consensus 9/11 (http://www.consensus911.org), Scientists for 9/11 Truth  (http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org),” the signatories of the statement said.
“We urge the government of Iran to contact Mr. Mick Harrison Esq. of the Lawyers Committee for 9/11 Inquiry” who, in his capacity as a private attorney, may be able to help the Islamic Republic of Iran take the initial steps toward assembling a legal team to appeal Judge Daniels’ ruling in advance of the May 28 deadline:
Lawyers Committee for 9/11 Inquiry https://www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org (which on April 10 filed a 54-page petition for a grand jury investigation of 9/11 with the U.S. Attorney of the Southern District of New York).
The signatories include David Ray Griffin, Professor Emeritus, Claremont School of Theology; author of 13 books on 9/11, Richard Falk, Professor of International Law, Emeritus, Princeton University, Cynthia McKinney, Ph.D., six-term congresswoman (D-GA) and Green Party candidate for President of the United States (2008), Graeme MacQueen, Associate Professor of Religious Studies (retired), McMaster University; former Director of McMaster’s Centre for Peace Studies and author of numerous articles on 9/11, Mark Crispin Miller, Professor of Culture and Communication, New York University, Piers Robinson, Professor of Politics, Society and Political Journalism, Niels Harrit, Ph.D., Associate Professor (retired), Dept. of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Denmark, Oliver Boyd-Barrett, Professor Emeritus of Journalism, Bowling Green State University, Anthony J. Hall, Ph.D., Professor of Globalization Studies, University of Lethbridge, Tony Szamboti, ME, former Lockheed Martin and BAE Systems mechanical design engineer, Ibrahim Soudy, PhD, PE, SE, PEng, Structural Engineer, Ian Henshall, author, 911 The New Evidence, Sander Hicks, Candidate, US Congress, www.hicksforcongress.com, Michael Santangelo, Co-Facilitator for Truth Action Project, New York City, Kevin Barrett, Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for Truth; author, Questioning the War on Terror, www.scientistsfor911truth.org Scientists for 9/11 Truth Science professionals seeking new and independent investigations into the attacks of September 11, 2001, In early May, Southern District Court of New York issued a default judgment requiring Iran to pay more than $6bn to victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks that killed almost 3,000 people, court filings show.
The US court’s ruling came despite the fact that official investigations found no evidence of Iranian involvement.
Though the lawsuit alleged Iran supported the hijackers with training and other assistance, no Iranian involvement in the attacks has ever been substantiated.
The 9/11 Commission, which was tasked with preparing a “full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding” the attacks, found no evidence of Iranian support.
Saudi Arabia remains the main target of US citizens looking for damages in relation to the attacks.
The judgment against Iran was issued in a court case consisting of more than 40 lawsuits that have been consolidated over the years.
Plaintiffs allege that Saudi Arabia provided material support to the 19 hijackers who crashed commercial airliners into the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington.
Another plane, reportedly targeting the White House, crashed in a field in Pennsylvania after passengers confronted the hijackers.

SANDY HOOK: Michael Vabner website shows "Noah Pozner" all grown up

From Noah Pozner to Michael Vabner in four easy steps
Original date of publication: Sunday, 27 May 2018

SANDY HOOK: Michael Vabner website shows "Noah Pozner" all grown up

Michael Vabner, whose images as a child were used to create Sandy Hook fiction "Noah Pozner", has a web site visited by my correspondent, Bruce Sullivan, and turns out to have just graduated from the University of Connecticut, Storrs (2017) with courses in IT and web management. I visited his web site (which as of now can still be accessed here) and captured this, a photograph of "Noah Pozner", all grown up:
Michael Vabner .jpg
 
His resume includes stints with a DOD-related company, InfoReliance Corporation, FairFax, VA (June-August 2015 and 2016), leading me to believe he may be the party who has been infiltrating my blog and taking down images I have posted proving that "Noah Pozner" was a fiction created out of photos of Michael Vabner as a child. Here is Michael Vabner's resume, which was published on his web site:
Michael Vabner RESUME .jpg
Bruce Sullivan checked out InfoReliance Corporation and found its client list was a virtual Who's Who of US government-military-industrial agencies, where Michael Vabner's training with them (to me) strongly suggests that he has been the party who has been infiltrating my blog to take down images that prove Sandy Hook was staged and that "Noah Pozner" not only did not die there but never even existed:
Hi Jim,
After reading your article on "Sandy Hook Parents sue Alex Jones", I went to Michael Vabner's personal web page and on it he posts a resume (attached) that in one section reads list what appears to be 2 years of a summer internship.
Michael Vabner EXPERIENCE InfoReliance Corporation - Fairfax, VA June-August
2015 & 2016 June-August 2015 & 2016
Being of a curious nature, I immediately went to the InfoReliance Corporation web site where they list some of their customers (see InfoReliance Corporation customer list at URL (http://www.inforeliance.com/about-us/clients) (attached); these customers include:
Defense Information Systems Agency
Defense Logistics Agency
Defense Threat Reduction Agency
Department of Agriculture
Department of Energy
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Department of Justice
Department of Labor
Department of State
Department of the Interior
Department of Transportation
Department of Treasury
Department of Veteran's Affairs
Department of Commerce
DHS Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation
DHS Einstein
Federal Communications Commission
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
TO NAME JUST A FEW! How much more "Deep State" can you get??
I hope this helps you and the other Sandy Hook researchers.
Bruce Sullivan
The images that have been taken down--again and again!--by the infiltrator (where Michael Vabner turns out to have the kind of background and training that would qualify him as an amateur spook) are ones that provide some of the most powerful proof that Sandy Hook was political theater for the purpose of advancing the Democratic Party's gun control agenda, the promotion of which we are seeing repeatedly played out. Here's one that has been removed many times:
Two Staged Sandy Hook Photos.jpg
which, of course, reveals that the famous photograph by Shannon Hicks (top) sent around the world the day of the alleged shooting was itself staged, where a second photo (bottom) Shannon has also admitted taking shows parents observing with their arms folded and hands in their pockets, while the policeworman rearranges the kids to get "a better shot". If you look in between "Boy #1" and "Boy #2" (bottom), you can see other parents casually looking on, leading me to refer to this photo as "lounging at the massacre". Others are more obvious targets:
Is Noah Michael Vabner.jpg
This from a blog where six of us established that Kelley Watt's conjecture--that "Noah Pozner" was made up out of photos of Michael Vabner as a child--appeared to be correct, where we established that they had the same eyes, the same ears, the same shape of skull, which would be confirmed by the more precise comparison facilitated by superposition of an image of Michael upon an image of Noah by Larry Rivera to confirm that they are indeed one and the same:

In the meanwhile, Wolfgang Halbig has produced photos (which he has told me he has had verified by a photographic expert), one of eight of the Sandy Hook girls--alive and well and looking cute and perky--and another that includes even more of them as well as four of the Sandy Hook boys, where on the bottom right you can see a photo of Michael Vabner as he appeared (what I take to be) a few years ago, where Bruce Sullivan has now provided us with an updated image:

How much more proof could we possibly need that Sandy Hook was a hoax? It turns out that We the People are being scammed, first by Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Eric Holder (with Sandy Hook), more recently by Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Sheriff Scott Israel (with Parkland), where we can expect these fake school shootings to continue in their ongoing effort to "brainwash" the American public into changing its attitude toward guns, which would be a very bad idea. Check out:

The 2nd Amendment and the Poltics of Gun Control.jpg
"The 2nd Amendment and the Politics of Gun Control", which I recorded for Memorial Day. We have to get a grip on the insanity of the DNC fabrication of school shootings to salvage their prospects for the Midterm elections, where they are panic-stricken that they may lose massively. We are witnessing one more cynical and sadistic exploitation of orchestrated acts of terrorism designed to instill fear into the target population to promote a political agenda. Rather than electing more kindred spirits, these despicable cads deserve to be booted out of office and held in the contempt they deserve.
Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is McKnight Professor Emeritus on the Duluth Campus of the University of Minnesota and co-editor of moonrockbooks.com.

Patrick McShay: The Immigration Distraction




 
"The Obama Administration prosecuted 500,000 illegal immigrants between 2010 and 2016. They referred a fifth of those for prosecution, which often resulted in family separations." 

                                                          *The Daily Caller

 "Trumps zero-tolerance policy is concerning but isn't a huge departure from what we saw under Obama, as 52% of all federal criminal prosecutions were for immigration-related crimes when he left office." 

                      * Matthew Kolken- Immigration Attorney

Just last month The American Civil Liberties Union announced that after pouring over thousands of documents they discovered a mountain of evidence of "pervasive abuse of unaccompanied immigrant children detained by the US Customs and Border Protection," from 2009 to 2016 during Barack Obama's presidency. 


Mitra Ebadolahi, a Border Litigation staff attorney for the ACLU, scolding the Obama administration for their cruel policies said, "All human beings deserve to be treated with dignity and respect regardless of their immigration status, and children, in particular, deserve special protection." Where was the mainstream media outrage during Obama's disastrous presidency?

I don't remember Rachel Maddow breaking down and crying on her show about immigration abuses under her hero Obama. This phony outrage is political!  

What we are seeing is just another blatant double standard applied to make Trump look bad in the public's eye. Where was the outrage from these sniveling, do nothing politicians like traitors Chuck Schumer, Eric Swalwell, Nancy Pelosi and Elijah Cummings while these same policies and abuses occurred during the Obama administration? 

This situation has been around since Bill Clinton signed it into law 22 years ago. Why has this issue become such a hot topic all of a sudden? Is it a coincidence that this story broke at the same time the IG report was released proving that a cabal of FBI and Department of Justice officials under Obama conspired to steal the election from Trump? Look for more manufactured distractions as more facts become public.  

When that failed they were hell-bent on destroying his presidency with phony accusations of Russian collusion. The men who told us that there was Russian interference and collusion are all proven liars. 
 

Disgraced FBI Director James Comey perjured himself in front of Congress, CIA Director John Brennan lied about the Trump dossier, Attorney General Eric Holder was found in contempt of Congress and former director of National Intelligence James Clapper who was caught lying to Congress. 

Obama laughably claimed his presidency was scandal-free. With these and other criminals surrounding him and a compliant, corrupt and despicable media covering for him it's no wonder people believe this nonsense. 

Trump gets no such cover from the media and his team is routinely viciously attacked for even the smallest misstep. The Obama team screamed racism at the slightest criticism and the media was scared to death.

The truth is polls show the majority of Americans are sick of immigrants, legal or otherwise. 

Chuck Schumer says we don't need new legislation. He says Trump just needs to sign an executive order! Couldn't Obama have done the same? The answer of course is yes he could have. Trump has already acquiesced and signed an executive order and will no doubt be vilified by the Marxists on the left for doing what Obama could have done years ago.

Trump said Congress needs to change the law and the leftists lost their minds. Poor brainwashed know nothing Rachel Maddow melted down on her show sobbing for the children and blaming Donald Trump. 

Charles Kuck a past president of the American Immigration Lawyers told Elizabeth Llorente at Fox News that "the outcry over the treatment of children at the border is mind-boggling. Trump's policy is the same as Obama's, the  major difference is the knee-jerk tendency to lash out at this president's actions and put them in disproportionate perspective."

He went on to say that "everyone in immigration law was screaming from the rooftops about Obama detaining families." Kuck said, "Obama said they had to enforce the law so that the Conservatives in Congress will fix the law." 

Maybe Rachel Maddow should have Mr. Kuck on her show and stop the disinformation and lies that fuel her nightly comedy hour.

Pat Buchanon recently wrote that "our country is under invasion", and he's right! Immigration, like gun control, is part of a longtime Marxist agenda to transform this country into a Communist/Socialist society where our rights under the Constitution, will at first be diminished, which we see happening now, and later abolished altogether. They can't fully implement their agenda while the citizenry is armed to the teeth.

Immigration Attorney Matthew Kolken said, "The Obama Administration's immigration strategy was to expedite deportations of refugee children oftentimes without a lawyer and jail refugee mothers with children as a deterrent." Isn't that what Trump is now being accused of now? 

Dopey Fox News embarrassment Juan Williams just accused Trump of this very thing today. Where were Williams and the rest of the corrupt media during Obama's abuse of immigrant children? Why are we just hearing about this now? Trump derangement syndrome is real and lives in morons like Juan Williams.

It's all a big distraction from Obama's biggest scandal which isn't going away anytime soon despite the best efforts of traitors like Jeff Sessions and  Rod Rosenstein to keep the public in the dark. Session's and Rosenstein are under the gun right now to produce documents under subpoena from Congress. 

Get your popcorn and kick back because this investigation is far from over and Obama's biggest scandal might just land some of these traitors in prison.


 
 
 
 
Patrick J. McShay is a writer and researcher whose articles have appeared on a number of popular news sites including thetruthseeker.co.uk, themilleniumreport.com, stateofthenation2012.com, rense.com, whatreallyhappened.com,operationdisclosure.blogspot.com, abeldanger.net, conspiracy-cafe.ca, jamesfetzer.blogspot.com, texemarrs.com,powerofprophecy.com, rumormillnews.com, beforeitsnews.com,davidicke.com, blacklistednews.com, sgtreport.com,investmentwatchblog.com, newslocker.com, stateofglobe.com,infiniteunknown.net, govtslaves.info, worldtruth.co.uk, andrealistnews.net. Mr. McShay's articles have been translated into a number of languages including French, Spanish, German, Chinese, and Dutch. 

Recent articles by Patrick J. McShay:
 
*Immigration Agenda: New World Order Agenda


*The Marxist Agenda To Take Our Guns


References: