Author Archive

Putin’s “Family Values” Include Murder

by Cliff Kincaid on Monday, June 30th, 2014

This is article 1197 of 1200 in the topic International

Businessman Bill Browder, who ran an investment fund in Russia called Hermitage Capital Management, told “60 Minutes” in February that “The Russian regime is a criminal regime. We’re dealing with a nuclear country run by a bunch of Mafia crooks.” In a more recent interview with this writer, he had some words for those American conservatives embracing Vladimir Putin as a spokesman for family values.

“If you want to talk about family values, go talk to the Magnitsky family about what happened to their family, as a result of Vladimir Putin’s evil,” he said.

Sergei Magnitsky, the attorney for Browder’s firm in Russia, was imprisoned and then killed by Russian authorities in 2009. He had uncovered official corruption involving the theft of $230 million.

Browder says people who find some good in Putin “ignore the fact that he is a stone-cold killer and kills for money…”

Browder, the grandson of Earl Browder, former head of the Communist Party USA, has a unique perspective, having invested in Russia when it appeared that the old Soviet system was dying, and that capitalism was taking root. The Magnitsky case became a concrete manifestation of how Putin and his group of former KGB officers were looting the country and consolidating their power.

Putin, he said, acts on the basis of a “Mafia principle” of “extracting as much money as possible from the state and staying in power and keeping that money.”

The invasion of Ukraine has been a wake-up call that the Kremlin is not to be trusted. Moscow, after all, had signed an agreement that was supposed to guarantee the country’s territorial integrity.

But Browder, in a telephone interview, said he believes Putin’s invasion of Ukraine doesn’t stem from some communist master plan to remake the USSR. Rather, he believes it was a reaction to the overthrow of his corrupt ally, President Viktor Yanukovych, whose luxurious presidential home in Ukraine included artificial lakes, a private zoo, golden toilets, a huge garage full of cars and motorbikes, and a new golf course.

“Vladimir Putin is a verified kleptocrat,” Browder says. “He has spent most of the last 12 years stealing as much money as he could, registered in the names of his friends. As he has done this, the Russian people have received no economic benefit from the rising oil and commodity prices. So after a certain period of time people started getting angry, and about two years ago, when Putin came back as president, there were 100,000 people on the streets of Moscow chanting ‘Putin is a thief’ and ‘Get rid of Putin.’”

In Ukraine, Putin “watched a junior varsity version of him—Viktor Yanukovych—who is a thief, but only a small thief, compared to Vladimir Putin—get completely run out of his own country for doing exactly what Vladimir Putin is doing on a larger scale in Russia. After Yanukovych was kicked out, Putin panicked and he needed an enormous distraction as quickly as possible.”

That “distraction” was the complete takeover of Crimea and invasion of Ukraine.

“They used Crimea as a vehicle to distract and build the Russian population into a nationalistic fervor,” Browder said.

Other observers and experts, however, make the case that Putin does have a grand design that amounts to a resurgent Russia seeking to reconstitute the old Soviet system.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Dave Brat’s Moral Values Victory

by Cliff Kincaid on Tuesday, June 17th, 2014

This is article 41 of 41 in the topic Moral Values

Dave Brat’s victory over Eric Cantor (R-VA) was attributed to his Tea Party backing, when national groups like the Tea Party Patriots gave him no financial assistance at all. What the media ignored was his campaigning in local churches and emphasis on family values.

In addition to opposing illegal immigration, Brat’s platform declared that “the most important factor in our nation’s success is the strength of the family unit.” It said that Brat would “protect the rights of the unborn and the sanctity of marriage, and will oppose any governmental intrusion upon the conscience of people of faith.”

“A man of deep faith,” his bio says, “Dave attends St. Mary’s Catholic Church with his wife Laura and their two children: Jonathan, 15 and Sophia, 11.” It says he went to Princeton where he obtained a Masters in Divinity and on to American University where he earned a Ph.D. in Economics.

During the campaign he also repeatedly emphasized a national security policy of “peace through strength.”

As they played down his pro-moral values message, in a victory that is continuing to send shock waves through the political establishment, our media have failed to report on how President Obama’s “fundamental transformation” of America has been working out in a process that can only be described as the homosexualization of the Armed Forces.

It is a topic that some Republicans, eager to sound like Democrats on social issues, want to avoid. But Brat’s victory—and the fact that his pro-traditional values message struck a chord—may cause them to start paying attention.

Many have been amazed at the lengths to which the Obama administration went to get Army deserter Bowe Bergdahl out of enemy hands, by exchanging him for five top terrorists. But consider the extraordinary June 5th Department of Defense “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month Ceremony,” which featured “the highest ranking transgendered civilian appointment in the Department,” a “woman” named Amanda Simpson who used to be a man named Mitchell Simpson.

Simpson introduced the event and proudly identified herself/himself as transgender, generating a round of applause.

We reported on Simpson in 2010, when he/she became the first openly transgendered appointee to the federal bureaucracy. Simpson has since moved from the Commerce Department to the Defense Department.

Simpson reflects the aggressive infiltration of the federal government, even the Pentagon, by the George Soros-funded transgender movement. The Executive Director of something called the “Army Energy Initiatives Task Force,” Simpson served as a board member of the National Center for Transgender Equality from 2007 to 2009. George Soros has been a backer of the group, giving them $150,000 through his Open Society Foundations in 2011 alone.

You may recall that former Army soldier Bradley Manning had listed the National Center for Transgender Equality among his “likes and interests.” Manning, who was sentenced to 35 years in prison for violating the Espionage Act, theft of government property, and other offenses, has now said, “I am Chelsea Manning. I am female.” He wants the taxpayers to pay for his sex-change operation and the Pentagon seems willing to oblige him/her.

At the Pentagon event, Deputy Secretary of Defense Bob Work delivered the keynote address, saying, “We honor the service and sacrifices of our gay and lesbian service members…” Clearly, Manning is not somebody the Pentagon is necessarily “proud” of.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Will Obama Make a Deal for Snowden?

by Cliff Kincaid on Thursday, June 5th, 2014

This is article 32 of 33 in the topic Espionage

As the fallout continues from NSA leaker Edward Snowden’s first U.S. television interview, there is a dramatic report that “negotiations” are underway to allow the traitor to return to the U.S., in exchange for a form of immunity from prosecution.

The prospect of Snowden getting back into the U.S., and evading prosecution for some, or most, of his crimes has taken on special importance because of the Obama deal to exchange five terrorists from Gitmo for an American soldier who, by most accounts, deserted his fellow soldiers.

An Obama deal to take Snowden back, in negotiations that seem designed to make him look like a hero, cannot be considered out of bounds for an administration that makes deals that support terrorists in the Middle East. The broker in the Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl deal, the government of Qatar, protected terrorists, including the mastermind of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, for years. It also sponsors the Al Jazeera channel.

Snowden is “considering” returning home to the U.S. under certain conditions, his lawyer told German news magazine Der Spiegel. The lawyer, leftist radical Wolfgang Kaleck, insisted that “There are negotiations” underway and that “an amicable agreement with the U.S, authorities will be most reasonable” when it is completed.

His bio discloses that Kaleck worked from 2004 until 2008 with the Marxist Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) to pursue frivolous criminal proceedings against members of the U.S. military, including former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. The allegations concerned treatment of suspected terrorists at Guantanamo and U.S. prisons in Iraq that were described by CCR as “war crimes.”

Another German lawyer assisting Snowden is Hans Christian Ströbele, who represented the communist terrorist group, the Baader-Meinhof Gang—also known as the Red Army Faction (RAF). Ströbele had met with Snowden in Moscow.

Despite the media’s best efforts to make the NSA leaker look like a patriotic whistleblower, an NBC News poll finds that only 24 percent back Snowden’s actions. The way NBC phrased the poll probably inflated support for Snowden.

In the poll, NBC asked people if they backed the “release of information about how government agencies collect intelligence data.” That phrase is a gross understatement about the impact of the classified documents Snowden stole from the NSA and released to Glenn Greenwald and others. Even so, only 24 percent in the poll supported the document thief. This compared with 34 percent who disagree with his actions, and another 40 percent who said they didn’t have an opinion.

Among those who say they’ve closely followed the story, NBC said that 49 percent oppose Snowden’s actions and 33 percent support them.

NBC added, “The overall numbers are essentially unchanged from a January 2014 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, when 23 percent of registered voters said they supported Snowden’s actions, versus 38 percent who opposed them.”

About a year ago, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found that a majority of Americans—53 percent—said that Snowden should be charged with a crime for his leaks.

In fact, Snowden has been charged with various crimes, including espionage and theft of government property. But President Obama failed during his recent foreign policy address to call on Moscow to return the former NSA employee to the U.S. to stand trial. This stance can be explained by the fact that negotiations are underway for his return.

Click to continue reading “Will Obama Make a Deal for Snowden?”
Go straight to Post

Columnist Suffers Pot Paranoia As Dopers Advance

by Cliff Kincaid on Thursday, June 5th, 2014

This is article 81 of 81 in the topic Drug War

Maureen Dowd of The New York Times has attracted attention with her column about eating a marijuana candy bar and remaining in “a hallucinatory state for the next eight hours,” as she began “panting” and becoming “paranoid.” Some commentators are laughing about it. Not so funny are the reports of deaths from ingesting marijuana that Dowd cites in her column about marijuana legalization in Colorado.

“In March,” she noted, “a 19-year-old Wyoming college student jumped off a Denver hotel balcony after eating a pot cookie with 65 milligrams of THC. In April, a Denver man ate pot-infused Karma Kandy and began talking like it was the end of the world, scaring his wife and three kids. Then he retrieved a handgun from a safe and killed his wife while she was on the phone with an emergency dispatcher.”

The Wyoming college student, 19-year-old Levy Thamba Pongi, was an exchange student from Congo. Richard Kirk is the Denver man who killed his wife, Khristine Kirk, with a gunshot to her head.

Two Denver deaths tied to recreational marijuana use” was the headline over an Associated Press story. It didn’t take long for the claim that marijuana never killed anybody to be debunked.

Regarding her own experience with the drug, Dowd said, “As my paranoia deepened, I became convinced that I had died and no one was telling me.”

I discussed both of the deaths cited in the Dowd column in my May 1st column, “Colombians Move into Colorado Marijuana Business.” On March 27th, we ran the column, “Media Continue Cover-up of Marijuana-induced Mental Illness.”

Nevertheless, the House of Representatives recently voted 219-189 to block Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) raids on so-called “medical marijuana” businesses. The Marijuana Policy Project reports that Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), its “longtime ally,” led the charge to protect the marijuana businesses in Colorado and other states. It passed mostly with liberal Democratic votes.

“Already in Colorado, there is evidence of Colombian cartel involvement in the legal medical marijuana industry,” notes the group called Smart Approaches to Marijuana, whose co-founder, drug policy expert Kevin A. Sabet, recently authored the book, Reefer Sanity: Seven Great Myths About Marijuana.

But now that liberal columnist Maureen Dowd has tackled the subject in a serious manner, connecting the dots between marijuana and mental problems, others in the media may follow suit and the rush to legalize the drug may encounter difficulties.

Most of the media reaction to Dowd, at least so far, has been amusement. On the NBC Today Show, the hosts joked and laughed about marijuana’s effects as the words, “All the pot fit to eat,” were featured on the TV screen. It was a play oN words from the Times’ slogan, “All the news that’s fit to print.”

Dr. Christine Miller, who has written about the relationship between marijuana and mental illness, says, “What’s so funny about it? She [Dowd] was out of her mind.”

“I was saddened to see Matt Lauer and The Today Show crew make light of Maureen Dowd’s experience, particularly in view of the fact that the symptoms she experienced were not dissimilar to those that prompted the young college student to jump off a Denver hotel balcony after eating a pot-laced brownie,” Miller told AIM.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

The Labor Union that Runs the Media

by Cliff Kincaid on Tuesday, May 27th, 2014

This is article 550 of 556 in the topic Media

One of the major speakers at last week’s “New Populism” conference was Larry Cohen, president of the Communications Workers of America (CWA), a labor union which represents  on-line writers, reporters, editorial assistants, editorial artists and correspondents at major news organizations.

Cohen gave his speech after returning from the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) conference, where Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon, was announced as winner of the title of “the world’s worst boss” for trying to keep prices low for consumers and opposing union control of his workplace.

Bezos, the new owner of The Washington Post, will have to negotiate with The Newspaper Guild, which merged with the CWA in 1995 and represents nearly 900 editorial and newsroom workers at the Post.

“Amazon has successfully fended off U.S. labor unions since its founding in 1994,” notes Time magazine.

Bezos has been described as a libertarian, but the Post was known as a liberal Democrat newspaper under its previous owners, the Grahams.

It will be interesting to see if he cuts this union down to size. The survival of the paper, with declining revenue and readers, may depend on it.

As the “populism” conference indicates, the progressives—once called liberals—are now calling themselves something else, in order to fool the electorate.

Don’t look for the media to blow the whistle on themselves.

Whatever they call themselves, they are in control of much of the news and editorial content of major news media organizations.

We look forward to the Post, under its new owner, telling the truth about how the CWA functions as a major component of the progressive movement, and how liberal bias is killing the appeal of the so-called mainstream media.

In addition to the Post, the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild represents employees at such news organizations as The Baltimore Sun and Bloomberg-BNA. Not surprisingly, CWA says thousands of its members also work for public broadcasting entities.

A partisan political operative who serves as a member of the Democratic National Committee and endorsed Obama in 2008, Cohen is a regular guest on the MSNBC cable channel.

Cohen’s tone last week was desperate, as the “progressives,” or “populists,” apparently understand that their President’s popularity is declining, and that their base is becoming increasingly demoralized and less likely to turn out to vote in November’s elections.

One member of the audience openly griped that she was being forced to liquidate her retirement fund in order to pay for her Obamacare plan.

The CWA’s “Education Department” has published a 38-page document entitled “Building a Movement for Economic & Democracy,” which describes in detail how various components of the progressive movement are said to make up more than 71 million people, enough to create a working majority of the voting population, and guarantee victory in national elections.

This might be news to the Republicans who think they will retain the House and take the Senate in this year’s national elections.

Holding up a copy of his “Building a Movement” booklet, Cohen told the “populism” conference that the political left needs to push a “common narrative” and “common collective action.” It is a message of “economic justice,” he said.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Lies of the 9/11 “Truth” Movement

by Cliff Kincaid on Friday, May 23rd, 2014

This is article 757 of 773 in the topic Terrorism

With the official opening of the 9/11 Memorial Museum, media attention is being focused once again on the so-called 9/11 “truth” movement, the political agitators and publicity-seekers who insist that Muslim terrorists flying planes were not responsible for the deaths of nearly 3,000 people on September 11, 2001. A group called Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is distributing 9/11 “truth” propaganda at the museum this week, insisting the attacks were an “inside job” by various forces.

Emily Bazelon of Slate was on Jake Tapper’s CNN show referring to the “fringe right wing” and “anti-government” forces allegedly behind these kooky claims. Tapper did not dispute her characterization of the movement somehow being on the conservative side. He neglected to point out that Van Jones, the “former” communist who is now a co-host of CNN’s “Crossfire” show, had signed a 9/11 “truth” petition suggesting that the Bush administration deliberately allowed the terrorist attacks to happen so the U.S. could go to war against Muslims in the Middle East. This, and stories about Jones’ communist background, forced him out of his White House job.

David Corn of Mother Jones magazine had noted the 9/11 conspiracy theories “emerging on the left,” and he had written several pieces decrying them. He added, “The 9/11 conspiracy theory was just too tempting for many Bush critics. Van Jones says he was not fully aware of what he was signing when he put his John Hancock on that 9/11 petition. This might be true. But I can see how Jones and others on the left—without thinking too much—might have easily said, sure, sign my name to any call for any investigation of Bush and Cheney. And that sloppiness—if that’s what it was—has cost him his job.”

Tapper said on his show that people have a “capacity for believing crazy things,” but that the 9/11 “truth” movement demonstrates “insensitivity” to the families of the 9/11 victims.

What the families want are answers. The 9/11 attacks were entirely foreseeable and preventable, and legitimate questions remain. The record shows that the Bush administration ignored warnings that an attack like 9/11 might occur. Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden had already declared war on America, and the Able Danger military intelligence unit had identified al-Qaeda terrorist cells in America before the attacks. But this information wasn’t investigated thoroughly enough by appropriate officials in our intelligence agencies. It is truly mind-boggling that President Bush gave George Tenet, CIA director at the time of 9/11, a presidential Medal of Freedom.

To make matters worse, this intelligence failure was followed by another, when the post 9/11 anthrax attacks were falsely blamed on various U.S. scientists and not on members of al Qaeda, the likely culprits. One of those falsely blamed, Steven Hatfill, collected millions of dollars in damages from the U.S. government when the FBI tried to ruin his reputation and frame him.

This intelligence debacle is another reason why the 9/11 “truth” movement has completely lost sight of the truth.

As we said in a 2006 column, “If the Bush Administration carried out 9/11, a monumental undertaking of planning and coordination, why couldn’t it have blamed the post-9/11 anthrax attacks on Muslim Arabs as well, thus giving greater impetus to the alleged desire to go to war in the Middle East?

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

New Film Exposes Progressivism

by Cliff Kincaid on Friday, May 23rd, 2014

This is article 68 of 68 in the topic Book & Movie Reviews

The filmmaker who exposed Barack Obama’s Marxist background, and debt to a pro-Soviet Communist Party operative, is trying once again to wake up America. This time, Joel Gilbert is using Michael Moore-style cinematic tactics to expose President Obama, the progressives, and their destructive Marxist schemes.

His new film, “There’s No Place Like Utopia,” is due in theaters this summer. The world premiere will be in Denver.

The theme is that socialism’s false promise is comparable to the fraudulent wizard behind the curtain in “The Wizard of Oz.”

Obama is portrayed as the new wizard, in the tradition of Lenin, Mao and Castro. A poster for the film shows Obama waving the American flag while holding a hammer and sickle behind his back.

Like Michael Moore, who revolutionized filmmaking by conducting personal investigations and confrontations, Gilbert highlights Obama’s “transformation” of America into a socialist state through personal visits to such cities as Chicago, Detroit and Denver, and interviews with the perpetrators and victims of Obama’s schemes.

Gilbert highlights modern-day progressive strategies, including welfare giveaways, illegal immigration, Muslim infiltration and even marijuana legalization.

This film has a much different tone and quality than his 2012 documentary, “Dreams from My Real Father,” which examined the hidden history of America’s first black president in a serious and matter-of-fact manner.  In that film, Gilbert cited evidence that Obama’s mentor, Communist Party operative Frank Marshall Davis, was his biological father, and that the media conspired with Obama to conceal the truth.

For his efforts, Gilbert’s personal financial affairs were investigated by a George Soros-linked journalist.

Hillary Clinton once talked about the “vast right-wing conspiracy,” but Gilbert documents in an entertaining way in the new film how a socialist state is being built on the wreckage of the deliberate destruction of capitalism in the U.S. It’s a process that’s been underway for decades, with Obama presiding over the crowning achievement—a socialist state.

Indeed, a new book, Imagine: Living in a Socialist USA, captures the mood of the political left these days. They believe their time has come.

One chapter of the book, believe it or not, is called “Teach Freedom,” and it is written by former communist terrorist Bill Ayers. A chapter on the news media promises “first class news” under socialism.

If Marxism has been discredited, as many conservatives would like to believe, then how do we explain the recent column, “Christianity Is Communism! Jesus Was a Communist!,” by Mike Rivage-Seul, a former “professor of peace and social justice” at Berea College in Kentucky.

“My wife, Peggy, and I are going to Cuba again,” he writes. “A week from tomorrow, we’ll be leading a group of Berea College students on a three-week study tour of the island. We’ll be especially interested in having students come to grips with its history, political economy, sustainable agricultural practices, and its form of democracy, its education and health care systems.”

Perhaps Gilbert’s film can make a dent in this decadent mentality.

On the other hand, former KGB officer Konstantin Preobrazensky poses this question in the film: “Don’t these people know about our awful Soviet experience?”

Apparently not.

Click to continue reading “New Film Exposes Progressivism”
Go straight to Post

Soros-funded Liberals Abandon Ukraine to Putin

by Cliff Kincaid on Monday, May 19th, 2014

This is article 1181 of 1200 in the topic International

George Soros has been blamed by the pro-Russia crowd for sparking the anti-communist revolution in Ukraine. That was never the case, since Soros funded a small and largely ineffective non-governmental organization in Ukraine, the Renaissance Foundation. Now, a major Soros-funded group has come out with its prescription for resolving the crisis—accepting Russia’s demand that the country stay out of NATO.

Soros, the political left’s leading “dark money” donor, has shown his true colors.

NATO is hardly the anti-communist alliance it once was, but it still remains the largest pro-American group of nations on earth. That’s why the Russians hate it so much.

Ahead of the scheduled elections on May 25, the International Crisis Group (ICG) has just released a report saying Ukrainian leaders should “declare that they do not desire NATO membership.” The ICG receives a significant amount of funding from Soros’s Open Society Institute, and Soros sits on its board.

This follows former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger’s statements on CNN’s “Fareed Zakaria GPS” show on May 11, during which he argued that Putin should be accommodated in his drive to take over Ukraine. Kissinger said the West.should agree to keep Ukraine out of NATO. Kissinger, whose firm does business in Russia, says Ukraine “will be free to participate in European economic relationships, but not join NATO.”

The global elites have clearly decided that Ukraine must be sacrificed in the name of protecting the big businesses investing in Putin’s Russia.

Not surprisingly, the ICG/Kissinger position is essentially the same as the one held by Russia. The Moscow-funded propaganda channel RT features Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov as saying, “The seeds for the current crisis were sown in 2008 in April during the NATO summit in Bucharest, when NATO leaders stated in a declaration that Georgia and Ukraine would be in NATO.”

But the “seeds” never sprouted and Putin invaded Ukraine anyway.

It was in 2008 that Russia invaded Georgia, taking over two regions, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. NATO’s April 2008 Bucharest Summit had declared, “We agreed today that these countries [Georgia and Ukraine] will become members of NATO.”

Today, however, Georgia still remains an “aspirant” for NATO membership. While Ukraine was also a candidate to join NATO, this never took place, either, with the blame falling on both the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations.

Republicans like to forget that Bush was fooled by Putin, saying about the Russian leader in 2001, “I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy and we had a very good dialog. I was able to get a sense of his soul.”

Bush thought Putin would be an ally of the U.S. after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Based on what Soros, Kissinger and the others are saying, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and takeover of Crimea, and control over the Black Sea and its strategic waterways will be left in place. The pro-Russian website Global Research notes, “the union of Crimea with Russia redefines the geopolitical chessboard in the Black Sea Basin.”

The liberal betrayal of Ukraine is something to behold and has taken place in only a few months. “Ukraine is something of a miracle,” Soros declared in an April 7 column.

1 2 3 4
Go straight to Post

Infiltration of the U.S. Government, Part Two

by Cliff Kincaid on Monday, May 12th, 2014

This is article 438 of 448 in the topic Government Corruption

Vladimir Putin’s aggression in Ukraine has apparently surprised a lot of people who thought the Cold War was over, and that Russia had been integrated into the “community of nations.” In 2012, President Obama pushed through Permanent Normal Trade Relations for Russia, giving Putin access to billions of dollars of Western capital.

But former CIA officer Tennent H. “Pete” Bagley, who died recently, completely understood the view that the “death” of the USSR and the liberalization of Russia was a strategic deception, designed to allow the KGB operatives running Russia to regroup, and solidify and expand their power.

His 2007 book, Spy Wars: Moles, Mysteries, and Deadly Games, angered the CIA because he believed the CIA had itself been deceived by a Soviet defector by the name of Yuri Nosenko. Among Bagley’s claims: Nosenko, who defected in 1963, after the assassination of President Kennedy, insisted that Lee Harvey Oswald, JFK’s assassin, was not a Soviet agent.

In its obituary, the London Telegraph also noted Bagley’s handling of another Soviet KGB defector by the name of Anatoly Golitsyn, who, “in addition to providing valuable leads about Soviet spies in the West, had brought with him a terrifying, overarching theory that Moscow was involved in implementing a vast conspiracy to achieve world dominance.” Golitsyn also charged that the CIA had been infiltrated by the KGB.

Robert Buchar interviewed Bagley, who became CIA chief of counterintelligence, for his documentary “The Collapse of Communism: The Untold Story.” Bagley said in the film that “Golitsyn was certainly telling the truth as he knew it. And there comes the other story. Because Golitsyn had a lot of information about penetrations of Western governments, when that information was passed to the Western governments they became outraged and unhappy because no government wants to discover penetrations in its mist. It’s not in the interest of the government, it’s not in the interest of the people in power to find out they had been fooled, they had been manipulated and therefore they will take every piece of information they can to reject this.”

What Bagley is describing applies to the U.S. intelligence community, not only in regard to Putin and the Russians but the Muslim Brotherhood and scandals such as Benghazi, a result of what former CIA officer Clare Lopez and the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi call “switching sides” in the War on Terror.

Buchar, a political refugee from the former nation of Czechoslovakia, says, “The Russians always had—and still have—a long-range strategy looking forward for the next 30-50 years.” By contrast, he says the West was unable to develop any counter-strategy because its leaders and intelligence officials refused to believe Moscow had this long-range strategy.

This amounts to an open invitation to manipulation by agents of influence, which makes complete sense if we examine the pathetic response to Russian aggression in Ukraine. The response goes beyond incompetence or weakness—to playing into Putin’s hands.

The first part of solving the problem is to recognize there has been Russian penetration of the West, not just through espionage operations—which continue to be uncovered—but by agents of influence. Perhaps the investigations of the Obama administration, as it relates to Benghazi and the Muslim Brotherhood, will open this door.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Infiltration of the U.S. Government, Part One

by Cliff Kincaid on Monday, May 12th, 2014

This is article 437 of 448 in the topic Government Corruption

The announcement that the House will vote on a special congressional committee to investigate Benghazi is long overdue. Accuracy in Media’s two special conferences on Benghazi helped mobilize the public and the press to demand this outcome.

In addition to identifying the Obama operatives in charge of the cover-up, a critical question is why the Obama administration facilitated the flow of weapons to al Qaeda in Libya. Indeed, answering this question could help explain the nature of the cover-up and why a video was falsely blamed for the deaths of four Americans.

It will take a lot of public pressure to uncover the dimensions of what one member of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi called evidence of the “infiltration” of the U.S. government by the Muslim Brotherhood.

This is because some of those who want to investigate Benghazi, such as Senator John McCain (R-AZ), have no interest in uncovering Muslim Brotherhood operatives in the U.S. Government. McCain defended Hillary Clinton when one of her aides, Huma Abedin, was publicly identified as having personal and family connections to the Muslim Brotherhood. House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) has also defended Abedin.

At AIM’s second conference on Benghazi, held at the National Press Club on April 22, retired Admiral James “Ace” Lyons stated openly what many have been talking about privately—that the transformation of U.S. policy from opposing to supporting al Qaeda can only be understood in terms of Muslim Brotherhood “penetration into every national security agency of this government,” and “their carte blanche entry into the [Obama] White House.”

So will these agents of influence be named and exposed by the Benghazi special committee? That is why the public has to continue to be mobilized to apply pressure.

Lyons said, “Just like during the 30s and 40s, and 50s, if you compare what went on then, to what we’re seeing today, that influences our policies, our actions, it is very similar and cannot be dismissed. Nobody wants to talk about it. But that’s what happened then, and that’s what’s happening now. The Muslim Brotherhood didn’t want to see Qaddafi there. They wanted him out. How much influence did that have on our policies? You’ve got to go in and dig and find out.”

His comments on the early time period are, of course, a reference to communist infiltration of the U.S. government. But it appears that some of our most important intelligence agencies have still not come to grips with that.

Consider Michael J. Sulick, who worked for the CIA for 28 years, served as chief of CIA counterintelligence from 2002 to 2004, and as director of the National Clandestine Service from 2007 to 2010. His new book, American Spies: Espionage against the United States from the Cold War to the Present, insists that “Senator Joseph McCarthy’s shrill allegations of pervasive communist infiltration of the US government denigrated scores of civil servants but again surfaced no real spies.” Sulick says McCarthy was “discredited” and that he ran a “misguided crusade” that “raised American suspicions of government efforts to prevent foreign espionage.”

In fact, author M. Stanton Evans has produced a “‘McCarthyism’ by the Numbers” table naming 50 people identified by McCarthy, his aides, or in his committee hearings, and what is now known about them, based on official records.

Click to continue reading “Infiltration of the U.S. Government, Part One”
Go straight to Post

Featuring YD Feedwordpress Content Filter Plugin