Author Archive

Feds Scramble for Risky Vaccine

by Cliff Kincaid on Wednesday, October 22nd, 2014

This is article 6 of 6 in the topic Ebola

By failing to impose a travel ban, the Obama administration allowed a carrier of Ebola from Liberia into the United States, where he infected two nurses, one of whom was allowed by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to travel on a plane. But don’t worry. The publication Politico says the system “is working.”

The “experts” say they still don’t know how or why two nurses treating the Ebola carrier contracted the disease. So-called “revised guidelines” for handling Ebola have now been issued by the CDC. The pressure is on for an Ebola vaccine.

This is an old story that deserves investigation and comment. Was the “system” working back in the 1970s when hundreds of people got neurological disorders and some died from a swine flu vaccine before it was withdrawn?

The Politico author, Harold Pollack, is a self-described “liberal health-policy wonk” who believes that Obamacare “will save many thousands of lives every year.” Perhaps that colors his thinking on how the Obama administration has put our lives at risk.

Mary Schiavo, a CNN aviation analyst and former inspector general for the Department of Transportation, is not a policy wonk, but she knows a lot about flying in and out of countries and the risks that go with air travel. She notes that just one Ebola case in the U.S. resulted in almost a thousand people being monitored for possible exposure to the virus.

Speaking common sense, she added, “If we leave our borders [open] and don’t have any restrictions on non-essential travel from Ebola countries to the United States, obviously, we will be a country of choice for that, and if one person causes us to hunt for a thousand, just think of those numbers, as they multiply.”

But Harold Pollack, writing in Politico, tells us that the system is working now and was even working during the swine flu scandal of the 1970s.

Here’s how he puts it: “Almost 40 years ago, the CDC suffered public humiliation when it was perceived as having bungled a massive vaccination campaign for a Swine Flu epidemic that didn’t materialize.”

So this was just a “perception,” not something having to do with reality. It was just bungling.

I decided to go back in time and investigate this “perception” about bungling.

The Los Angeles Times reported that the CDC’s swine flu vaccination campaign resulted in more than 500 people developing Guillain-Barre syndrome after receiving the vaccine, while 25 people died.

The CDC says Guillain-Barre syndrome is a rare disorder in which a person’s own immune system damages their nerve cells, causing muscle weakness and sometimes paralysis.

The New York Times reported the number of dead at 30.

The Washington Post said the federal government ultimately paid more than $90 million to hundreds of victims.

But there is just a “perception” that the CDC blew it, according to Pollack.

Pollack, in the same piece, praises Fox News anchor Shepard Smith for using his show to denounce “irresponsible” coverage of Ebola.

Pollack’s piece is worse than irresponsible; he insists that the Ebola threat is overblown yet ignores the fact that in the swine flu controversy of 1976 the public health establishment manufactured an “epidemic” for the purpose of scaring people into getting vaccinated. Many people listened to their government and got sick or died.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

The War on Police, Revisited

by Cliff Kincaid on Wednesday, October 22nd, 2014

This is article 51 of 51 in the topic Police/Fire

The justified police killing of black thug Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, was used by the media to accuse the police of being “militarized” when they brought out the heavy equipment to cope with rioters. At the same time, Brown was portrayed as an innocent black man shot with his hands up. All of this was false, and it has now been proven to be false.

Anti-police protesters, joined by outside agitators, some of them communists, were said by CNN and other media to be opposed to racist “police violence” against black people. That was the story we were told.

Now, The New York Times has disclosed the evidence presented to a grand jury in the case. Police Officer Darren Wilson was attacked by Brown—after Brown robbed a convenience store—and the officer fired in self-defense.

This conclusion, reported by the Times in an October 17 story, should not come as a surprise. We’ve known that the shooting followed Brown’s robbery of a local convenience store, where he pushed the store manager around. In addition, the police said from the beginning that Wilson fired at Brown inside the police car, showing the officer was attacked there.

The idea of Brown throwing up his hands in a surrender pose has been shown to be utterly false.

The Times reported, “The officials briefed on the case said the forensic evidence gathered in the car lent credence to Officer Wilson’s version of events. According to his account, he was trying to leave his vehicle when Mr. Brown pushed him back in. Once inside the S.U.V., the two began to fight, Officer Wilson told investigators, and he removed his gun from the holster on his right hip.”

In a follow-up, The Washington Post confirmed the account, saying, “Officials who spoke to The Washington Post on Saturday said the forensic evidence supports Wilson’s account that a scuffle occurred at the police vehicle, that Wilson feared for his life and that Brown went for, or lunged for, his gun.”

The Post added:

From the earliest days police have said that Brown scuffled with Wilson and that a shot was fired in the vehicle.

In those first police accounts, St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar said that Brown ‘allegedly pushed’ Wilson back into the car after Wilson tried to open the door. Brown, police said, then ‘physically assaulted’ Wilson and went for the gun. Wilson fired inside the vehicle, they said. Wilson then got out and killed Brown, Belmar said. Police said Wilson feared for his life because Brown charged him on the sidewalk.

In other words, the police have been telling the truth all along. And this is now admitted by officials familiar with Attorney General Eric Holder’s effort to bring trumped-up charges against Wilson for murder. The forensic evidence makes Holder’s efforts impossible.

The Post said that some “protest organizers” were “unmoved by the forensic details…”

These “protest organizers” are racial agitators and communists. Why doesn’t the Congress investigate them?

Instead, as we have reported, Senators Claire McCaskill (D-MO) and Rand Paul (R-KY) held a hearing to complain about the “militarization” of the police, with Paul received sympathetic media attention for his “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” display, one similar to the protesters egged on by the racial agitators.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Seeing Ebola Through Obama’s Eyes

by Cliff Kincaid on Thursday, October 16th, 2014

This is article 3 of 6 in the topic Ebola

The nephew of the black African who brought Ebola to the United States doesn’t blame his uncle. He blames us. He writes in The Dallas Morning News that his uncle did everything right in Liberia, but still got Ebola, and wasn’t treated correctly in the U.S. The claim is that he had a right to be on U.S. soil and that it’s our fault he’s dead.

I suspect this is how President Barack Obama views Ebola. How else do you explain his opposition to a common-sense ban on travel to the U.S. by people from Ebola-infected countries? Tragically, Obama’s alternative is for the U.S. to become infected. Then, he must figure, there will be more pressure to find a “cure,” or at least a vaccine. But who knows how many will die in the process? It could be hundreds, or thousands, or more.

Ordinary Americans are scratching their heads, and some are getting angry, over the “flawed” approach to Ebola by the U.S. government. These people don’t understand that Obama views restrictions on African travel to the U.S. as racist. He won’t say this publicly, but as someone who has been documenting Obama’s Marxist background and approach to public policy for six years, there is no other logical explanation. He sees the people of much of the world, including Africa and the Middle East, as victims of American foreign policy. We are responsible for their problems.

Speaking for the Obama approach, black Congresswoman Gwen Moore (D-WI) says it is “reactionary” to propose a travel ban. It is “unreasonable and dangerous” to keep Africans out, she says.

Rush Limbaugh delivered a commentary that was posted on his website under the headline, “Liberals See Ebola Through Prism of Slavery.” He quoted a liberal guest on Anderson Cooper’s CNN show as saying, “…we in America, how dare we turn our backs on Liberia, given the fact that this is a country that was founded in the 1820s, 1830s because of American slavery. We have a responsibility to stay connected with them and help them see this through.”

Limbaugh commented, “It’s our fault, see. If it hadn’t been for us and our evil ways back at the country’s founding, why, there might not even be an Ebola wiping out people in Africa. So we have a responsibility, a shared responsibility.”

Dinesh D’Souza wrote a book, The Roots of Obama’s Rage, on Obama’s anti-colonialism. I argue that Marxism, rather than anti-colonialism, motivates Obama. Still, D’Souza’s point is a good one. For whatever reason, Obama hates the West and all that it stands for. Permitting Ebola to be imported into the U.S. is one way to make the U.S. pay for its sins.

Barbara Loe Fisher of the National Vaccine Information Center has written a series of questions that illustrate how the Obama administration has facilitated the spread of Ebola to the U.S.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

The Media Taboo: Reds Mobilize for Democrats

by Cliff Kincaid on Thursday, October 16th, 2014

This is article 62 of 62 in the topic Communism

The Washington Post headline said the convoluted answer constituted “40 painful seconds of Alison Lundergan Grimes refusing to say whether she voted for President Obama.” The Kentucky Democratic Senate candidate evaded direct questions from a newspaper’s editorial board about whether she had voted for Obama. It was truly an embarrassment. NBC’s Chuck Todd basically said she’s finished as a candidate.

But while Lundergan Grimes is avoiding the issue, and Obama is not even on the ballot this year, the Communist Party is openly organizing against the Republican Party in order to strengthen Obama’s ability to carry out his Marxist agenda in his final two years in office.

With elections just a month away, the Communists have made it plain, once again, that they favor Democrats over Republicans.

While Lundergan Grimes’s ridiculous evasions are getting some media attention, the nature of Obama’s “progressive” base will get glossed over because it’s not politically correct to talk about communists involved in the political process. That’s considered McCarthyism.

Communist support for Obama is definitely a taboo subject for the press.

Although the CPUSA is not necessarily the preeminent communist organization on the U.S. political scene these days, it still maintains links to the Russian Communist Party and is able to organize and deploy activists in some critical election contests, such as in North Carolina and Florida.

On the occasion of the CPUSA’s 30th party convention in June in Chicago, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation sent a “Dear Comrades” letter of greetings, seeking to “further strengthen these ties on the basis of the principles of proletarian internationalism.”

In 2012, the Communist Party had said that re-electing Obama was “absolutely essential.” Now it’s afraid of Republicans undermining his Marxist agenda by making gains in the November elections.

“Defeating the extreme right wing in this election comes down to voter turnout,” says Communist Party operative Joelle Fishman. “This huge fight to get out the vote can result in a stronger movement going forward.” Fishman warns of “Republican sabotage” against Obama, Republicans winning control of the Senate, and Republican governors “on a rampage.”

The party disagrees with Obama on some issues, but generally supports what he has done—and what he wants to accomplish in his final two years.

The party’s slogan used to be, “People before profits.” Now it’s “People and nature before profits,” incorporating the demands of the “green” movement to deindustrialize the U.S., promote “climate change” legislation and stop fracking.

While Republicans think the pendulum is swinging in their favor this year, Fishman begs to differ, noting, “The political landscape is beginning to change in the historically deep red Southern states. The Moral Monday movement has spread to 12 states now, including Indiana. It is a multi-issue, multi-racial movement that is taking on racism and other divisions. Sen. Bernie Sanders has toured Southern states with this message. The racist police killing in Ferguson, Missouri and the exposé of lack of representation there is also inspiring voter registration in the south and nationally.”

The so-called “racist police killing” is, of course, a reference to police officer Darren Wilson defending himself against a black robber who rushed and attacked him in his police car.

Fishman’s praise of the so-called Moral Mondays Movement is significant.

Click to continue reading “The Media Taboo: Reds Mobilize for Democrats”
Go straight to Post

Kissinger’s Record of Failure and Betrayal

by Cliff Kincaid on Thursday, October 16th, 2014

This is article 142 of 142 in the topic History

Former Secretary of State and National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger’s new book World Order is getting lots of favorable press and publicity. Our media treat him as something approaching royalty, with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria calling him “the elder statesman of American diplomacy.” He certainly has been around a long time. But has Kissinger been right or wrong about the major foreign policy issues of our time?

You may remember that Kissinger in 2009 insisted that President Obama could create a New World Order and that he had a good foreign policy team. He made these comments on CNBC during a “celebration” of 30 years of diplomatic relations between the U.S. and China.

Bill Gertz’s book, The China Threat, explained how Kissinger “played the key role” in the talks that led President Nixon in 1972 to establish informal ties with China, that ultimately led to formal diplomatic relations in 1979. Kissinger insisted that China had abandoned communism, and was no longer a threat.

The threat from China is growing daily. The new book, The Russia-China Axis: The New Cold War and America’s Crisis of Leadership, by Douglas E. Schoen and Melik Kaylan, examines some recent developments. As noted by analyst Toby Westerman, however, Russia and China actually declared their own version of a “New World Order” in 1997.

A recent article in the Bejing Review, “An Evolving Partnership,” goes back even further, noting that China and Russia signed a joint statement on “the foundation for bilateral ties” in 1992, and established a “partnership of strategic coordination” in 1996.

After that, the author notes:

  • In 2001, China and Russia signed the Treaty of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation.
  • In February 2013, China and Russia signed a joint statement to “deepen their comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination,” thereby “bringing bilateral relationship to an unprecedented level.”

Emphasizing that Russia and China currently enjoy a “very high level of relations characterized as [a] strategic partnership,” Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev says Russia and China are expected to sign more than 40 “very important bilateral documents” this week, on the occasion of the 19th regular meeting between Chinese and Russian prime ministers.

Today, Russia, China, Brazil, South Africa and India are members of the BRICS alliance of nations, which is designed to undermine U.S. economic, financial, and military dominance in the world.

A proposed Russia-South Africa nuclear deal has gotten the attention of South African Democracy Alliance leader Helen Zille, who says, “President [Jacob] Zuma has been to Russia on numerous occasions over the past 18 months. What were the details of these visits? Why were they so secretive? And why has Zuma clearly given preferential access to himself for the Russians, in the absence of witnesses or experts in nuclear energy? What are the incentives attached?”

Zuma, like his predecessors, was (or still is) a member of the South African Communist Party, brought to power through the African National Congress (ANC) with the support of the Soviet Union and Communist China.

Henry Kissinger’s speaking appearance on Wednesday at a meeting of the U.S.-Russia Business Council in New York City is more evidence of how “the elder statesman” has been wrong about key developments.

Click to continue reading “Kissinger’s Record of Failure and Betrayal”
Go straight to Post

The “People’s Lawyer” is a Criminal

by Cliff Kincaid on Monday, September 29th, 2014

This is article 83 of 83 in the topic Drug War

In a sympathetic profile just before his resignation, Politico said Eric Holder’s biggest legacy may be “his quiet dismantling of the War on Drugs…” How he could have “accomplished” this without legislative authority from Congress—which is supposed to make and pass laws—is never really explained. He was an Attorney General described by President Barack Obama as “the people’s lawyer.” Anybody familiar with Marxist jargon knew exactly what Obama meant.

At home and abroad, the Obama administration distributed weapons to America’s enemies. Holder’s area of expertise was facilitating weapons shipments to Mexican drug cartels, in a scandal that came to be known as “Fast & Furious.”

John Fund, co-author of the book, Obama’s Enforcer, about the Holder record, told me the other day that “No cover-up is perfect,” and that it appears a batch of incriminating documents in the scandal will soon be released, thanks to legal action from Judicial Watch.

Equally scandalous, the Obama/Holder administration made an announcement that it wouldn’t enforce money-laundering laws against banks doing business with marijuana stores.

But Politico insisted that Holder’s criminal approach to the enforcement of drug laws was something in his favor, because the “Reagan-era crusade” against drugs that he opposed at every turn “hasn’t eradicated drug use…”

Have laws against murder eradicated murder? Have laws against shoplifting eradicated shoplifting?

The Reagan approach was mostly carried through subsequent administrations, to the point where David Evans, a special advisor to the Drug Free America Foundation, notes that marijuana use went down among young people by 25 percent. “If we had had a reduction in any other health problem in the U.S. of 25 percent, we would consider it an outstanding success,” he said. But marijuana use has been going up under the Obama administration. This is not an accident.

Politico goes on, saying those Reagan policies “filled U.S. prisons past the breaking point and wrecked the lives of millions of Americans, a disproportionate number of them African-American.” So Reagan is blamed for blacks using drugs and going to prison.

Ethan Nadelmann followed up with a Politico column entitled, “Eric Holder Was Great on Drugs.” The title has a double meaning, which was apparently lost on the editors who came up with that clever use of words. Nadelmann, of course, is the head of the Drug Policy Alliance, the group funded by billionaire hedge fund operator George Soros as a means of undermining laws against the use of dangerous drugs. Politico is part of that effort.

Politico writes that, “Sensing a consensus shifting in his favor, Holder has unveiled a raft of sensible proposals to roll back overly harsh sentencing laws that would have been radioactive only years earlier but won him applause on the left and right. And instead of fighting states like Colorado and Washington when they liberalized their drug laws, as another AG might have done, he has effectively declared a cease-fire.”

There is a lot of bias packed into these two sentences. The use of the terms “sensible” and “overly harsh” tip the scales against enforcing drug laws. Plus, legal dope has become just “liberalized drug laws.”  There was never any applause “on the right,” except among libertarians who promote and use drugs.

It must be noted that Colorado and Washington violated national, and even international, drug control laws, also known as treaties.

Click to continue reading “The “People’s Lawyer” is a Criminal”
Go straight to Post

The “Obama Doctrine” of Lies

by Cliff Kincaid on Wednesday, September 24th, 2014

This is article 1005 of 1011 in the topic Obama

The “Reagan Doctrine” was supporting freedom fighters around the world and rolling back the Soviet empire. The “Obama Doctrine” is pretending to fight foreign threats while sounding or looking tough, but actually doing nothing of substance to turn back aggression.

Even the liberal Washington Post sees the dangers ahead.

“For the sake of the cameras, President Obama assured Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko at a White House meeting Thursday that ‘not only do we support Ukraine’s sovereignty and independence in words, but we’ve also been supporting it in deeds.’ If only that were true,” the paper noted in an editorial. “The reality is that the beleaguered Ukrainian leader left Washington backed by considerable rhetoric from the Obama administration but little with which he can turn back the continuing Russian aggression against his country.” The paper urged Congress to swiftly approve military aid for Ukraine.

The Post was essentially accusing Obama of lying.

Making a sharp break with the Reagan approach, Obama was recently quoted at a fundraiser as saying that since “we do very little trade with Ukraine and, geopolitically…what happens in Ukraine doesn’t pose a direct threat to us.”

The White House posted these extraordinary remarks as well, stating they were delivered at a “private residence” in Baltimore.

The New York Times reported that the fundraiser’s host was Howard E. Friedman, former president of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which describes itself as “America’s Pro-Israel Lobby.” Guests reportedly paid up to $32,400 to attend the event.

Friedman is described as a leading supporter of Jewish political causes and has given nearly $100,000 in contributions, mostly to Democrats, since 2009.

Obama vowed to defeat the Islamic State “but did not mention Iran or the Middle East peace process” during the event, a report on a Jewish website noted.

The Times added, “In introducing Mr. Obama, Mr. Friedman described a nuclear-armed Iran as the No. 1 danger in the world.” In fact, a nuclear-armed Iran would be able to acquire those nuclear arms because of its support from Russia, already a nuclear-armed country.

The short-sightedness of some supporters of Israel regarding Russia is astounding.

As we have pointed out, the Ayatollah of Iran, Ali Khamenei, was “educated” at the KGB’s Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow. This means he is under Russian influence, if not an agent.

AIPAC itself acknowledges the link between Iran and Russia.

Back in 2006, AIPAC ran an item headlined, “Russia Blocking Efforts to Curtail Iranian Threat.”  In 2008, it highlighted a Senate letter opposing U.S.-Russia nuclear cooperation because of Russian trade with Iran in strategic areas. In 2011, AIPAC reported that Senator Dan Coats (R-IN) “noted the need for strong pressure on Russia and China to persuade them to participate in the sanctions efforts.”

But there’s much more to it.

We have pointed out that Putin adviser Aleksandr Dugin has explained in the article, “Eurasianism, Iran, and Russia’s Foreign Policy,” that a “strategic alliance” exists between Iran and Russia.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Russian Influence Operations Target Americans

by Cliff Kincaid on Wednesday, September 24th, 2014

This is article 1242 of 1247 in the topic International

A major case of what intelligence experts call “influence operations” emanating from Moscow is this week’s “Rhodes Forum,” which is sponsored by Vladimir Putin’s close associate and former KGB official Vladimir Yakunin. The objective is to divert attention from Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, blame the U.S. for global turmoil and problems, and insist on a Russian role in the Middle East and a new Europe.

Also known as the “World Public Forum Dialogue of Civilizations,” this year’s event is titled, “Preventing World War Through Global Solidarity. 100 Years On.” It proclaims, “the unfolding new Cold War” may give rise to “the threat of a Third World War with truly global proportions.”

Of course, none of this is blamed on the Kremlin.

The global problem for these conference participants is not Russian aggression, or what Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk calls Putin’s campaign to destroy Ukraine as a sovereign nation and reconstitute the Soviet Union. Instead, the Yakunin event proclaims that “The roots of this threat reside in the project of a ‘New World Order’ of global domination pursued by a totalizing ideology subduing the diversity of cultural traditions and of the historical ‘world pictures’ of humanity and nature.”

Translated into ordinary English, the “totalizing ideology” is what used to be called the “Free World” or global capitalism—the idea that nations should be moving toward acceptance of free enterprise and democratic forms of government.

President Obama seems to agree that this period in human history is over; he was photographed back in 2008 carrying a copy of Fareed Zakaria’s controversial book, The Post-American World. The book reinforces the anti-American views drummed into him during his growing-up years in Hawaii by his mentor, pro-Soviet Communist Frank Marshall Davis.

Zakaria is a prominent advocate of accepting a nuclear-armed Iran.

Although Yakunin is among the targets of economic sanctions over the Russian invasion of Ukraine, his extravagant conferences continue as if nothing has happened. This shows the pathetic nature of Obama’s sanctions and his inability, or unwillingness, to confront Russian aggression.

The billionaire head of the state-owned monopoly, Russia Railways, Yakunin was accused of massive corruption in connection with construction projects for the Sochi Olympics. He apparently uses some of the stolen money on elaborate propaganda conferences designed to lure foreign audiences.

His conference partners include such groups as the World Congress of Families, the Council on Foreign Relations, the International Movement for a Just World, and the Iran and Eurasia Research Center. As we have noted, Putin adviser Aleksandr Dugin is the leader of the “International Eurasia Movement,” which includes a “strategic alliance” between Iran and Russia.

Yakunin has “personally handed out awards to Putin and former Iranian President Mohammed Khatami, among others, at the forum,” states a revealing article on the World Security Network Foundation website. The article examines Yakunin’s work over the years on behalf of the KGB, including at the United Nations in New York, and his close association with Putin.

The article noted his “close links to the hierarchy at the Russian Orthodox Church,” putting him “at the heart of the so-called Orthodox chekists around the president.” The term “chekist” refers to agents of the secret police.

1 2 3 4
Go straight to Post

The Unvetted, the Compromised, and the Blackmailed

by Cliff Kincaid on Sunday, September 14th, 2014

This is article 458 of 467 in the topic Government Corruption

The administration that failed to adequately “vet” Edward Snowden is saying that it has “vetted” rebels in Syria for U.S. support. “We have a Free Syrian Army and a moderate opposition that we have steadily been working with that we have vetted,” Obama told “Meet the Press” last Sunday. Our media never bother to ask for any proof of this. Who performed the vetting? How was it done?

The Obama administration doesn’t have a very good record of vetting anybody, starting at the top.

The term “vetting” means to “make a careful and critical examination of.” Another definition is to “investigate someone thoroughly, especially in order to ensure that they are suitable for a job requiring secrecy, loyalty, or trustworthiness.”

The scandals in this area keep on coming. “The Office of Personnel Management will not renew any of its contracts with USIS [US Investigations Services], the major Falls Church, Va., contractor that provides the bulk of background checks for federal security clearances and was the victim of a recent cyberattack,” The Washington Post reported on Wednesday. The paper said that USIS had conducted background clearances for National Security Agency “leaker” Edward Snowden, who fled to Moscow after disclosing secret intelligence operations to Glenn Greenwald and others.

Snowden is now living in Moscow under the protection of Vladimir Putin’s secret police. Greenwald was awarded a Pulitzer Prize.

Snowden’s leaks have made it possible for America’s enemies to go on the offensive from Ukraine to the Middle East, helping to create the foreign policy problems that Obama is now pretending to confront.

USIS reported that it served “more than 20 federal agencies and has historically completed 40% of the background investigations for the U.S. Government each year, conducting approximately 21,000 background investigations per month.”

It also claims that the company “followed all OPM-mandated procedures and protocols in its background investigation of Edward Snowden.” OPM is the federal Office of Personnel Management.

So the vetters are pointing fingers.

Meanwhile, the New York Post reports that New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio “does not have [a] security clearance to get classified information from the feds—unlike his two predecessors—and he has never even bothered to apply for it…” The paper added, “A law enforcement source said Tuesday that if de Blasio does apply for clearance, he will have to endure an arduous vetting process that would include questions about his 1991 trip to Communist Cuba and support of the Marxist Sandinista regime during his visit to Nicaragua in the 1980s.”

Would it be the same as the “arduous vetting process” that cleared Snowden? Snowden was a high school dropout who contributed to the Ron Paul for president campaign. That was enough to get him jobs at the CIA and NSA.

As we noted at the time, de Blasio didn’t disavow his communist background once it came to light. However, he did still insist—to much laughter—that his trip to Cuba was a “honeymoon.”

Obama decided to cover up, at least in some respects. He concealed as just “Frank,” the identity of a Communist Party operative who mentored him during his growing up years in Hawaii. Analyst Trevor Loudon discovered the real identity of “Frank,” and we confirmed it.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Why Won’t Putin Help Middle East Christians?

by Cliff Kincaid on Monday, August 25th, 2014

This is article 1230 of 1247 in the topic International

An article titled, “Iraq’s Christians See Putin As Savior,” appeared on the website of The Daily Beast in late June. It was picked up by literally dozens of “news” sites all over the Internet, contributing to the perception that Russia was actually prepared to do something on behalf of these Christians and other minorities.

The article referred to “Russia’s increasingly cozy relationship with Middle Eastern Christians” and included a photo of Putin under a halo.

But when the Christians in Iraq actually needed some help, it was the U.S. and Britain which intervened on their behalf. Humanitarian aid was delivered to the minority religious groups under attack, and air strikes were conducted against the terrorists. Later, France and Australia joined in the effort.

The Christian “Stand Firm in Faith” website asks, “So where is President Putin now that Christians are being wiped out in Iraq?”

“So now Putin keeps his shirt on?” writer Timothy Fountain asked.

The latter is a reference to the many photos of a shirtless Putin. He has been shirtless on a horse, holding a rifle and fishing.

Walter Hickey at Business Insider had published “39 Photos That Prove Vladimir Putin Is The Most Badass Leader In The World.” These photos also showed Putin firing weapons, on a motorcycle, and in a race car.

But this tough guy hasn’t lifted a finger of behalf of persecuted Christians in Iraq.

While some argue with justification that the U.S. effort has not been enough and too slow, I searched the website of the Russian Embassy in Washington to see if there was an announcement of Russia participating in, or offering the delivery of, aid to Christians and others in Iraq—and could find nothing.

There is no evidence that the “international partners” helping Christians and other minorities in Iraq include Russia. Instead, Putin has been trying to sneak “humanitarian aid” into Ukraine, to benefit the Russian terrorists who shot down the Malaysian airliner with nearly 300 passengers.

One can search the Internet and find all kinds of stories about how Putin is not only defending Christians but is supposed to be a Christian himself. A story carried by the Christian Post said, “Putin has long been a supporter of Christianity and Christian values within Russia. He has called for the Church to play a larger role in citizens’ social lives, better religion classes in schools, and television programs emphasizing religious values.”

Some other stories include:

  • “Pope, Putin Summit to Benefit Christians” from Newsmax
  • “Vladimir Putin, Christian Crusader?” from The American Conservative, and written by Patrick J. Buchanan
  • “Putin Policies Aim to Defend Christian Beliefs” from the Liberty Voice blog
  • “Vladimir Putin is a Christian Man” from The Daily Stormer (an anti-Semitic site)
  • “US threatened by Russia’s Christianity” from the Russian Pravda
  • “Russia will develop as democratic state, defend Christian values—Putin” from the Voice of Russia
  • “Putin promises to protect Christianity worldwide” from Russia Today

The Timothy Fountain article noted that “Just over two years ago, Russia’s President received a briefing from Metropolitan Hilarion, the foreign relations representative of the Russian Orthodox Church.” Putin was told, “Every five minutes one Christian was dying for his or her faith in some part of the word.”

After hearing several examples of the persecution of Christians, Putin replied with an offer of help and said, “You needn’t have any doubt that that’s the way it will be.”

It turns out that the source of the report about Putin vowing to defend Christians around the world was Russia Today (RT), the well-known disinformation outlet for Russian propaganda.

Click to continue reading “Why Won’t Putin Help Middle East Christians?”
Go straight to Post

Featuring YD Feedwordpress Content Filter Plugin