TBR News May 20, 2017

May 20 2017

The Voice of the White House

Washington, D.C. May 20, 2017: “  “Not all devastating internet trolls come from WikiLeaks.

There are informative stories circulating on the Deep Internet concerning the discovery that a number of high-level American Congressmen (12 Senators and 45 members of the House of Representatives) and some very senior members of both the FBI and the CIA have been visiting certain Ukrainian-based gross child pornography sites, downloading what can only be termed vile material and passing it around to their special friends with similar warped tastes.

It has been circulated, widely, that persons interested in finding out who these monsters are need only write to the following person, located in Switzerland, for a packet to be sent to them.

Also included are copies of passionate communications between Hillary Clinton and her top, and beloved aide, Huma Adedin, wife (or beard) of convicted pedophile former Democratic Congressman Tim Wiener.

Although many have suggested that we explore this further, we will not but if voters are interested in the clandestine activities of their official representatives, they might wish to ask for a free packet of revolting information to:

Fr. S.P. Maletesta, SJ,

Poste restante

Lugano, Schweiz, 5192

From all reports, it is suggested that those receiving a response ought not to view the contents immediately after eating.”

Table of Contents

  • More hilarious anti-Trump headlines from the WP, Jeff Bezos’ cat box liner (read by dozens daily!) May 20.
  • Julian Assange defiant after Swedes drop investigation: ‘The war has just begun’
  • A Vortex of Scandal, Chaos and Absurdity
  • Dems Doom 2018 Chances by Labeling Trump a Russian Puppet, not Just Another Sleazy Plutocrat
  • Do High-Level Leaks Suggest a Conspiracy?
  • Personal drones no longer need to be registered with FAA, US federal court rules
  • FCC votes to overturn net neutrality rules

More hilarious anti-Trump headlines from the WP, Jeff Bezos’ cat box liner (read by dozens daily!) May 20.

  • White House adviser close to Trump is a person of interest in Russia probe
  • Trump’s scandals stoke fear for 2018 midterms among Republicans nationwide
  • Recapping a stunningly bad two weeks for the White House
  • Trump campaigned against Muslims, but will preach tolerance in Saudi speech
  • The Trump presidency doesn’t seem sustainable
  • Facebook could tell us how Russia interfered in our elections. Why won’t it?
  • Video shows Hillary Clinton practicing avoiding hugs from Trump
  • The Fact Checker’s tally of Trump’s false claims since becoming president
  • Pulitzer Prize-winning reporting: Uncovering Trump
  • Trump is practically begging to be accused of obstruction of justice
  • 5 questions Congress needs to answer about Trump and Russia
  • A company under Trump attack makes a bold move: It repeatedly ignores him
  • Trump’s budget calls for hits on federal employee retirement programs

Julian Assange defiant after Swedes drop investigation: ‘The war has just begun’

WikiLeaks founder describes end of rape allegations inquiry as ‘important victory’, but would still face arrest in London if he leaves embassy

May 20, 2017

by Esther Addley, Haroon Siddique and Alan Travis

The Guardian

Julian Assange has declared that “the proper war is just commencing” after Swedish prosecutors unexpectedly dropped their investigation into an allegation of rape against him, ending a torturous seven-year extradition battle that nevertheless leaves significant question marks over his future.

The 45-year-old WikiLeaks founder appeared on the balcony of the Ecuadorian embassy in London where he had sought asylum in 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden, and said Friday’s decision was “an important victory”.

After raising a clenched fist in salute, however, he vowed that “threats” made by US officials that he could be arrested on espionage charges “will not be tolerated” and said his organisation was escalating its leaks of documents about the CIA.

Assange still faces arrest over breaching his bail conditions if he leaves the embassy, the Metropolitan police confirmed, and he fears the US will seek his extradition over WikiLeaks’ publishing activities.

Sweden’s director of public prosecutions, Marianne Ny, made the surprise announcement on Friday morning that the country’s authorities would no longer pursue the investigation into a rape claim by a woman in Stockholm in 2010.

Ny’s decision had not been taken because of any judgment regarding guilt or innocence, she said, but because prosecutors had concluded that “all prospects of pursuing the investigation under present circumstances are exhausted”.

If Assange were to “make himself available” to the Swedish courts in future, however, “I will be able to decide to resume the investigation immediately,” she added.

In his appearance on Friday afternoon, the Australian described the period since his initial arrest as a “terrible injustice” and said: “Seven years without charge while my children grew up without me: that is not something I can forgive. That is not something I can forget.”

But Elisabeth Massi Fritz, the lawyer representing the woman who accused Assange of rape, said it was “a scandal that a suspected rapist can evade the law and therefore escape trial by court … My client is in shock and the case being dropped won’t change the fact that Assange has exposed her to a rape. I’m very critical of the decision to drop the case after running a preliminary investigation for so many years.”

Assange appealed to Ecuador for asylum in July 2012 after losing successive UK court battles to avoid extradition to Sweden. An investigation into a separate claim of sexual assault, made by a second Swedish woman, was dropped by Swedish authorities in 2015 after the statute of limitations expired. Assange has always denied the allegations.

Standing before a small crowd of supporters and many more reporters and camera crews, Assange said: “While today was an important victory and an important vindication, the road is far from over. The proper war is just commencing.

“The UK has said it will arrest me regardless. Now the US CIA director [Mike] Pompeo and the US attorney general[Jeff Sessions] have said that I and other WikiLeaks staff have no rights and that my arrest and the arrest of other staff is a priority. That is not acceptable … Our publications are proceeding at speed and that speed in relation to [recent high profile leaks about the CIA] is accelerating.”

But he also attempted a more conciliatory tone, saying his legal staff “have contacted the UK authorities and we hope to engage in a dialogue about what is the best way forward”.

He said the UK had been “exploited” to an extent by the EU and obliged to adopt the European arrest warrant system. Similarly, he said, “with the United States, while there have been extremely threatening remarks made, I am always happy to engage in a dialogue with the Department of Justice about what has occurred”.

Sessions said last month that arresting Assange was a priority, adding: “We’ve already begun to step up our efforts and whenever a case can be made, we will seek to put some people in jail.” Separately, Pompeo described WikiLeaks as a “non-state hostile intelligence service”.

No charges or extradition requests against Assange have been made public, but British authorities have said they would not confirm or deny whether they had received such a request before the person in question had been arrested.

Melinda Taylor, a member of Assange’s core legal team, told the Guardian: “The reason why he entered the embassy in the first place was [the risk of] a national security prosecution [in the US], so since that still exists, the reasons for him entering remain in existence.”

Asked if that meant that Assange would not leave the embassy without an assurance from the US that he would not be prosecuted, she said: “I can’t say he will stay in there indefinitely, but I would hope that [events] won’t force him to do so, that things will come to a head now that there’s no longer a Swedish arrest warrant [and] the US will be forced to make its intentions clear.”

Guillaume Long, Ecuador’s foreign minister, welcomed the Swedish decision and said his country would now try to negotiate safe passage for Assange. “Given that the European arrest warrant no longer holds, Ecuador will now be intensifying its diplomatic efforts with the UK so that Julian Assange can gain safe passage, in order to enjoy his asylum in Ecuador.”

He described the conduct of Swedish prosecutors as “wholly unacceptable … which has led to unnecessary delays in progressing this case”.

A Home Office spokesperson said the British government had no involvement in the decision to drop the investigation. The European arrest warrant against Assange was formally withdrawn at a London magistrates court on Friday morning.

Asked about Assange’s situation, the prime minister, Theresa May, said any decision on whether to arrest him if he were to leave the embassy would be a matter for the police.

Sweden and Ecuador have been locked in a lengthy legal stalemate since Assange entered the embassy, with both sides blaming the other for delays. Prosecutors initially insisted that Assange would have to travel to Sweden to be interviewed, which he has consistently refused to do, citing possible onward extradition to the US.

They eventually agreed to question him in London after coming under increasing pressure in Sweden to move the case forward. Assange was interviewed in the embassy in November by Ingrid Isgren, the deputy chief prosecutor.

In his balcony speech, Assange noted that the Swedish decision came in the same week as “another very important victory … even more important and more conclusive than we have had today, and that is the release of Chelsea Manning from prison”.

Manning was convicted in 2013 of passing thousands of classified documents to WikiLeaks three years earlier, leading to the “Cablegate” releases for which Assange was initially sought by the US.

A Vortex of Scandal, Chaos and Absurdity

The White House is becoming more chaotic by the day. Now, a special counsel has been brought in to investigate possible connections between President Donald Trump’s team and Russia. But the most important question is now whether Trump is mentally stable enough to be president.

May 19, 2017

by Mathieu von Rohr


On Wednesday, a few hours before the special counsel was set loose on him, Donald Trump was standing before the graduates of the Coast Guard Academy. He was supposed to hold an inspiring talk, to spread a positive message, as one does at graduation speeches. Instead, he once again spoke about himself. “Over the course of your life, you will find that things are not always fair,” he said to the graduating students. “Look at the way I’ve been treated, especially by the media,” Trump said. “No politician in history, and I say this with great surety, has been treated worse or more unfairly.”

No politician in history. Not Nelson Mandela. Not Mahatma Gandhi, not John F. Kennedy. Him. There stood a billionaire, inhabiting the most powerful office in the world, complaining about how unfair the world was. Because there seems to be one rule with Donald Trump: He is never to blame, even though almost everything currently happening to him is his fault.

Donald Trump’s presidency has been somewhat unreal since the beginning, it has had an element of reality TV since he started his campaign. But this past week, it began to feel like a screenwriter on drugs had taken command. Since May 9, when Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, almost every day in Washington has ended with a bombshell revelation by the New York Times or the Washington Post.

On Monday, it turned out that Trump was so proud to have the “best intelligence” that he apparently revealed some to prove it, to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov of all people. That wasn’t illegal, but it was certainly not smart.

On Tuesday came the explosive report that FBI Director Comey had maintained a written record of his conversations with Trump, excerpts of which were published. They indicated that Trump had asked Comey to call off the investigation into fired National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. This came to light only days after a report about Trump’s alleged Mafia-style request of loyalty from Comey. Comey rejected both requests, and was later fired by Trump as a result. The Comey memos will now become a focus of the Russia investigations by the Senate and House committees. Trump now stands accused of obstruction of justice.

The Brink of a Nervous Breakdown

On Wednesday, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein surprised the White House by independently naming a special counsel to investigate the connections between Trump and his team to Russia. Since the attorney general had recused himself from this investigation, Rosenstein had the power to do so and took everybody by surprise.

By then, only the first half of the week had passed.

The special counsel, former FBI Director Robert Mueller, is formally under the supervision of the Justice Department, but is well-liked by all sides and known for his independence. He now has the task of finding the facts, and maybe also revive the country’s faith that something like a trustworthy, independent authority still exists.

It is hard to believe, but Trump has only been in office for 120 days. Politically, he has accomplished little, but he has managed to drive the United States to the brink of a nervous breakdown. It is hard to imagine how the country can handle another 120 days similar to the last four months, let alone another three years and eight months.

Trump’s presidency is sinking into a vortex of scandals, chaos and lunacy, circling around the president’s neuroses. Trump is a man who sometimes seems to view his position as vehicle for personal gratification and who seems willing to weaken state institutions just to protect his allies. As of this week, not only Democrats but also a few Republicans are raising the possibility of Trump’s impeachment.

If it’s true that Trump sought to impede the FBI investigation, that would, theoretically at least, be grounds for removal from office. Obstruction of justice was the first charge in the articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon in 1974, before he decided to resign on his own.

Because He Likes to Brag

Even if historical comparisons are never quite perfect, the Watergate Scandal is the only one that currently applies. Back then, the constitutional state was also faced with defending itself against a president whose actions were possibly illegal, someone who had a disregard for the institutions. As was the case then, it’s not the act itself, but the cover-up that proved dangerous to the president.

In other ways, Donald Trump is the exact opposite of Richard Nixon, the cold, calculating man who memorized his answers ahead of press conferences. New York Times columnist David Brooks compared Trump to a child who can’t sit still, cannot concentrate, constantly needs affirmation, brags with exaggerated claims and cannot control himself.

The current crisis isn’t just about whether the president broke the law, but also his entire psychological state – and whether it prevents him from properly fulfilling his role. Whether he, the impulsive narcissist, might not even realize that his actions are wrong.

Why did he fire FBI Director Comey? Because he was annoyed. Why did he reveal confidential information to the Russians? Because he likes to brag.

Conservative New York Times columnist Ross Douthat wrote that he doesn’t think that the president is capable of sinister conspiracies – because he simply doesn’t understand fully enough the post that he occupies. “A child cannot be president. I love my children; they cannot have the nuclear codes.”

Douthat recommends not pursuing the Russia investigation and eschewing the formal impeachment process in favor of removing the president using the 25th Amendment of the Constitution. For this to happen, the vice president and a majority of the cabinet would need to inform Congress that the president is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office”

This, however, is unlikely to happen. Even from a constitutional perspective, the suggestion is dubious. But it shows that even in conservative circles, many people are worried about his psychological health.

A Cry for Help

The administration is in constant crisis mode these days, and if there is a clear sign of how bad the atmosphere inside the White House is, it’s the constant leaks to the media. Every inside detail makes its way out. In some reports, American media cite up to one- or two-dozen anonymous sources – which sounds not unlike a collective cry for help.

The anecdotes are revealing. The employees at the National Security Council, who brief the president about military and intelligence issues, have reportedly begun to put the word “Trump” into as many paragraphs as possible in their briefings because he keeps reading when his name appears. Trump is 70 years old, his attention span is famously short. And he continues to use cable news rather than dry intelligence briefings as his main source of information.

Many White House aids and Republicans are concerned about the degree to which the president still obsesses about the past, including about his election victory, instead of concentrating on his legislative agenda. Trump is so enchanted with his win that he has had an oversized map hung in the West Wing, according to the New York Times, dark red, showing electoral results not by state, but by electoral district. He gives visitors copies of the map, he has a whole pile. And he likes to brag about it not only in public, but in meetings with other heads of state.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that the only goal of Trump’s candidacy was the victory itself – demonstrating that he could win – rather than living up to his promises to his voters regarding health care reform or job creation. This is why Trump is obsessed with the critics he sees as trying to diminish his victory by reminding him that he didn’t win a majority of the votes. This is why the investigation of Russian influence in the election makes Trump so angry. He sees it as an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of his triumph, something for which he believes he is not being praised enough.

In public, Trump’s senior aids are desperately trying to defend him. When it emerged that he had apparently told the Russian foreign minister sensitive information about Islamic State (IS), that was reportedly so secret that the United States hadn’t even shared it with close allies, National Security Advisor Herbert Raymond McMaster took an interesting line of defense: The president couldn’t have known that the information was secret, he hadn’t been briefed. But is it reassuring to argue that the president didn’t know what he was doing?

Considering a Shake-Up

The information Trump accidentally shared came either from the Israeli or the Jordanian intelligence service, according to reports – apparently they had an agent in the inner-most circle of IS. This source had informed the U.S. that the terror group is able to create a laptop bomb that can’t be detected by security measures. The valuable source could now be in mortal danger.

While administration staff tries to cover for the president, Trump is mercilessly wearing them down. He forces them to lie for him in public and then regularly disavows their measured statements the next morning when he tweets admissions to accusations they had denied the previous evening.

As such, the fact that no member of the administration has wanted to personally deny the revelations of the Comey memo speaks volumes. Meanwhile, Trump spoke personally about the revelations during a press conference together with Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos. Asked whether he had requested Comey to lay off the Flynn investigation, he said: “No, no. Next question.”

Trump is angry at his team and is apparently considering a significant shake-up, according to media reports. From Chief of Staff Reince Priebus to Press Secretary Sean Spicer to his chief ideologue Stephen Bannon, all are thought to be in danger. But hopes that the wayward nature of Trump’s presidency might be resolved by such a shake-up are in vain. His team isn’t to blame, it’s him.

On top of this, Trump can’t stand people who aren’t yes-men. Trump is reportedly irritated by McMaster, a highly decorated military officer who is known for speaking his mind, because he too often contradicts him.

European monarchies had the figure of the crazy king, such as French Charles VI and England’s Henry VIII. Even back then, their closest allies had to decide whether they would cover for the crazy ruler or topple him. In a democracy, there is the option of impeachment.

It has only been used twice in American history: against Bill Clinton in 1999 and against Andrew Johnson in 1868. But no president has ever been removed from office in this manner – because it requires the support of two thirds of the Senate. Both Clinton and Johnson’s impeachments ultimately failed to surmount this obstacle.

The Looming Midterms

The probability that Trump will be removed from office via impeachment is extremely small. In Washington, politics are more polarized than ever. The majority of Republicans who do not come from swing counties don’t feel much pressure from their voters. Although the president has an approval rate of 40 percent, a record low, with Republican voters he is still above 70 percent, though he is sinking there too.

And there is one thing that makes Trump a very useful president for the Republican leadership despite his scandals: his ideological flexibility, or, one could also say, disinterest in the details of politics. He isn’t bothered when the Republicans decide on a health care reform bill that contradicts most of his campaign promises on the issue and that would affect his core voters the most. He leaves the details to the speaker of the House. This, too, helps explain why Republicans are so unwilling to distance themselves from Trump: He allows them to implement their agenda unhindered. In the end, Trump will sign their laws and is satisfied with being celebrated as the victor.

But the further the president’s favorability ratings drop and the longer the drama lasts, the more Republicans are worrying about the fall 2018 midterm elections. In midterm elections, the president’s party has historically lost seats – and the Democrats are up to 10 points ahead nationally in the polls. In the worst-case scenario, the Republicans could lose their majority in both chambers. Three upcoming by-elections in Republican districts in Georgia, South Carolina and Montana will be an important test. The Democrats are hopeful: If they win, the Republicans may become even more nervous.

But for now, Washington can expect a long, hot summer full of investigations by the special counsel and Congress. The White House is crippled, Trump’s and the Republicans’ legislative plans – building the wall, the entry ban, tax decreases – weren’t moving before either, and the situation will apparently stay that way.

And in just a few days, we could see a noteworthy development: The Senate Intelligence Committee, among others, has called for Comey to testify both in public and behind closed doors. It has also asked for all of Comey’s notes as well as all documents from the White house, including possible tapes of the conversations between Trump and Comey, which Trump mysteriously tweeted about.

And soon the special counsel will begin his work: Former FBI Director Robert Mueller has the power to pursue the investigation as he sees fit. He can investigate the Trump team’s Russia connections as well as the circumstances surrounding Comey’s firing. Mueller will likely take an especially close look at Mike Flynn, who Trump named national security advisor even though his team, and possibly he himself, had long known that the FBI was investigating him. Flynn was only national security advisor for 24 days before Trump was forced to fire him, but the revelations about him have been unsettling. The special counsel will ask uncomfortable questions, for example about the fact that Flynn wanted to end cooperation with the Kurds in Syria – a longtime hope of the Turks, which is sensitive because Flynn was paid by Ankara as an advisor.

A Dire Situation

According to Reuters, Flynn and other campaign employees were in contact with the Russian ambassador and Moscow representatives at least 18 times in the final seven months of the election campaign – apparently, a direct line of communication had been planned between Trump and Putin. Thus far, however, there is no evidence for any kind of collusion between Trump’s campaign and Russia to manipulate the election.

Mueller’s investigation could take months, maybe even years. Similar investigations, such as the one into Bill Clinton, went far beyond what originally caused them. The special investigation is likely to overshadow Trump’s presidency from now on – and constantly bring new developments to light.

When the president received the surprising news that a special counsel had been brought in on Wednesday, he initially reacted with a surprisingly muted communique. But the next morning he angrily tweeted: “This is the single greatest witch hunt of a politician in American history!”

Now his situation is dire. His only hope is that Mueller really cannot prove any involvement between Russia and his team – and officially acquits him of all accusations. Then, even the fact that he tried to interfere with the investigation might be overshadowed by a clear acquittal.

But if Trump and his people are guilty of anything, then they now need to be worried.

Many members of the White House staff will need to find legal counsel for the special counsel’s questioning – and they will have to pay for it themselves. That will not improve the atmosphere in an already demoralized White House.

Trump is now leaving Washington for the first time for a major foreign trip. Starting on Friday, he will spend more than a week away from his familiar surroundings on a trip that, according to media reports, he is approaching with trepidation due to its length. The trip will head to Saudi Arabia and Israel, to the Vatican, to the NATO summit in Brussels and ultimately to the G7 Summit in Sicily.

It could prove to be a bad time for him to be away from Washington. New revelations could come out at any time in the next few days, especially given that Comey could testify soon. On the other hand, there are also plenty of opportunities during the trip for him to bring attention to himself – and thus to distract from the scandals at home.

Trump will meet kings, princes, heads of state and the pope: There is a lot of room for faux-pas and new anecdotes. In Riyadh, he wants to give a speech about Islam.

That, certainly, will be a topic of discussion.

Dems Doom 2018 Chances by Labeling Trump a Russian Puppet, not Just Another Sleazy Plutocrat

May 16, 2017

by Dave Lindorff


Democratic politicians, aided and abetted by their journalist supporters in publications like the Washington Post, New York Times and at electronic news organizations like CNN, MSNBC and NPR, are playing a dangerous game focusing their anti-Trump “resistance” energies on trying to revivify the moribund Cold War with Russia and China.

You hear almost nothing out of Democratic Party establishment figures about the continuing economic crisis facing most average and poor Americans, who continue to struggle trying to get by on lower paying jobs than what they had before the Great Recession (supposedly ended!), or working at part-time jobs, living from paycheck to paycheck while the rich get richer, and having the traditional tickets out of their family’s predicament — a quality public school education and then college for their kids, a home they can finance and ultimately own, and a secure support system for their parents, and eventually themselves when they reach retirement age — undermined and threatened with death by a thousand cuts — all taken from them.

Instead, the American public hears from Democrats and a liberal media how President Trump is in some kind of conspiracy with the evil Russians, who we’re told insidiously helped destroy America’s election system, handing the presidency to Trump instead of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

There are so many things wrong with this picture.

First off, Russia these days, almost three decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union, is not America’s enemy — something that at least half of Americans understand instinctively, including most of those who voted for Trump in November. 86,000 US tourists and business people visited Russia in 2015, part of some 33 million who visited the country from around the globe to make it the ninth-most-visited country in the world.

Forbes magazine, when tensions between the US and Russia were high amid Democratic Party charges that Russia was trying to throw the election to Trump last August, published an article  reporting that billions of investment dollars were flowing from the US into Russia from a Fortune 500 list of America’s biggest firms, including PepsiCo, Procter&Gamble, McDonald’s, Mondelez International, General Motors, Johnson & Johnson as well as resource companies like Cargill, Alcoa, and General Electric.

Russia, let us not forget, has been keeping the primarily US-owned and funded ISS space station staffed with its Soyuz rocket ferries, while the US flounders, trying to find the funding to develop a reliable transport system of its own following the forced retirement of the ill-conceived space shuttle.

Sure Russia has land and submarine-based missiles targeting the US, but remember these are in response to even more US missiles that are targeting Russia (and China), and it has been the US that has been blocking efforts to stand down those missiles, and to renounce the using them in a first strike, and that has been working to install anti-missile batteries on Russia’s western and eastern borders designed to make such a first strike conceivable. And sure Russia re-absorbed Crimea into its borders, taking it back from the one-time Soviet Union province of Ukraine. But remember, that move (which followed a plebiscite in Crimea in which over 95% favored rejoining Russia), didn’t come in a vacuum. It followed a US-sponsored, directed and financed violent coup which drove out the elected leader of Ukraine, replacing him with a pro-US government that initiated a violent campaign of harassment of ethnic Russians in the country, and that began making entreaties to join NATO — an organization whose sole purpose, rooted in the old Cold War, has been containing and ultimately destroying Russia.

Democrats are fond of calling Russia “aggressive” and its leader, Vladimir Putin, “a thug”, but remember that Russia only has one overseas military base, and that is the one in Syria, where the country was invited to come and help defend the existing, globally recognized Syrian government of elected President Bashar Al-Assad. Compare that to the US, which has invaded some seven countries in recent years and is involved in undeclared and illegal wars around the world even now, including Syria, and that has some 800 military bases abroad, including in countries bordering Russia to the West, Turkey to the south, and Japan in the East.

Based upon hard evidence, as opposed to speculation and unsupported claims, Russia, far from being aggressive, is trying to develop expanded trade with Europe, to encourage foreign investment inside Russia, and to diversify its economy beyond being just a resource-based raw-materials exporter so as to raise the living standards of its people. It is not seeking to re-establish a zone of occupied countries in eastern Europe, nor is it even trying (as Moscow demonstrated by prematurely withdrawing most of its forces last year) to occupy and create a vassal state in Syria.

Meanwhile, as the Democrats focus on trying to build up Russia as a Cold War 2.0 bogeyman working in league with President Trump and his motley crew of billionaire cabinet officers and feuding advisors, they are angering Trump supporters — many of them former working class backers of the Democrats — who aren’t falling for it and instead feel Trump is being unfairly labeled as a traitor . Meanwhile, the Democrats are failing to reform the party to return it to its former “New Deal” and “Great Society” roots as a champion of the middle class.

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, despite the corrupt, focused efforts of Hillary Clinton backers and the Democratic Party establishment as well as most of the mainstream media to destroy his campaign, came last year within a whisker of defeating Clinton for the presidential nomination. That upstart campaign, and the tens of thousands of people who showed up at his rallies across the country, not to mention the countless “Sanders” placards in normally Republican-leaning states and counties during the primaries, showed that there is a desperate hunger among America’s working families for a party that will stand up for their interests. These would be things that polls consistently show the public wants, like higher taxes on corporations, increased funding and higher benefit levels for Social Security, better funding for Medicare, a single-payer health care system covering all Americans, lower military spending, a break-up of the nation’s big banks, improved infrastructure, reform of labor laws to make it easier to join a union, free public education through four years of college, and yes, serious action to combat climate change, etc.

That’s where Democrats should be focusing their efforts. Those are the issues they should be working hard now at finding convincing congressional candidates to fight for in coming campaigns over the next year and a half to retake the House and Senate.

But it’s not happening. All the action in the Democratic Party is focused, not out in the grass roots, but in Washington, in a losing game of trying to paint President Trump as a pro-Russian puppet, and in a vain effort to get him impeached by a Republican-led House and Senate.

It would be comical except that it’s just sad.

Unwilling to give up their dream of being the party of the “liberal-minded” and liberally cash-dolling corporate elite — the hedge-fund managers on Wall Street and the Silicon Valley entrepreneurs so ready to talk a good game about support for racial equality and transgender rights as long as they can get their carried interest and their low corporate tax rates, Democrats are continuing to turn a blind eye on the desperate need of most Americans who continue to see their incomes stagnate or even shrink, the prospects for their children shrivel, and their health care become ever harder to afford.

The end result is predictable: Democrats will perform miserably in the 2018 off-year elections, losing a chance to at least retake the House from Republicans, and Trump will manage to get re-elected in 2020, probably with continued control of both houses of Congress.

By the time the Trump nightmare is over in 2024, the country, like its by-then water-logged coastlines, will be hard to recognize.


Do High-Level Leaks Suggest a Conspiracy?

National-security officials may see themselves as patriots, but their methods set a dangerous precedent.

May 18, 2017

by Philip Giraldi

The American Conservative

Back in my time in the CIA, there were two places in the headquarters building one could go that were free speech zones—places where it was safe to vent about senior management without necessarily being admonished or even reported. They were the Historical Intelligence Collection room off the library, where no one ever went to look at the books, and the office supplies storage room in the basement. The supplies room had a lot of dark corners and concealing shelves where it was possible to be anonymous and it was completely unsupervised in the belief that true-blue CIA officers would never stoop to taking even a single pencil more than was actually needed to get the job done.

I don’t know if those rooms still exist, but I sometimes think of them when the subject of government conspiracies come up. I have this vision of two or three conspirators huddled in the corner behind the staplers back in 1975 discussing how one would go about eliminating the likes of Senator Frank Church, who at that time was heading a major congressional investigation into CIA improprieties.

If there had been such a gathering, I would imagine that the Washington Post would have found out about it on the next day as intelligence officers are gregarious and like to talk. This has been my principal problem with the debate in some quarters about the 9/11 Commission. Their report did indeed miss many important angles in order to protect certain governmental interests, but if there had been a genuine conspiracy involving what must have been hundreds of people to demolish the Twin Towers with explosives, it surely would have leaked long ago.

Two months ago, I would have dismissed as fantasy any thoughts of a conspiracy based in America’s national security agencies to bring down Donald Trump. But now I am not so sure. Many of my friends who are former intelligence officers are increasingly asking questions. It is worth pointing out that none of us are fans of what the White House has been doing and saying—quite the contrary. Still, alerting the country to concerns over what might be a developing soft coup orchestrated by the intelligence and law-enforcement agencies to nullify the results of a national election in no way equates to trying to protect Donald Trump and his uncouth and ill-informed behavior. It is rather a defense of the Constitution.

Donald Trump said on Wednesday that “This is the single greatest witch hunt of a politician in American history!” He might be right. He was referring to Deputy Attorney General Rob Rosenstein’s appointment of the highly-respected Robert Mueller as independent counsel to investigate “any links and/or coordination between Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump, and any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.”

Trump’s bombast puts everyone but his most tone-deaf supporters on edge, but there are two points that he has been making repeatedly that are essential to any understanding of what is going on. First, the investigation into Russia and the Trumpsters has been a high priority at FBI and also in Congress for nearly a year. Yet so far no one has produced evidence that anyone broke any law or even that someone did something wrong. Second, and more importantly, the vilification of Trump and Russia has been driven by a series of leaks that come from the very top of the national security apparatus, leaks that appear not to have been seriously investigated.

This involvement of FBI and CIA in the campaign, whether inadvertently or by design, was particularly evident in the various reports that surfaced and were leaked to the press during the campaign and right up to the inauguration. The leaks of that type of information, to include technical intelligence and Special Access Program “codeword” material, require top-level access as well as the ability to arrange clandestine contacts with major players in the media, something far beyond the reach of most employees at CIA or the FBI.

Similar leaks have been appearing since that time. I confess to finding Monday’s detailed account of what President Trump discussed with Russian Ambassador Sergey Lavrov, which included corroborating material that likely did more damage than the information that was actually shared, highly suggestive of the possibility that something like a conspiracy is, in fact, functioning. Given the really tight-security control of that transcript after it was determined that it contained sensitive information, one might reasonably assume that the leaks to the media came directly out of Donald Trump’s own National Security Council or from the highest levels of the office of the DNI, CIA, or FBI.

Yesterday, the anonymous sources struck again, revealing that “Michael Flynn and other advisers to Donald Trump’s campaign were in contact with Russian officials and others with Kremlin ties in at least 18 calls and emails during the last seven months of the 2016 presidential race.” That sort of information had to come from the top level of the FBI and would have been accessible to only a few, but even though the leaks of what constitutes highly-classified information have been recurring for many months, no one has been fired or arrested.

The emphasis on Russia derives from the government and media consensus that Moscow was behind the hacking of Democratic National Committee (DNC) computers that led to the exposure of what the DNC was doing to destroy the candidacy of Bernie Sanders. There is also a related consensus that the Russian hacking was intended to damage American democracy and also to help the Trump campaign, a narrative that the president has described as a “made-up thing,” a view that I share. All of these assertions are regarded as unquestionably true as measured by inside-the-beltway groupthink, with even the White House now conceding that there was Russian interference in the election.

Sometimes the hysteria over Russia produces over-the-top stories in the mainstream media, including last week’s completely speculative piece wondering whether the entourage of Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had sought to sneak a recording device into the White House during his White House visit. It was the type of tale that might have been inspired by a leak from someone in the National Security Council who personally observed the context of the meeting and was able to provide corroborating details.

Nevertheless, in spite of the overwhelming groupthink, it has been repeated ad nauseam by people like myself that no actual evidence has been produced to support any of the claims being made about Russia and Trump. There is more evidence that the White House was penetrated by Ankara—through the good services of Michael Flynn—than by Moscow, but Congress has not called for an investigation into Turkey’s lobbying. Ray McGovern, a former senior CIA analyst, is even speculating that the Agency might have been the actual hacker into the DNC, leaving a trail behind that would have suggested that it was done by the Russians. His concern arises from the recent WikiLeaks revelation that the CIA had developed cyberwarfare capabilities to do just that.

McGovern, like myself, is also asking why former CIA Director John Brennan has not been summoned by the Senate Committee looking into Russia-gate. Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has testified twice, while former FBI Director James Comey, current NSA Director Mike Rogers, and former Justice Department senior official Sally Yates have all appeared once. Brennan’s absence is conspicuous as he was the senior national security official most closely tied to the Obama Administration, may have had the tools at hand to fake the Russian connection, and has also been plausibly linked to “encouraging” British Intelligence to provide damaging information on Michael Flynn.

I now suspect that there is indeed a group at the top of the U.S. national security system that wants to remove Donald Trump and has wanted to do so for quite some time. If that is true, I believe that they have been operating with that goal in mind for at least the past year. It is not a traditional conspiracy or cabal in that it does not meet and conspire together, but I suspect the members know what they are doing in a general sense and are intervening whenever they can to keep Trump off balance. Their program is simple: convince the nation that the president and his team colluded with the Russians to rig the 2016 election in his favor, which, if demonstrable even if not necessarily true, would provide grounds for impeachment. They are motivated by the belief that removing Trump must be done “for the good of the country” and they are willing to do what they consider correcting a mistake made by the American voters. They are assisted in their effort by the mainstream media, which agrees with both the methods employed and the overall objective and is completely on board with the process.

Saving the country from Trump is certainly an attractive notion. I suspect the Comeys, Clappers, and Brennans, together with a host of former senior officers who appear regularly on television, if they were involved, see themselves as great patriots. But they must understand that the blunt instrument they are using is far more dangerous than the current occupant of the White House. A soft coup engineered by the national security and intelligence agencies would be far more threatening to our democracy than anything Donald Trump or even the Russians can do.

Personal drones no longer need to be registered with FAA, US federal court rules

May 20, 2017


A federal appeals court has shot down a rule that would require non-commercial drones be registered, a decision that critics say will make the skies less safe.

On Friday, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in favor of John Taylor, a small unmanned aircraft (UAS) enthusiast, who first brought a case against the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in 2016.

“Taylor does not think that the FAA had the statutory authority to issue the Registration Rule and require him to register,” Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the decision. “Taylor is right.”

The three-judge panel argued that the agency was barred from imposing new regulations on “model aircraft” due to a law that was passed by Congress and signed by former President Barack Obama in 2012.

The court said the FAA was violated the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, which states that the agency “may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft” so long as that aircraft is less than 55 pounds and only used recreationally.

The FAA responded to the ruling, saying it is “carefully” reviewing the decision.

“The FAA put registration and operational regulations in place to ensure that drones are operated in a way that is safe and does not pose security and privacy threats. We are in the process of considering our options and response to the decision,” the agency said in a statement.

Brian Wynne, president and CEO of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, said that he was “disappointed” with the decision, saying that a registration system would promote “accountability and responsibility by users of the national airspace, and helps create a culture of safety that deters careless and reckless behavior.”

“We plan to work with Congress on a legislative solution that will ensure continued accountability across the entire aviation community, both manned and unmanned,” Wynne said in a statement.

In 2015, the FAA issued a mandatory rule that required any drones over 0.55 pounds and under 55 pounds to be registered with the agency. Drone users that did not register through their website were subject to civil and criminal penalties.

As of February, there were more than 770,000 drone registrations with the FAA since 2015, according to FAA Administrator Michael Huerta.

The agency estimates that around 2.3 million drones will be sold this year and another 13 million will be sold by 2020.

The law that the court said bars the FAA from enforcing their registration system is set to expire in September, but Congress could change the laws regulating non-commercial drones before then. The FAA could also appeal the decision in a higher court.

In March, Huerta gave a speech where he said that America is considered “the gold standard in aviation,” due to the safety regulations put in place by the FAA. To address future concerns, Huerta said the agency is launching a new “Aviation Rulemaking Committee” that is currently looking to create ways to remotely identify and track drones even in the pilot isn’t visible.

“This is one of the law enforcement community’s top concerns, and we hope the recommendations we receive will pave the way for expanded drone operations over people and beyond visual line of sight,” Huerta said.

FCC votes to overturn net neutrality rules

May 19, 2017

BBC News

The US Federal Communications Commission has voted to overturn rules that force ISPs to treat all data traffic as equal.

Commissioners at the agency voted two-to-one to end a “net neutrality” order enacted in 2015.

Ajit Pai, head of the FCC, said the rules demanding an open internet harmed jobs and discouraged investment.

Many Americans and technology firms filed objections to the FCC’s proposal prior to the vote.

“This is the right way to go,” said Mr Pai ahead of the vote on Thursday.

In a statement, the FCC said it expected its proposed changes to “substantially benefit consumers and the marketplace”. It added that, before the rules were changed in 2015, they helped to preserve a “flourishing free and open internet for almost 20 years”.

Equal access

The vote by the FCC commissioners is the first stage in the process of dismantling the net neutrality regulations.

The agency is now inviting public comment on whether it should indeed dismantle the rules. Americans have until mid-August to share their views with the FCC.

This call for comments is likely to attract a huge number of responses. Prior to the vote, more than 1 million statements supporting net neutrality were filed on the FCC site.

Many people responded to a call from comedian and commentator John Oliver to make their feelings known.

Separately, some protestors also used software bots to repeatedly file statements on the site.

Many fear that once the equal access rules go, ISPs will start blocking and throttling some data while letting other packets travel on “fast lanes” because firms have paid more to reach customers quicker.

US ISPs such as Comcast, Charter Communications and Altice NV have pledged in public statements to keep data flowing freely.

Despite this public pledge Comcast, along with Verizon and AT&T, opposed the original 2015 rule change saying it dented their enthusiasm for improving US broadband.

Facebook, and Google’s parent company Alphabet as well as many other net firms have backed the open net rules saying equal access was important for all.



by Walter Storch

Herewith follows a studied dissertation that deals with the lengthy persecution, murder and despoiling of the Jewish people throughout the Western world that followed the Great Dispersion of our people through the actions of the Roman Emperor Titus.

In the centuries ensuing and even up unto the present time, the Jewish people have been hounded, terribly persecuted and even killed by the Christian states.

This is due entirely to the actions of the Roman Church which blames us for all world problems and uses as their excuse that our people killed their prophet, Christ, the false Messiah.

We have then allied ourselves with movements designed to bring liberty to this or that country in which we were only considered guests in the hopes that at last, the Jewish people would find a new home.

In the struggle between the Mercantile Class in France at the end of the last century, we eagerly supported the rise of liberated masses over the oppressors of the French Monarchy, the Roman Church and the French military class.

It was Jewish money and intelligence, in conjunction with the liberal elements of the French society and especially with the Freemasons that set the hallmark French Revolution into motion.

We saw our blood enemies destroyed, their leaders beheaded and their Roman churches despoiled as Jewish temples had been despoiled. Then the mob, ever without guidance, slipped rapidly beyond our control and launched a great terror on the former Kingdom of France.

Many of us rejoiced at the death and despoilment of our heredity enemies but others could clearly see that this eternal terror also destroyed finance and trade, areas in which our people excel.

The advent of the Great Emperor has been an enormous boon to us. His expressed interest in establishing a Jewish state friendly to him and anti-Mohammedan in the Near East, even in old Judea, has been a great and shining light to which all of are now drawn.

By calling this Council, the Emperor, surely the most enlightened and sagacious of men, has put his seal on the rebirth of the Jewish people and for this, he must forever be supported by our people as a second Moses who leads us through vast deserts of tribulation to the glories of the Promised Land.

In formulating our guiding precepts, we must keep this loyalty firmly in mind for so long as the Great Emperor rules, we shall, as his loyal and supportive subjects, also rule.

Herewith we set forth for these councils a set of rules of guidance.

We who represent the most Ancient Faith, also now represent all of our people and we must now organize our path into the future. Woe to those who wander from this path for they shall, by their actions, forever be cast out from the great Jewish community.

Our people must never forget, even in great and secure prosperity, the sufferings, the destructions and the bitter humiliations our entire nation has suffered before.

Now we have been handed the opportunity so long dreamt of and so painfully sought and so now we must bend every effort to achieve great strength through great unity of purpose!

According to Franz Kobler, “Napoleon and the Jews”, p. 160, 167, the “Décision doctrinaires du Grand Sanhedrin” were published “in Paris by Diogene Tama” and in an English translation “edited by F.D. Kirwan.” This is called a “prototype of the ill-famed ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion'”, p. 163.

The British library in London has the following material:

Title: Transactions of the Parisian Sanhedrin, or Acts of the Assembly of Israelitish Deputies of France and Italy, convoked at Paris by an Imperial … Decree, dated May 30, 1806. Translated from the original published by M. D. Tama, with a preface and … notes by F. D. Kirwan

Main heading:                     TAMA. Diogène

Additional headings: KIRWAN, F.D.

Additional headings: PARIS. Municipal and other Institutions, Societies, etc. Sanhedrin

Publication details:    London, 1807. 80

Shelfmark:               1608/3591

From the French Bibliotique National the following material:

Titre(s) :   Collection des procès-verbaux et décisions du grand sanhédrin, convoqué à Paris, par ordre de Sa Majesté l’empereur et roi, dans les mois de février et mars 1807 [Texte imprimé]: publiée par M. Diogène Tama

Publication :  Paris : chez l’éditeur, 1807

Description matérielle :  5 livraisons en 1 vol. in-8 °

Autre(s) auteur(s) :   Tama, Diogène. Fonction indéterminée

Notice n° : FRBNF36347772

Type : texte imprimé, monographie

Titre(s) :   Le Grand Sanhédrin de Napoléon [Texte imprimé] / sous la direction de Bernhard Blumenkranz et Albert Soboul

Publication :  Toulouse : E. Privat, 1979

Imprimeur / Fabricant :  16-La Couronne : Impr. Sopan

Description matérielle :  VI-228 p.-[4] p. de pl. ; 23 cm

Collection :  Collection Franco-Judaïca ; 8

Lien à la collection :  Collection Franco-judaïca.

Note(s) :   En appendice, reprod. en fac-sim. à raison de 2 p. de d’éd. ancienne pour 1 p. de l’éd. de 1979, de la “Collection des procès-verbaux et décisions du Grand Sanhédrin, convoqué à Paris par ordre de S.M. l’Empereur et Roi, dans les mois de février et mars 1807. – Index

Autre(s) auteur(s) :   Blumenkranz, Bernhard (1913-1989 ). Directeur de publication

Soboul, Albert (1914-1982 ). Directeur de publication

Sujet(s) :   Napoléon 01 (empereur des Français ) — Et les Juifs

Juifs — France — 1789-1815

Juifs — France — Juifs — 70-1789

Assemblée des députés des israélites de France et du Royaume d’Italie (1806 / 1807 ; Paris)

Grand sanhédrin (1807 ; Paris)


Notice n° : FRBNF34678989

Type : texte imprimé, notice analytique

Auteur(s) :   Grand Sanhédrin (1807)

Titre(s) :   Procès-verbaux et décisions [Texte imprimé]

Notice n° : FRBNF34678989

Type : texte imprimé, monographie

Auteur(s) :   Schwarzfuchs, Simon

Titre(s) :   Napoleon [Texte imprimé], the Jews and the Sanhedrin / Simon Schwarzfuchs

Publication :  London ; Boston ; Henley : Routledge and K. Paul, 1979

Description matérielle :  XII-218 p. ; 23 cm

Collection :  The Littman library of Jewish civilization

Note(s) :   Notes bibliogr. Index

Sujet(s) :   Napoléon 01 (empereur des Français ) — Et les Juifs

Juifs — Statut juridique — France — 18e siècle

Juifs — Statut juridique — France — 19e siècle

Grand sanhédrin (1807 ; Paris)

Assemblée des députés des israélites de France et du Royaume d’Italie (1806 / 1807 ; Paris)

ISBN 0-7100-8955-4

Notice n° : FRBNF35660241

For further reading: Le Juif Errant D’Eugene Sue: Du Roman-Feuilleton Au Roman Populaire by Maria Adamowicz Hariasz (2002); French Fiction Writers: Romanticism and Realism 1800-1850, edited by Catharine Savage Brosman, Bruccoli Clark Layman (1992); Le Monde d’Eugène Sue III. Si les riches savaient! by Brynja Svane (1988); Le Monde d’Eugène Sue I: Bibliographie des oeuvres d’Eugène Sue by Brynja Svane (1986); Le Monde d’Eugène Sue II. Les lecteurs d’Eugène Sue by Brynja Svane (1986); ‘Structures narratives et tendances idéologiques. Une étude d’Eugène Sue: Mathilde’ by Brynja Svane, in Actes du VIIIe Congrès des Romanistes Scandinaves (1983); Materialen zur Kritik des Feuilletons-Romans, ed. by Helga Grubitzsch (1977); Eugène Sue by Jean Louis Bory (1962); Les idées sociales D’Eugène Sue by J. Moody (1938) – For further information: – Die Mysterien von Paris von Eugene Sue – Max Stirner: Über “Die Mysterien von Paris” – Master of the Serial Thriller –

Selected works:

  • Kernock le pirate, 1830
  • Plick et Plock, 1831
  • Atar-Gull, 1831 – Atar-Gull; or, the Slave’s Revenge / Atar Gull: a nautical tale
  • La Salamandre, 1832
  • La Vigie de Koat-Ven, 1833
  • Histoire de la marine française, 1835-37
  • Lautréaumont, 1837
  • Arthur, 1838
  • Les Fanatiques des Cévennes, 1840
  • Mathilde ou les Mémoires d’une jeune femme, 1841
  • Thérèse Dunoyer, 1842
  • Le Morne-au-diable, 1842 – The Female Bluebeard / The Refugees of Martinique
  • Les Mystères de Paris, 1842-43 – The Mysteries of Paris
  • Le Juif errant, 1844-45 – The Wandering Jew
  • Martin, l’enfant trouvé, 1847 – Martin the Foundling
  • Les sept péchés capitaux, 1847-49 – The Seven Deadly Sins
  • Les Mystères du peuple, 1849-57 – The Rival Races; or, the Sons of Joel / The Mysteries of the People
  • The Golden Sicke; or, Hena, the Virgin of the Isle of Sen, 1904
  • The Infant’s Skull; or, The End of the World, 1904
  • The Brass Bell; or, The Chariot of Death, 1907
  • The Iron Collar; or, Faustina and Syomara, 1909
  • The Iron Pinchers; or, Mylio and Karvel, 1909

The Protocols also played on the fear of Freemasons among court circles, aristocracy and the church establishment. The international fraternal order of Masons, which was identified with liberalism and modernity, was presented in the Protocols as having already been infiltrated and manipulated by the Elders of Zion.

In its manipulative conspiracy, the Elders were to focus on both internal, domestic matters and interstate relations. Within each state, they were to foster discontent and unrest, especially among workers. By promoting liberal ideas, they were to produce confusion while, at the same time, seizing behind-the-scenes control of political parties. Drunkenness and prostitution were said to be vigorously encouraged and morality undermined.

Interstate conflicts were to be stirred up through emphasis upon national differences. Every effort was to be made by the Elders of Zion to increase armament production and enhance the likelihood of warfare. The end game of the Zionists, according to the Protocols, was not victory for one side but rather even greater chaos.

The Elders of Zion’s ultimate goal, perceived to be but a century away, was the messianic age when the entire world would be united under Judaism and dominated by a descendant of the House of David. The emergent structure of a Kingdom of Zion resembles the nightmare vision of George Orwell’s “1984.”

The Protocols may have been nourished in Europe with its ancient traditions of Jew-baiting, but it found new life in Egypt and elsewhere in the Arab world. Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser endorsed the document in 1958. During the 1960s and 1970s at least nine different Arabic translations were published, some by the Egyptian government press. In June 2001, the Egyptian paper of record, Al Ahram, cited one of the Protocols as specifying how Jews plan to “control the world” by a combination of means, including the use of Freemasons.

The story of the Protocols starts with a chapter in a novel called “Biarritz” by a German bureaucrat named Hermann Goedesche writing under the pseudonym “Sir John Retcliffe” (sometimes altered to “Sir John Readcliffe” in later literature). Goedesche was an anti-Semite in the middle of the 19th century who believed in a conspiracy between Jews and Masons to dominate the world. One chapter of the novel, titled “In the Jewish Cemetery in Prague” relates a speech by a Rabbi named Eichhorn or Reichhorn which reveals a Jewish plot against European civilization. Although it was part of a novel, it was printed separately as an anti-Semitic pamphlet in Russia as early as 1872. It was widely circulated as a truthful account for the rest of the 19th century and represents the precursor of the Protocols. It is still occasionally attached to current editions of the Protocols.

The Protocols, as they are usually published, are divided into twenty-six separate chapters each of which are a lecture on how to subvert western civilization, although some versions, including the first in English, did not have this division. The “program” set forth in the Protocols is vague and generalized. The Protocols advise, for example: “Therefore in governing the world the best results are obtained by violence and intimidation, and not by academic discussions.” (Protocol 1). Some are just silly. One Protocol (23) advocates making people unhappy by passing laws prohibiting drunkenness. The Protocols are vigorously anti-democratic as well. Protocol 25 advises: “Several members of the seed of David will prepare Kings and their successors, who will be elected not by right of inheritance but by their own capabilities. These successors will be initiated in our secret political mysteries and plans of governing, taking great care that no one else should acquire them.”

Today, though barely 2% of the nation’s population is Jewish, close to half its billionaires are Jews. The chief executive officers of the three major television networks and the four largest film studios are Jews, as are the owners of the nation’s largest newspaper chain and most influential newspaper, the New York Times. In the late 1960s, Jews already constituted 20% of the faculty of elite universities and 40% of the professors of elite law schools; today, these percentages doubtless are higher.” (The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State, p.1).

The Protocols are now distributed worldwide and are second only to the Bible itself in sales. The inflammatory document is a bestseller in the Arab world, banned in some countries, and continues to be distributed by the American underground book market. In terms of effect, almost all extremist groups in Europe and America continue to expound the Protocols either directly or indirectly, most terrorist actions worldwide can be traced to the Protocols, and Christian fundamentalists accept them as legitimate bible prophecy.

The book The Times called The Geneva Dialogues bears in reality the following title: Dialogues aux Enfers entre Machiavelli et Montesquieu. It had been published anonymously in Brussels in 1864. The introduction ends thus: “Geneva, October 13, 1865”.

It was soon discovered by the police of Napoleon III that the author of the book was a certain lawyer, Maurice Joly, who was arrested, tried, and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment (April 1865), as it was averred that he had written his book as an attack against the government of Napoleon III to which he had lent all the Machiavelian plans revealed in the Dialogues.

A short sketch of the author’s life is necessary in order to understand the spirit of his book.

Maurice Joly (1831-1878), was born at Lons-le-Saulnier. His mother, née Florentine Corbara Courtois, was a Corsican of Italian origin and a Roman Catholic. Her father, Laurent Courtois, had been paymaster-general of Corsica. He had an inveterate hatred of Napoleon I.

Joly’s father was Philipe Lambert Joly, born at Dieppe, Normandy. He had a comfortable fortune and had been attorney general for the department of Jura for a period of 10 years under Louis Philippe. Maurice Joly was educated at Dijon and began his law studies there, but in 1849 he left for Paris.

There, thanks to his maternal grandfather’s masonic associations, he secured, just before the Coup d’Etat in 1851, a post in the Ministry of the Interior under M. Chevreau. In 1860 only, he terminated his law studies, — he wrote several articles, showed a certain amount of talent and ended by founding a paper called Le Patois for lawyers and attorneys. The principal stockholders were Jules Favre, Desmaret, Leblond, Adolphe Crémieux, Arago, and Berryer.

Joly was a Socialist. He wrote of himself: “Socialism seems to me one of the forms of a new life for the peoples emancipated from the traditions of the Old World. I accept a great many of the solutions offered by Socialism but I reject Communism either as a social factor or as a political institution. Communism is but a school of Socialism. In politics I understand extreme means to gain one’s ends — in that, at least, I am a Jacobin.”

Friend of Adolphe Crémieux, he shared in his hatred of Napoleon III. He hated absolutism as much as he hated Communism and as, under the influence of his Prime Minister Rouher, the French Emperor led a policy of reaction, Maurice Joly qualified it as Machiavelian and depicted it as such in his pamphlet.

In one of his books he wrote of it:

“Machiavelli represents the policy of Might compared to Montesquieu’s, which represents the policy of Right — Machiavelli will be Napoleon III who will himself depict his abominable policy”. (From Maurice Joly — Son passé, son programme — by himself, 1870).

Maurice Joly, who hated Communism and, in 1864, ascribed the Machiavellian policy of Might over Right to the Imperialism of Napoleon III, was evidently ignorant of the fact that he himself was no innovator, for, long before he ever entered the journalistic or political world, the very theory which he had tried to expose and refute had been the guiding principle of a group of ardent revolutionists, promoters of Communism, and worthy followers of Illuminatis and Babouvists, the group of Karl Marx, Jacoby, etc. the agitators of the 1848 revolution.














No responses yet

Leave a Reply