A good house cleaning is necessary at the Justice Department, starting with Jeff Sessions. What the President is waiting for to fire him? I don’t know. Some say that he would be more likely to do that after the midterm elections in November. The tricky thing with that, is that it takes for granted that the Republicans would keep control of the House and Senate. But what if Republicans lose control of either of these two chambers or even both? Wouldn’t it make the firing of Jeff Sessions even more difficult? I think that the more the President waits to fire Jeff Sessions, the more difficult it will be politically. To go to the midterm elections with new blood and new faces could reinforce the President and his agenda. But of course here, it’s all a matter of interpretation. We are all anxious to see what the President will decide.
In this episode of Week-End Warrior, Lana and Henrik of Red Ice TV discuss the latest film form Dinesh D’Souza, Death of a Nation. To make things brief, D’Souza tries to sell us the idea that the Democrats were the real Nazis and fascists and that the Democrat Party was the party of slavery, etc. Although this thesis has certain merits, I agree with Lana and Henrik that Dinesh D’Souza twists reality in order to propagandize against the Democrat Party and that is wrong. There were partisans of slavery and of nazism in both parties. But I want to cover another aspect of D’Souza’s view of things that they don’t talk about (not directly). It is the question of White supremacy. Dinesh D’Souza covered the subject of White supremacy in an interview given to Frank Gaffney on the air of Secure Freedom Radio (the audio files are below). During the interview, he explains to Gaffney that fascism and Nazism were left-wing ideologies and that is an argument that can be made if we look at their doctrine. He says that the Left put the blame on the Right for the crimes of Nazism and fascism and that is true. Right-wingers don’t commit mass murder and try to reduce the rights of the citizens. But he fails to see that, in that regard, the so-called White supremacy is a concept that was invented by the same Left to try to portray patriots in a bad light. During the interview, he makes references to figures of the Alt-Right like Jason Kessler and Richard Spencer and says that they are wrong, etc, etc. People in the patriotic and/or nationalist movement are not ‘White supremacists’. They are activists or advocates for the white race. That means that they want the best conditions for the white race, to thrive, to be prosperous, to grow, etc, and there is nothing ‘supremacist’ about that. And that is done not at the expense of others. Every race and ethnic group has the right to be free and live in an environment favorable to its development. Dinesh D’Souza falls into the trap of calling ‘supremacist’ good men and women who simply want to protect us from harm and avoid the catastrophe of totalitarianism. Dinesh D’Souza is trying to have it both ways. He wants the public to believe that those who call right-wingers ‘fascists’ and ‘nazis’ are wrong when they do that, but on the other hand, that they are right when they call certain right-wingers ‘white supremacists’. According to Dinesh D’Souza those so-called ‘White supremacists’ are not really right-wingers. The truth is that they are really right-wingers but they are not White supremacists. They are trying to protect us.
To visit the page of the show on SFR: Interview with Dinesh D’Souza on Death of a Nation
Recently the White House presented its Framework on Immigration Reform and Border Security. Basically, this framework is an attempt by President Trump to get the funding necessary to build a wall between Mexico and the U.S. In order to convince the Democrats into accepting to support the funding of the wall, President Trump has proposed to legalize 1.8 million illegal aliens who came or who can be brought under the program known as DACA. No need to say that this proposal has angered, disappointed, astonished, horrified a great number of conservatives, right-wingers, alt-righters, patriots and nationalists. This seems like a total 180 degree-turn from one of his major campaign promises, that is to end illegal immigration into the U.S. Certainly, to offer a path to citizenship to 1.8 million illegal aliens sends the wrong message. If that goes through and becomes a reality, it is one of these decisions that President Trump will undoubtedly regret for the rest of his Administration and probably for the rest of his life.
One thing needs to be understood here. Nothing will please the Democrats. They hate Trump. Nothing he will do, say, sing or dance will be beautiful or fancy enough for them. President Trump is wasting his time trying to get the Democrats on board with his project of building a wall. And it is not a question of numbers. Providing amnesty to 1.8 million, billion or trillion illegal aliens is not the issue. The issue is political. In this context, I think it is important to put things into perspective and to understand what is at stake here. A physical wall is needed between Mexico and the U.S. and providing a path to citizenship to people who came illegally into the country is irresponsible, unacceptable and foolish. So what can be done? It is pretty simple actually. There is a loophole here that would be interesting to investigate. We know that President Trump has promised to have Mexico pay for the wall. Then, if that happens, technically, it won’t be the U.S. paying for the wall but Mexico. And that’s where it becomes interesting. Briefly put, Congress and Senate have to vote on and approve spending bills that fund the different operations of the government. In other terms, before any of the tax-payers’ dollars is spent on anything, Congress and Senate have to authorize their spending and that is absolutely normal in any free country.
But the fact that Trump has said several times that it is Mexico that will pay for the wall changes things. In effect, if it is Mexico that pays for the wall, then the funding of the wall doesn’t really come from the U.S. but from Mexico… In turn, that implies that the President doesn’t need the approval of the House and Senate to have the wall built. He can give the order for the construction of the wall and when it is finished, send the bill to Mexico directly or raise a tariff at the border that would serve to cover the cost. This way, President Trump can abandon this very dangerous idea of providing citizenship to 1.8 million illegal alien, since he only suggested that to bring Democrats to support his wall project. By following this game plan, President Trump would be able to both have the wall built AND terminate DACA, which would be directly in line with his campaign promises and with the platform he ran on. I strongly encourage President Trump and the Administration to reconsider what they are about to do with the DACA recipients. I feel that a terrible mistake is about to be made but it is not too late. Sometimes, the way out of a difficult situation can be narrow, small and tough but it is worth trying it if you consider the payback that is awaiting. Let’s Make America Great Again one step at a time. The House Intelligence Committee memo has been finally published last week and the truth is coming out about the extend to which the Deep State has tried to undermine and destroy Trump. We will learn more as things evolve. But in the meantime, we have another very important milestone to reach. Now it is time for the construction of the wall and for the illegal aliens to get back where they came from, finally.
Dave Emory has gone through a dental surgery and his voice suffers from it. But the subjects he is talking with John Loftus in this interview don’t. The great John Loftus recaps here some of the most important matters regarding the world of politics and intelligence that have occured in the last century. Don’t miss it:
When the so-called Arab Spring took place last year, very few people actually showed any form of moderation in their analysis of the situation. Heated by the French Revolution-type atmosphere of the events, they displayed emotions ranging from euphoria, joy, happiness, etc, but very little in terms of careful examination of history and in terms of reflexion. A few media personalities and political analysts recommended caution on the contrary, and we have to acknowledge today that they were right. Dave Emory, a radio host and antifascist researcher for more than thirty years, was one of them. In a series of shows starting in FTR #733 through #739, he presented a whole collection of elements and connections that bring anyone studying this event to seriously put into question the official version of things. In effect, a careful examination of the so-called revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya show that there is virtually zero chance that any democracy could come to the light of day in these countries. Why? For a lots of reason, among them history, the type of Islam preached and imposed there, and the absence of significant civilian society structures. In all fairness, we have to recognize that his analysis was correct. You can access these shows below.
Last week, we learned that the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood will in the end present a candidate, Khayrat el-Shater, for the Presidential Election, after stating earlier that they would not. On Secure Freedom Radio hosted by Frank Gaffney, Diana West, a member of Team B II and of the Center for Security Policy which produced the marvelous report Shariah: The Threat to America, offered this week a testimony on how the Muslim Brotherhood was not only taking control of societies in the Middle East but was successfully infiltrating and coercing the United States. Parenthetically, we could add that they are doing the same thing virtually in every other western societies. To exemplify this, she brings the example of how the U.S. military is slowly being accustomed and acclimated to Sharia, in order to make it more compliant with all the requirements of Islam, to a point of humiliation. In effect, troops in Afghanistan are asked not to do anything that could « offend » Muslims, at the expense of soldiers’ security, and to turn a blind eye to pedophilia. In other terms, soldiers are expected to show « respect », i.e. obedience and submission to Sharia Law, and the result is an immense feeling of demoralization. (By the way, demoralization is the first step in the process of subversion of a society. For more on this topic, check this earlier post in which Yuri Bezmenov, a defector from the KGB, presents the complete process of subversion.) Lire la suite
This great interview with Robert Parry of the Consortiumnews website by anti-fascist researcher Dave Emory must be listened to. For lots of reasons but especially because we never get to hear the full story in the mainstream media, as well as in the so-called « alternative » media, on anything. It is always one side of the coin only, if ever one side is covered correctly without ideological biases, preconceptions, prejudices, etc. The received rhetorical line concerning 9/11 and its aftermath goes like this: « The evil Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda warriors have attacked America. George W. Bush, as a true Commander-in-Chief, has stood up against these bloodthirsty terrorists and he is making sure that America stays safe and secure. He has struck back at them by going to war in Afghanistan and in Iraq ». That’s the way it goes.
Well…like it is often the case in life, it is not that simple. To begin with, let me remind you of a couple of things. First, in 2001, the Bushes and the bin Ladens were on the board of directors of the Carlyle Group, which Dave Emory has studied and presented in For The Record # 347. The Carlyle Group is one of the most influential investment firms of the world. Only the greatest of all get the chance to sit on that precious panel. And on the day of September 11th 2001, they just happened to hold their annual investment conference. Probably only just a coincidence, one could say. Members could then watch live the events unfolding in Manhattan. Among others, Frank Carlucci and James Baker III were present. Second, let me remind you as well that on September 12th, when nobody else could fly in the U.S., 12 members of the bin Laden family were flown out of the country. Third, both the chief of intelligence for Saudi Arabia and the head of the FBI were replaced in the weeks just prior to 9/11, which is rather curious and frightening, to say the least.
All things considered, the « war on terror » has been good for both the Bushes and the bin Ladens. For George W. Bush, this war has allowed him to be in the spotlight and be admired as the great defender of America, to acquire additional powers for his presidency and finally to shout out all those who were contesting (rightfully) the validity of his election at the detriment of Al Gore. And for the bin Ladens, the war on terror allowed Osama to strengthen the cause of Al Qaeda and recruit new warriors. In 2004, only four days before the presidential election, Osama bin Laden released a video in which he denounced George W. Bush. Intelligence analysts at the CIA were of the opinion that Osama bin Laden was in fact trying to help George W. getting reelected. In effect, such a virulent attack against Bush by Osama before the election was obviously recuperated by the Republican team as an endorsement of John Kerry. That was enough to swing the vote in favor of George W. And why would Osama do such a thing, would you ask? Because Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda didn’t want the U.S. out of Iraq, U.S. troops being too good for the cause of Al Qaeda.
Mr Parry talks about a lot of other different relevant points. One of them is the obvious biased coverage by the press of the performance of Democrat politicians. Robert Parry explains that a game of professional credibility assessment was at play in the media, as Conservative politicians were quite often accusing journalists of being « liberal ». Reporters reacted to these accusations by becoming harder and tougher on Democrats, unfairly most of the times, to establish their credibility, with the unfortunate consequence that Al Gore was treated miserably. Parry gives many examples. This is a great show. In order to listen to the audio archive, you must have Realaudio installed.
Finally, Fox News most popular ranter has been dropped, or should I say, flushed. Right-wing network Fox News’s controversial host will certainly be remembered for his unappropriate comments and most of the times outrageously unacceptable attacks on everything that is liberal, leftist or progressive. But it is his comments on the Democrats in general that will be most remembered and specifically this line: « will we have to shoot them in the head? » Saddly, as we all saw, they appear to have inspired mind-control job Jared Lee Loughner to commit his killing rampage in Tucson, Arizona. In the months just prior to the shooting, Sarah Palin had also the same bad taste to present electoral billboards with targets on it where Democrat representatives were elected, just by coincidence, and that included Arizona.
Beck made the announcement himself on his show Wednesday, April the 6th. Among the many reasons we could find to justify this firing-in-disguise are declining ratings, tense relations between Beck and Fox president Roger Ailes, increasing difficulties to find advertisers ready to present their products during that kind of show, an older audience, etc. But let’s face it, there are more obvious motivations to why he would have been fired. To start with, he decided to expose George Soros for what he was, i.e. a Jewish nazi collaborator in Hungary. And second and most importantly, his calls for the murdering of Democrats. Fox News, even as a right-wing media, can’t live with such a bad publicity. Beck certainly attracts good ratings, he is popular, o.k. But there are limits to everything. When he made those calls to the murdering of Democrats, combined with George Soros’s reaction to his public exposure as a nazi collaborator, that was it. It was too much.
In the end, Beck is lucky to have had the opportunity to work in the United States. In Canada, after publicly saying that people should fire in the head members of a certain political party, a tv host would have been sent packing right away. Nobody would have been able to keep his job here. But in the United States, where fascism is much more advanced than in Canada, in principle at least, somebody can be a complete asshole and show absolutely no form of respect to anyone and get away with it. Well, Beck got away with it but only for a while. From now on, he will make other things, hopefully far away from progressives and liberals. As well, I am proposing the video where he announces that he will leave the network. What is most curious is that when you listen to him, you almost believe him. So either he is sincere in his crazyness or he is a goddamn good actor.