Credit to Fox News
Wednesday, December 21, 2016
Obama Has Provoked WW III Three SeparateTimes Since the Election
Can you name just on thing that Obama has done to help the middle class or American businesses?
For the past 12 hours, Trump supporters are breathing a collective sigh of relief that President-elect Trump was abe to withstand the latest attack upon his ability to obtain the Presidency. Between the long arm of the George Soros bribery machine and the Communist-type pressure techniques of the DNC, the Electors were able to withstand thee pressures and do the right thing by electing Donald Trump.
The roadblocks to a Trump Presidency have so dominated our thinking and attention as well as the “fake news” threat to our First Amendment, little else has received coverage. It is now time that we collectively open our eyes, because America, without realizing it, has been thrust into the same situation that started World War I.
The Archduke Moment
In the single event that is most widely acknowledged to have led to the outbreak of World War I, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, was shot to death along with his wife by a Serbian nationalist in Sarajevo, Bosnia, in 1914.
Because of rival alliances, the world was eventually pulled into World War I, a way in which millions would die. In addition to the assassination of the Archduke, an arms race was also brewing at the time and this pulled in nations that had nothing to do with the assassination. Turkey is a member of NATO, the same could be said. Can there be any doubt that history is repeating itself?
Obama Is Determined to Start WWI-Provocation #1: Unproven Allegations of Election Tampering Against Russia
Ever since Trump won the general election, I have been saying that since Clinton would not be around to start World War III with Russia, it would fall to Obama to carry out this task in the short “lame-duck” window. True to this plan, Obama and his NWO allies in Congress have been spouting the false narrative that the Russians propelled Trump to victory over Clinton. These claims are being made without so much as one ounce of proof. The ridiculousness of this allegation has even made its way to the Independent Media where myself and 200 of my colleagues have been accused by the Washington Post as being agents working on behalf of Russia and Putin. In the instance of The Common Sense Show, nobody has been more voiciferous in my attacks upon Putin and the unwarranted presence of Russian soliers on American soil. However, blaming the Russians for stealing the election is only the beginning of the set of events designed to end with war in Russia.
Provocation #2: Obama Provoking War with Russia By Sending Combat Troops to the Russian Border
Obama is certainly making good on this promise. Last week, more than one of my deep cover sources, as well as Paul Martin and one of his sources stated that Obama was trying to provoke Russia into starting World War III. For example, I reported that Obama had sent 4,000 combat troops from Ft. Carson to an area near the Russian border. This even alone, could be sufficient provocation to start World War III.
Provocation #3
The Russian ambassador to Turkey has been shot dead by a police officer who shouted “Don’t forget Aleppo” as he pulled the trigger.
The stunning attack appeared to be a backlash against Russian military involvement in the Syrian civil war. Andrei Karlov was attacked at the opening of an art exhibition in Ankara by a man believed to be an off-duty Turkish police officer. Karlov was several minutes into a speech when he was shot. Footage of the attack showed a man dressed in a suit and then pulled out a gun, shouted “Allahu Akbar” and fired eight shots.
This shocking video shows a gunman holding a revolver in the air as the assassin was yelling “Allahu Akbar” after the shooting.
The MSM is describing this act as simple revenge for Syria. Nothing could be further from the truth. This was a political assassination, but not the political assassination being sold by the fake news artists of the main stream media. My sources describe this event as a CIA hit job designed to start war with Russia.
Conclusion
From where I sit, these provocations are as clear as the nose on your face. First, the border of Russia is threatened by the shipment of 4,000 troops and 1,600 tanks as well as support personnel. Can you imagine if Putin did the same in reverse by openly sending Russian troops to Cuba or even Mexico? The warhawks would be out in force and would be demanding retailitory action. And if our Ambassaor was killed by an ally of our enemy, the country would be demanding revenge and World War III. And throw in the allegation of election tampering, and it is clear that Obama is doing his best to deliver World War III to his globalist puppet masters. I look for more provocations.
Credit to Common Sense
The CIA, Washington Post, And Russia: What You're Not Being Told
According to an unsubstantiated article by the Washington Post, anonymous CIA officials have confirmed that the Russian government hacked the United States election to favor Donald Trump. Though it’s entirely possible the Russian government attempted to influence the election, the Post has been widely criticized — for the second time in a month — for its failure to follow basic journalistic practices. Nevertheless, the narrative is sticking.
But the outlet’s behind-the-scenes relationship with the CIA is nothing new. In 2013, a conflict of interest arose shortly after Jeff Bezos, founder and CEO of Amazon, purchased the newspaper. As the Nation reported at the time:
“[Jeff Bezos] recently secured a $600 million contract from the CIA. That’s at least twice what Bezos paid for the Post this year. Bezos recently disclosed that the company’s Web-services business is building a ‘private cloud’ for the CIA to use for its data needs.”
As this occurred, a petition calling on the Washington Post to disclose its new ties to the CIA when reporting on the agency garnered 30,000 signatures. According to the RootsforAction petition:
“The Post often does reporting on CIA activities. The coverage should include full disclosure that the owner of the Washington Post is also the main owner of Amazon — and Amazon is now gaining huge profits directly from the CIA.”
Robert McChesney of the Institute for Public Accuracy pointed out the glaring conflict of interest:
“If some official enemy of the United States had a comparable situation—say the owner of the dominant newspaper in Caracas was getting $600 million in secretive contracts from the Maduro government—the Post itself would lead the howling chorus impaling that newspaper and that government for making a mockery of a free press. It is time for the Post to take a dose of its own medicine.”
In its most recent article on the CIA’s claims of a Russian hack, the Post made no mention of its ties to the CIA. But while this connection calls into serious question the validity of a newspaper that claims to be a purveyor of “great journalism,” the connections are not enough to prove nefarious collaboration.
Unfortunately, however, history reveals actual collusion between the CIA and news outlets,including the Washington Post.
In 1977, Carl Bernstein, a former Post journalist, wrote about the CIA’s efforts to infiltrate the news media, often with the assistance of top management at the papers. In total, Bernstein reported, over 400 journalists were involved:
“Journalists provided a full range of clandestine services—from simple intelligence gathering to serving as go?betweens with spies in Communist countries. Reporters shared their notebooks with the CIA. Editors shared their staffs. Some of the journalists were Pulitzer Prize winners, distinguished reporters who considered themselves ambassadors without?portfolio for their country…In many instances, CIA documents show, journalists were engaged to perform tasks for the CIA with the consent of the managements of America’s leading news organizations.”
Though Bernstein failed to name the Post as an offender in his article, according to Tim Weiner, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, the CIA worked directly with the Washington Post, among many other outlets. In his comprehensive history of the CIA, Legacy of Ashes, Weiner wrote of the CIA’s first official chief, Allen Dulles:
“Dulles kept in close touch with the men who ran the New York Times, The Washington Post, and the nation’s leading weekly magazines. He could pick up the phone and edit a breaking story, make sure an irritating foreign correspondent was yanked from the field, or hire the services of men such as Time’s Berlin bureau chief and Newsweek’s man in Tokyo.”
He continued:
“It was second nature for Dulles to plant stories in the press. American newsrooms were dominated by veterans of the government’s wartime propaganda branch, the Office of War Information.”
Dulles’ tenure lasted throughout the 1950s, and in 1954, for example, papers like the Washington Post and the New York Times promoted the narrative that Guatemala’s democratically-elected leader had ties to the Soviet Union and needed to be dealt with accordingly. The American news media helped create public support for a coup covertly backed by the CIA (interestingly, the Times also recently came out with an anonymously-sourced article claiming the CIA has determined Russia hacked the election). At the time, Frank Wisner, chair of the CIA’s Directorate of Plans — and whom Bernstein named as a key operator in the CIA’s relationship with news outlets — directly praised the Post’s piece.
Given this historical relationship, it’s no surprise that the Post and CIA have worked together in more recent decades.
In the 1990s, then-CIA Director Bill Casey appointed a man named Max Hugel as chief of the clandestine service, a small department within the CIA. But some agents disagreed with the appointment. Weiner explained:
“They dug up dirt on him, fed it to the Washington Post, and forced him out in less than two months.”
Whether or not the Post knew it was being used as a tool of intrigue by agents within the CIA is of little consequence. At best, they acted as “useful idiots” for schemers within the agency; at best, they knowingly aided the internal machinations of a spy agency.
The Post again served as a platform for warring factions within the CIA during the Bush years, when agents rebelled against Porter Goss, the director who replaced George Tenet after he resigned. Goss had vowed to repair the agency’s broken reputation but angered other agents with his seemingly radical approach. According to Weiner, agents took to the Los Angeles Times to criticize Goss (the Los Angeles Times recently faced backlash after one of its journalists was caught sharing stories with CIA agents before publication). The agents also took to the Washington Post to smear Goss:
“John McLaughin, who had held the agency together as acting director after Tenet’s resignation, delivered another riposte. The CIA was not ‘a dysfunctional and rogue agency,’ he wrote in the Washington Post. ‘The CIA was not institutionally plotting against the president.’”Weiner notes that “in all the years that the agency had been battered in the press, never had the director been attacked in print, on the record, by the most senior veterans of American intelligence.”
The CIA also used its power in the media to silence a story published in the 1990s regarding the agency’s potential involvement in drug trafficking and the emergence of crack cocaine in black communities. Journalist Gary Webb had written an explosive investigative piece linking the agency to Contra fighters and the domestic drug market. Though the piece had shortcomingsand reported on some already known information, as Peter Kornbluh of the Columbia Journalism Review noted, it was able to “revisit a significant story that had been inexplicably abandoned by the mainstream press, report a new dimension to it, and thus put it back on the national agenda where it belong[ed].”
Six weeks after the story broke, the CIA’s PR machine struck back. The Intercept notes the “CIA watched these developments closely, collaborating where it could with outlets who wanted to challenge Webb’s reporting.”
The Intercept summarized the account of Nicholas Dujmovic, who was a staffer at the CIA Directorate of Intelligence at the time:
“The agency supplied the press, ‘as well as former Agency officials, who were themselves representing the Agency in interviews with the media,’ with ‘these more balanced stories,’ Dujmovic wrote. The Washington Post proved particularly useful. ‘Because of the Post‘s national reputation, its articles especially were picked up by other papers, helping to create what the Associated Press called a “firestorm of reaction” against the San Jose Mercury News.’ Over the month that followed, critical media coverage of the series (‘balanced reporting’) far outnumbered supportive stories, a trend the CIA credited to the Post, The New York Times, ‘and especially the Los Angeles Times.’”
Given the CIA’s history of using media to accomplish both internal and external political goals, it’s possible — though admittedly wholly unconfirmed — this Post piece on Russia serves as yet another example of the clandestine agency using the paper as a tool to achieve its own ends.
Regardless, the Post continues to treat anonymous statements from the agency as fact, leading the way as countless other mainstream outlets parrot their narrative. Though it’s possible Russia did attempt to intervene in the U.S. election, there is little reason to trust information from an outlet with a history of collaborating with the agency spreading these claims.
Should any actual evidence of Russian hacking be produced, however, it’s likely the Postwill be among the first to let us know.
Credit to Zero Hedge
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)