Re-Blog: Surviving A Nuclear War


(Originally posted 8/29/2017 on Read With The Gringa)

With Trump and Kim Jong Un rattling their sabers, many minds are pondering what happens in the event of nuclear war. Although the gringa thinks both knuckleheads are simply posturing, trying to establish who is the big dog on the porch, their silly pissing contest also has me thinking. 


What kind of plans are in place? Will the US government try to save most of the American people or is it every man for himself? Please do tell, government by the people and for the people, is there a plan for these here people?


According to de-classified CIA documents that date back as early as the Carter administration, along with presidential archives, there is good news. Nuclear war survival plans do, indeed exist. The big questions is, “The survival of WHOM?”


Early plans were developed to survive a nuclear holocaust with the old Soviet Union. Although the general public believes a tense but effective truce is in place between the US and Russia based on what is commonly called the Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine, the gringa says, “Um, not so fast.”


The US government doesn’t really have any faith in such a doctrine. That’s why, since the 1950s, preparations have always been underway and updated for the the country to survive an all-out nuclear war. Where the government is concerned, the needs of the rabble are low on the priority list. Topping their list of problems to solve are:

  1. Can the presidency survive a nuclear war?
  2. If so, what would it do after a nuclear holocaust?
  3. How is the identification of the Commander-In-Chief verified and confirmed for the public?
  4. Who is responsible for official identification?
  5. How will a surviving president fulfill the 3 main duties of office: lead the government, perform as head of state, and command the armed forces?

Yeah, sorry folks, not a single word about the survival of the US populace. Although one can infer that surely there is still a plan to save us all. Otherwise, what point would there be to maintain a presidency? Who would there be to govern and rebuild the radiated ravaged nation?

To address the 5 predicaments of a post-apocalyptic presidency, President Carter came up with the bright idea of Presidential Directive 58. He issued this directive near the end of his term. Ronald Reagan added his own flourish to the directive in 1983. It is this amended version which would be in effect should Trump drag us into nuclear war with North Korea. 

Now, the gringa would like to inform the dear reader that key to survival is preparedness. Although we Americans would like to think that our government has our best interest at heart, the lack of drills, preparedness training, community evaluation and basic instruction and education on surviving a nuclear holocaust testifies to a different reality.

There are all sorts of crises that will erupt in the event of nuclear disaster. And as far as the gringa can tell, the public’s lack of any training and education makes it completely reliant on agencies like FEMA or the local National Guardsmen posted in our local communities.

While each federal agency is fortunate enough to have a fully-stocked, state-of-the-art underground facility to escape to, where do us regular folk go? The best advice I’ve heard so far is to tape up the windows and don’t use conditioner when you wash your hair. Really? Pretty sure the last thing the gringa will be interested in is using radiation contaminated tap water all over her body in the shower. But I digress.

The truth is, despite living in a country that touts the benefits of an armed populace to preserve freedom, that same well-armed populace has never been tapped by the government to create a credible and functional civil defense program. Do we then assume that the US government’s lack of attention to the welfare of civilians is a Darwinian approach? Do they just leave us to duck and cover, the survivors hunkering down, and at the end of this survival of the fittest exercise the new American emerges? The deserving American? The American who had true grit? That sounds about right.

If nuclear war happens, there is an expectation that martial law will be declared. Resources will be under government control and re-distributed as they see fit. Does that mean resources will be strategically deployed to areas the government considers to be the most likely to benefit? Will a capitalist attitude affect redistribution decisions? Will they consider return-on-investment more important than equitable distribution? Could some communities get nothing at all because, strategically speaking, they are just not worth depleting precious, limited resources?

These are the nasty little questions that will always be asked. That is exactly why politicians have no intention of bringing up such a nasty little subject. And that is just one more reason the nation does not pursue a goal of organizing a credible civil defense program involving actual civilians. When the government keeps secrets and makes secret plans, there is only one reason for doing so. The public will not like any of it.  

Government survival plans have relocation sites scattered across the nation at about 60 sites, mostly concentrated in southern and east coast states so as to be near DC. The dear reader can bet their bottom dollar that those are the areas that will receive the surest and largest portion of re-distributed resources. If you happen to live on the west coast you better have some really good walking shoes. Because, chances are, if you want to eat you will have to head east.

In the end, the US government doesn’t look at Americans as people when it comes to nuclear holocaust survival plans. They just look at us as numbers. And the magic number is that the government expects only about 80% of us to survive. Doesn’t sound too bad unless you happen to be among the unfortunate 20%.  And the stockpile of resources is not designated so much for the civilian population’s continued survival but more so that the government can rebuild its own stability and strength.

That also means that, in order to rebuild critical infrastructure like communications and transportation, survivors may also find themselves pressed into service and labor. The gringa’s advice is that if you value your freedom as an American, start organizing within your own community. 

Don’t count on the government to show up with the cavalry and pass out bottled water and diapers. Muster your real American spirit and make a plan to do it all on your own, along with the help of your neighbors. Otherwise you might have to become an indentured servant for clean water and a bunk. In other words, a post-apocalypse American slave. 

The video below has some nuclear war survival tips. If you want to skip the bluster and politics and get straight to the tips, start at the 3:25 mark.

Source: 

Image Credit: A Sheep No More

Video Credit: The Economist

Advertisements

Re-Blog: Mr. President, I Have Chosen My Side


(Originally posted 8/17/2017 on Read With The Gringa)

In response to the tragedy of an innocent American woman being murdered, live, on TV, by a neo-Nazi, our President’s response was first lukewarm, then robotic-ly obedient to a written statement crafted by others wiser than he, and then, finally, Trump’s true feelings. He declared that neo-Nazi’s are nice guys. He declared that such nice guys were only pushed to commit murder by the actions of an opposition that was doing exactly what they were doing, exercising their 1st Amendment rights. 


But, Mr. President, the existence or non-existence of a permit for a rally does not matter when it comes to culpability for murder. How do the baseball bats of the opposition compare to the guns brought by white supremacist terrorists? Surely you jest. I mean, come on, remember that old saying about bringing a knife to a gun fight?


Mr. President, there was only one side that committed murder. And, in light of information gleaned from neo-Nazi websites, murder by car was not the frantic response of a startled neo-Nazi driver. For some time these terrorists have been encouraging one another online to kill protesters en masse by vehicular homicide. Chat threads exist between white supremacist terrorists trying to figure out the best plan of action to kill the most people, yet escape apprehension. 


Mr. President, you are not just supporting terrorists who have killed a single American. You are supporting several organizations of white supremacy terrorists who are plotting mass murder on a wide scale, across the United States and aimed at exterminating their chosen victim classes: anyone of the opposition. Considering your most recent polling numbers, that seems to be about two-thirds of the American population. So it can then be argued that what you are supporting is a plan of genocide of the American people.


My analysis of the potential danger is not outrageous. The FBI has declared white supremacy ideology a serious domestic terror threat. Even more dangerous of a threat than ISIS. Sure, the FBI declares some radical left wing groups as terrorist as well. But it is only white supremacy terrorism that has killed more Americans than any other ideology. This based on the FBI’s decades of research, surveillance and data collection. And it has certainly killed millions across Europe (like more than 50 million). Yet you rejected the warnings from legislators and intelligence communities explaining this very serious terrorism threat from white supremacy terror cells.


Well, Mr. President, since you have declared that there are two sides to this problem, I have taken the initiative and chosen my “side”. I stand on the right side of history, rather than on the side of alt-right. I stand on the side of my grandfather’s legacy. What might that side be, Mr. President? Please allow me to clarify by first asking a few questions about the white supremacy terror legacy left to you by your father, a KKK klansman:


Who do white supremacist terrorists think they are taking their country back from? The descendants of American patriots willing to give the ultimate sacrifice as Nazi killers in World War II? Wasn’t the sacrifice of these patriots to save our nation from the un-American, anti-freedom ideology of white supremacy? Wasn’t the point of American patriot sacrifice to prevent this ideology from reaching our shores and EXTERMINATING Americans who were non-white, non-Christian, non-heterosexual, medically disabled and feminist?


Another little conundrum for you, Mr. President. You know your Russian friends? Yeah. It was with the help of Russian Communists that our patriotic American WWII veterans kicked the Nazis ass. Now isn’t that ironic. You now find yourself playing with two teams that were once enemies, and probably still are. And it seems that you have chosen the side of losers.


What was that thing you said about not respecting losers? Well, the racist base you are leaning on? Their ideology is the biggest loser of all. They lost WWII. They lost the Civil War. And they have lost you the rest of America. The majority. At least 60%.


Mr. President, there is nothing for your racist base to take back. This great country was never their’s to begin with. They tried once before in the mid 1800’s but America kicked the Confederacy’s ass then. And white supremacists got their asses kicked by the entire world less than a century later. And we can do it again now. You and your racist base cannot have the country my grandfather fought to protect. I plan to preserve his legacy of freedom for ALL. But go ahead and bring your fire. Try to take it from me if you think you can. 

Image Credit: 

YouTube

US Capitalism Is The Cause Of War & Terror


(Originally posted 7/13/2017 on Read With The Gringa)

How important is it to really know and understand history? There is the common sense approach to history that knowing it empowers one to avoid making the same mistakes of the past. But ignorance of history can be disastrous and deadly. It can result in an endless cycle of war, chaos and suffering. And, quite often, a society can know nothing at all about certain historical events until decades later. That is because many things that a government does is done in secret.

It is not until enough time passes that it is safe to de-classify information, when agents are no longer operating in the field on a particular mission, that the public can discover critical history. Just because a person reads a history book in grade school, high school or college, one must not lapse into a false sense of security that they have a firm grasp on history. Because most of the devastating events occurring in the present are the fallout of an unknown past. These past catalysts, shrouded in mystery, must be discovered if the right solutions are to be found.

For example, a top secret US strategy that took place nearly 50 years ago is vital to understanding what is going on today in the world. Without an in-depth look at the responsibility of the US in Operation Condor, a person devoted to freedom might continue to mindlessly support America’s position in “spreading democracy”. Understanding Operation Condor means recognizing that endless wars and terrorism can be laid right at the feet of the US government.

Although Operation Condor was the brain-child of the governments of Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia and Brazil, the US was also complicit and made the execution of operations possible. Without the technical and military support provided during the Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter and Reagan presidential administrations, the world would likely have not seen the mass terror it experienced then and is experiencing now. Perhaps thousands of Central and South Americans, and victims worldwide, might have survived rather than experienced horrific tortures and executions.

Facts gleaned from de-classified NSA documents concluded that a September 1976 car bombing in Washington DC was directly tied to Operation Condor. Follow the trail of events and come to understand the long-term implications:

–          -June 4, 1976, State Document 137156: In March 24, 1976 a military coup occurred in Argentina. Major leaders were exiled. Many of these exiles died by violent assassinations. This State Department document ordered “immediate action” in response to these events in order to stabilize neighboring nations.

–          -July 2, 1976, CIA Weekly Summary: Operation Condor reports 6 governments (Uruguay, Bolivia, Paraguay, Chile, Argentina, and Brazil) coordinated efforts to raid a Buenos Aires human rights office in order to steal records about refugees so the governments could squash dissent. Leftist leader Edgardo Enriquez was consequently arrested, turned over to Chile and executed.

–          -July 17, 1976: CIA obtains documents revealing Operation Condor plans to execute Pinochet’s political rival. The CIA intercepted a document from Chile’s Chief of Intelligence Col. Manuel Contreras to Paraguay intelligence requesting assistance for Chile’s agents. Paraguay was to supply the Chilean spy/assassins with false Paraguay passports. This mission was leaked to the US Ambassador who consequently reported it to the CIA.

NOTE: The “leak” to the US Ambassador was the first step in US subversion to create plausible deniability. The US Ambassador was simply a patsy for a US plan to create circumstances to “save face” politically. The CIA already knew the assassination plot when informed by the Ambassador. In fact, it was the CIA who created the “leak” yet disguised the CIA as the source of information.

If the US had wanted to prevent the assassination of Letelier, they could have done so, yet they did not. The only thing they desired was plausible deniability of their involvement and complicity in the mission.

Why would the US support the assassination of Letelier? Could it be that his political position as a strong leftist socialist is not the kind of political leader that benefits the interests of the US, like exploitation of natural resources? Such a leader would do what was best for the people he represented rather than the corporations of a foreign power.

On the other hand, a far right extremist, like Pinochet, is interested only in amassing more power and the wealth that such power can accumulate. For a country like the US, where corporate interests come first, Pinochet was a devil the nation was willing to deal with.

–         – July 20, 1976, Uruguay/US Embassy Communication: Uruguay’s Ambassador Ernest Siracusa defends the actions as sovereign nations taking military action against domestic terrorism. Siracusa points out that the US has long urged southern neighbors to take internal security more seriously so why condemn their actions when they do? He explains that if these nations do not provide for the safety of their populations, they will be alienated by the rest of the world.

–          -July 30, 1976, CIA Report: Operation Condor gains more power. Expanding past intelligence gathering, spies are now authorized to locate and assassinate guerilla leaders. Executions were planned in Paris and London. The CIA officially became an international political assassination organization through Operation Condor by providing intelligence and military training to Operation Condor operatives.

–          -August 3, 1976 Bureau of Inter-American Affairs (State Dept ARA): US ARA Assistant Secretary for Latin America, Harry Shlaudeman drafts a memo to Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. He summarizes that the 6 Latin American governments are engaging in, literally, World War 3 as a war on terrorism. They are using as their frontline assault force the CIA-trained assassins authorized by Operation Condor. And assassination plans are crafted based on CIA provided intelligence. Terrorist targets are defined as anyone who “opposes government policy”.

–          -August 18, 1976, State Document 209192: Secretary of State Henry Kissinger responds with instructions to US ambassadors of Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay to express to the respective foreign governments they work with that the US warns of serious moral and political problems if Operation Condor continues as an organization of political assassination cooperating with the CIA. In other words, the State Department of the US government appears to not have the power to reign in who the CIA trains as assassins and provides intelligence to. The US can only appeal to foreign nations not to cooperate with CIA-trained assassins.

NOTE: Who really runs the US? Who really has oversight and authority of the CIA?

–          -August 24, 1976 US Ambassador To Chile’s Response: Ambassador David Popper met with CIA station chief and deputy chief. The CIA chiefs advised Popper not to follow Kissinger’s instructions to request Argentine leader Pinochet to stop cooperating with Operation Condor’s organized assassinations because Pinochet might feel “insulted”. The CIA chiefs instead advise Popper to have the discussion with Argentina’s chief of DINA (Argentina’s equivalent of the CIA).

NOTE: Does the CIA have the authority to override the instructions of the Secretary of State, instructions given directly to a US Ambassador? Again, who runs the US? Who oversees and has authority over the CIA? Whose interest does the CIA actually represent?

–          -August 27, 1976 ARA/CIA Meeting Memo: It is decided not to ask Pinochet to disengage from Operation Condor assassination plans. Other alternatives for dealing with Pinochet are discussed.

NOTE: Without authorization from his boss, Secretary of State Kissinger, the US Ambassador complies with the CIA’s direction.

–          -September 20, 1976 State Dept ARA Orders: US Ambassadors are instructed to take no action regarding Operation Condor and that US opposition to assassination plans under Operation Condor have become a matter of official record.

NOTE: The State Department now follows a policy aligning with CIA recommendations: inaction which allows Operation Condor to continue unleashed, yet creating an “official” public record of opposition to the operation which contradicts US practical position of being supportive and complicit. In other words, the US could say to Americans and the world, “We are the good guys.” while at the same time enabling and empowering terrorism. And this type of policy was established by the CIA, not the democratically elected presidential administration.

–          -September 21, 1976 US State Dept documents 6177 & 6276: US Ambassador to Argentina, Robert Hill, summarizes his meeting with Argentine military ruler General Videla: Hill does not mention US opposition to Operation Condor’s organized assassination plans. The pair discuss human rights. Hill criticizes the murder of a priest and mass killing of residents of a small town. Reminds Videla that the US views these actions as violations of human rights. Videla’s response was to point the finger at US support of such actions seen in Kissinger’s perspective that they were a form of getting “terrorism under control as quickly as possible”.

NOTE: Basically, Kissinger is engaging in double-speak. Officially, the US condemns assassinations and government’s murdering civilians en masse. Unofficially, the US encourages any measure taken by a government to control its population and stabilize the nation. In other words, no one can ever believe a word out of an American official’s mouth when they try to portray the US as the “good guys”.

–          -September 21, 1976: Orlando Letelier, political opponent of Augusto Pinochet, is assassinated with a car bomb while living in exile in the US, the assassination directly ordered by Pinochet.

The dear reader can follow the source links to further study the many de-classified documents. It is important to note that no politician is going to reveal motives in a document. Often, such documents contain double-speak as a means to have an official source that can be pointed to for plausible deniability and absolve guilt. But when a person reads critically and applies sound logic to how certain actions or words lead to specific results, it becomes clear that there are no accidents, ever, in government policy or diplomacy. Every word or action is carefully chosen and crafted in order to bring about a specific result.

And the take away from Operation Condor is that the US had a vital interest in having Pinochet, a murderous tyrant, at the helm of Chile’s government. And copper was at the heart of US interests in Chile during this era. Up until the mid-1960s, US business owned the greater part of the Chilean copper industry. And it was incredibly lucrative for American owned Anaconda Mining and Gran Mineria.

Once Chile’s political left gained power in the mid 1960s, the US quickly became disenchanted with Chile’s socialist president, Salvador Allende, and his right hand man, Letelier. The particular reason for this disenchantment was because Letelier was highly influential in Allende’s policy to nationalize Chile’s copper mines. The US justified overt and covert action to overthrow Allende with President Kennedy’s 1961 policy, “The Alliance for Progress”.

JFK’s policy had nothing to do with supporting the values of democracy as a part of “progress”. Rather, it was a policy to preserve capitalism by authorizing action to prevent the spread of socialism throughout the hemisphere. Basically, it was a political position of arrogance and aggression toward any continental neighbor whose population democratically elected a representative government committed to a socialist model that put the interests of the population above corporate wealth interests, hence exploitive US investors.

This policy is nothing more than a means for the US to continue to wage war as an open aggressor and covert de-stabilizer in the name of capitalism, not freedom. And it has led to the US being an originator and sponsor of terrorism for decades. If the world would really like to see terrorism end, then it will have to commit itself to first putting an end to capitalism.

Without the massive wealth corporate sponsors accumulate to power their war engines, US terror and war can no longer be staged. Without the consequential practical enslavement of masses of people exploited in the process of creating this wealth, corporate warfare can no longer victimize weakened and powerless populations. When a population is truly free, they can resist corporate warmongers and bring their terror to a grinding halt.
US strategy is to condition Americans to believe that they live in a nation whose primary interest is democracy. Free and open elections occur regularly to “prove” this point. First amendment protection is vigorously upheld to “prove” this point. Americans become conditioned to believe that their nation is noble and good and true. But a nation that truly believes in democracy would pursue this ideology everywhere else in the world. The US doesn’t.
Gross luxury and indulgence is marketed in the US as the key to happiness. Americans are conditioned to believe that the ability to afford luxury is what defines a person as success. Americans are conditioned, like good capitalists, to see the homeless person as a person who deserves their misery. American capitalists are conditioned to believe that socialists or communists are thieves who destroy creativity and work ethos. This conditioning creates an arrogant capitalist population incapable of true self-examination which requires overcoming the challenge of accepting inconvenient and painful truths. It creates a cold-hearted population who ignores the hypocrisy of calling itself a “Christian” nation while at them same time mocking and rejecting the Christian value of being its down-and-out brother’s keeper.
In America, the illusion of democracy and Christian values are only tools used by the US government to delude the American people. These political devices are wielded so expertly that most citizens are no match for the well-honed propaganda machine the US government works 24/7. It is a lie that America is the defender of democracy and Christian values.
You see, while the US government goes about building up American egos as the citizens of a capitalist democracy that is better and more honorable than any other country in the world, that same government is covertly, aggressively and violently pursuing, all around the world, its capitalist interests, eagerly partnering with brutal dictators and government leaders who are corrupt, willing to sell out their people and natural resources for a handful of gold.
And should a nation turn socialist or communist as a political maneuver to protect national resources and provide a better life for its people, shielding them from foreign exploitation, the US disregards every principal of democracy in order to purposely de-stabilize these nations.
They are then maneuvered into a civil war, so that the US can become the “good guys” who swoop in and set everything “right” again.
Americans, please stop falling for this crap. Want to end war? End capitalism in the US. End this government by the corporations, for the corporations. Do the entire world a favor. Wake up. Resist. Revolt.

Sources: NSA Archive

State Government History & Milestones

Villanova Law

Yale

Image Credit: IMG Arcade

Video Credit: CGTN America

Are You A Passive Terrorist?


As the US has continued a long, pro-tracted war on terror that focuses on the religious element of a perceived terrorist enemy, what about the religious position of the US? Does the election of Trump signal the possibility that religious extremists have taken over the Republican party? Are Americans now living in a nation poised to become, in essence, a theocracy? With executive orders shooting out of the White House in quick succession, most citizens know little about what they actually mean. We read the headlines, perhaps even the wording of the orders. But what about the motives inspiring them? Even more importantly, what are the long-term consequences? In other words, what is the hoped for end-game the Republican party desires for the country they are re-shaping?

The gringa finds it pointless to try to ascertain motives. The private discussions and hidden agendas are just that, private and hidden. But there are clues that have been laid out right in the open long before Republicans began fuming openly about Obama’s presidency. And many of these clues point to a Republican party effectively taken over by religious extremists.

As early as 2005 there was at least one Republican concerned about the direction the party was headed:

“This Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy.” – U.S. Rep. Christopher Shays, R-CT, 3/25/05, with regard to the Terri Shiavo case.

To discover how this happened, interested dear readers must look to activities within American churches prior to 2005.

“… true Christian citizenship… [involves engagement in society to] take dominion over all things as vice-regents of God.” Rev. D. James Kennedy, Sept. 1994 when addressing the national convention of political special interest group Christian Coalition.

What does dominion ideology mean to American Christians? The first command God gave to Adam was to have children (Gen. 1:26). The second command was to subdue the entire earth. For dominionist Americans, the Republican party platform that is anti-abortion is in perfect alignment with the first commandment.
Despite the instruction of Jesus to turn the other cheek and, in essence, co-exist peacefully with all of mankind who are our brothers, dominionist Americans believe in military aggression in order to rule the world as an obligation of their religious calling and duty. Dominion theology is no less dangerous than the perversion of Islam used by ISIS.

“There will never be world peace until God’s house and God’s people are given their rightful place of leadership at the top of the world.” Pat Robertson, The Secret Kingdom.

Here’s a taste of Pat Robertson’s ideology that the Christian God is the only way to make America great. Do not miss all the phrases which make it clear that he believes that America was originally designed to be a theocracy, not a democracy. He is the star of a recruitment video for the Christian Coalition:

But how influential are special interest groups like the Christian Coalition and well-known religious leaders like Pat Robertson? After all, most people are inclined to believe that churches are playing by the rules, not preaching politics from the pulpits. When Time magazine interviewed Pat Robertson in 1995 regarding the most recent elections, here is what he reported about the effectiveness of the strategy implemented by the Christian Coalition:

“… eager volunteers down to the precinct level… handing out 33 million voter guides, often in church pews, prior to last November’s election, the Coalition is credited with providing the winning margin for perhaps half the Republicans’ 52 seat gain in the House of Representatives and a sizable portion of their nine seat pickup in the Senate”

Consider the terms of George W. Bush. Religious leaders made no secret of their support of the Bush-Cheney administration.

“It is the responsibility of… every evangelical Christian… to get serious about re-electing President Bush.” Jerry Falwell as reported by The New York Times, July 16, 2004

And Bush made no secret that he was God’s vessel in the White House. There was no separation of church and state as he led daily devotionals every morning, reading from “My Utmost for His Highest” with his staff. George W. made no secret of using descriptors like “messenger of God” with regard to himself. As he made executive decisions like going to war, he was never too shy to claim that he was doing “the Lord’s will”.

In the book, “Plan of Attack”, written by Bob Woodward, based on his personal conversations with President George W about the Iraq war, he clearly lays out the case for perceiving the war as a holy war waged by the US on behalf of George W’s god. Fulfilling his god’s will was all the justification George W. needed to lie to Congress, the American public and even certain members appointed to his cabinet. In George W’s mind he was embarking on a modern day Christian crusade.

Despite George W’s criticisms of the Afghani Taliban regime’s brutal enforcement of radical religious fundamentalism, George W was actually paving the way back home for Republicans to re-shape the US into its own Christian Fundamentalist regime. And now we are seeing the fruits of his labor in the attacks on freedoms here at home and threats to non-Evangelical nations abroad by the Trump administration.

Who are the radical Christian fundamentalists in the Trump administration?

  • ·     Jerry Falwell, Jr. is leading Trump’s higher education task force assigned to overhaul the accreditation process and operations of universities and colleges. What this means is that whether or not an institution of higher learning receives any government funding will rely on teaching what suits the US government. If that government is a theocracy, that means teaching religious ideology and rejecting anything, even sound science, if it conflicts with the religious ideology of the government.
  • ·     Steve Bannon is most often depicted as a racist white nationalist. However, don’t overlook the significance of his religious fervor. In 2014 he delivered a speech via Skype for a Catholic conference at the Vatican. He attributed the economic and social crisis of the US as a result of the erosion of Judeo-Christian beliefs rather than the effects of capitalism. In other words, only re-shaping the nation into earlier models of a stricter religious-focused American society can the country become great again.
  • ·     Betsy DeVos, Secretary of Education, poses the greatest danger because she is in a position to affect the belief system of our upcoming generations. She wants to remove the teaching of evolution in public schools and replace it with the religious doctrine of intelligent design. By re-directing money away from our public school systems through the voucher system she supports, DeVos can accomplish her goal of government funding of religious education and destroying public education that, by law, cannot show preference to any specific religion.

But why does any of this matter? The primary reason all of this matters is that radical fundamental evangelicalism culminates in Zionism. The ultimate goal of Zionism is world domination as the duty of Jews and Christians to subdue the world and rule for the sake of their god’s glory. When this is achieved, their god will return and manifest in the flesh, restoring world peace and order while doing away with suffering and death.
The only way fundamentalist Christians and Zionists can achieve this goal is with enormous wealth that is the means to military dominance. This wealth, for the US, is generated through the invasion of non-Evangelical countries who are subjugated and exploited without conscience because they are not god’s people.

This ideology thus makes the US no different than ISIS in its motives for waging war. The primary difference is that the US makes a concentrated effort to keep up appearances at home. In order to have a free hand around the world the US must maintain a homeland population that is easily managed.

Within the Republican party are the war hawks who are religiously motivated as well as the war hawks who are motivated solely for the purpose of amassing more wealth, the investors in corporate interests abroad. So long as the Republican party continues to be in power, the US will continue to be at war, and shamefully so. For we are not protecting, preserving and spreading democracy. We are exploiting others while we destroy their native lands for national gain.
When Americans become fully aware that the humane social norms, luxuries, freedoms and comforts of American culture are by design, to keep them compliant, they must then accept that their silence and inaction also makes them complicit in their nation’s ability to perpetrate religious inspired terrorism around the world. By refusing to be a part of the resistance, an American allows the US to continue business as usual without so much as a hiccup. Americans who prefer to keep their eyes closed become, in essence, a passive terrorist.

Sources:

NY Times

Occupy Democrats

Theocracy Watch

Christian Headlines

Image Credit: The Gospel Coalition

Video Credits: PFAWdotorg

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbiFt3UdxX7LxferwDmuegQ

Where Are All These Terrorists Coming From?


 

As the gringa has posted about US involvement with covert operations and regime change around the world to protect US corporate profit interests, rather than actual security threats, most of the operations took place back in the 1970s. Is there any evidence of more recent operations? Is this still standard operating procedure for the US?


Well, first we have to consider that any real evidence would be classified information. Such a status only changes when public knowledge of the information poses no security threat to individuals or nations involved. That’s why the US public usually doesn’t find out the dirt until several decades later.


The most recent activity of US interference gone bad resulted in the creation of the Mujahideen which eventually morphed into the ISIS of today. The creation of this rebel group by US programs thus makes the US directly responsible for the radical Islamist terror problem in the world today. You see, Osama bin Laden was originally a US trained Mujahideen operative.

And bin Laden, like so many other tools crafted into existence by US dark ops, was done away with once he went rogue, acting in his own interests and the interests of his compatriots rather than in the interest of the US. And once bin Laden became powerful enough to have credibility, he also became a liability to expose the dark legacy of the US. So, bin Laden was destined to die at the hands of the US sooner or later. Once a tool serves its purpose, it is expendable. That’s pretty much the pattern time and time again with the actors the US uses to fulfill its dark operations.


To understand the emergence of bin Laden, once again, we have to go back to the 1950s. Despite the US reputation for being a nation founded on democracy and committed to spreading and preserving democracy to nations around the world, the opposite is actually true. 


The “love of democracy” spiel is propaganda. The actions of the US prove this to be true. Historically the US has consistently supported monarchies rather than democracies, where other countries are concerned. It is easier for the US to exploit the natural resources and engage in slave labor practices of the indigenous populations if these people do not have the right to voice their grievances and bring about change. Monarchies good for US investors, democracies bad.


In the 1960s the US coveted even more wealth. This meant they expanded the territorial reach of corporate investment into unpopular dictatorships. What’s a bit of bloody oppression compared to a few kazillion dollars, right? Besides, if they wanted to prevent Russia from gaining ground by making friends around the world, making it impossible for capitalist investor exploitation, the US was going to have to compromise its principles of liberty and freedom and make friends with despots.


By the time the 1970s rolled around, the US had become so ethically compromised for the sake of corporate interests that it decided adding terrorists to their friends’ list really didn’t make that much difference. The rationale was that, in order to get the biggest bad guy, the US often had to cooperate with lesser bad guys. Sounds reasonable, right? Um, yeah.


And the first terrorist group the CIA got in bed with was the Mujahideen in 1979. The reason why? Because they were resisting the Afghan government that was getting into bed with Moscow. Throughout the 1980s Gulbuddin Hekmatyar of the group Hezb-e-Islami was the CIA’s inside man.


Hezb-e-Islami means “Party of Islam”. So, basically Hekmatyar represented a religiously affiliated political organization. Throughout the 1970s it was involved in many conflicts. The group’s position in these conflicts reflected a virulent hatred and opposition to Western ideas. Hekmatyar authorized attacks against Coalition forces who were supporting the Afghan government, which he sought to overthrow. 


You want to know what the Hezb-e-Islami jihadists did with some of the money the US supplied them with? It didn’t all go for weapons and survival supplies. Much of it was spent on sophisticated propaganda to attract young, vulnerable Muslim men in the region to join their noble struggle by glamorizing regional religious war.

Yeah, thanks America for helping the jihadist recruiters of the 70s prepare the groundwork of the ISIS recruiters of today.


After Afghan President Mohammad Najibullah was removed from power in 1992, the nation erupted into civil war as different factions, including the Party of Islam, wrestled for control. Eventually the Party of Islam gained power with Hekmatyar becoming Prime Minister in 1993.  But his power was brief. By 1994 he was out of office, although he did return for a brief stint in 1996. One of his first acts of office was to order the public hanging of his rival, Mohammad Najibullah in the capital city of Kabul in 1996. The gringa wonders if Najibullah’s status as a communist is why the US didn’t decry his lynching as a brutal crime and human rights violation?


1996 was the year that the Taliban gained power in Afghanistan. Hekmatyar fled to the safety of Iran. The Taliban’s reign was also short-lived, falling in 2001 to Coalition forces. Afghanistan would now be led by US puppet Hamid Karzai. This was when Hekmatyar fled to self-imposed exile in Pakistan.


But even exile in Pakistan couldn’t stop this determined jihadist. When Coalition forces showed up in 2001 to challenge Taliban rule, Hekmatyar’s organization found resources and support among the people of Pakistan’s tribal areas. His persistence to resist the contaminating influence of Westernization that US led forces would bring to Afghanistan would inspire him to support the Taliban that had previously engaged in a power struggle with his own organization. This would pay-off, eventually bringing him back to favor. Last year he returned to the country of his birth.

But where’s the link in all of this to Osama bin Laden? How is the US responsible for the creation of this infamous terrorist through a connection with CIA sponsored terrorist warlord Hekmatyar? After all, bin Laden was a Saudi, not an Afghani? 


It was the strict religious ideology of Hekmatyar that made his leadership appealing to young bin Laden. Having the extensive training and weapons resources provided by the US was just the icing on the cake. Under Hekmatyar’s leadership, bin Laden got placed on the US terrorist payroll.


In 1979, bin Laden joined the Afghan resistance when Russia invaded the country. Guess what bin Laden left behind to become a freedom fighter for the Afghani people: the legacy of being the 7th child to a Saudi construction billionaire who was highly influential after projects like renovations on the holiest of Muslim sites, Al-Aqsa Mosque.


But bin Laden was actually raised by his mother and step-father. However, his upbringing was no less comfortable while living separate from his billionaire biological father. He attended the most prestigious schools and became recognized as an exceptional student. He would eventually be invited to study at prominent institutions of higher learning. While studying as a young adult, bin Laden memorized the entire Q’ran.


A few years before entering college, bin Laden joined a small group of pupils tutored by a teacher from the Islamist sect, “The Brotherhood”. The ideology was of pure Islam loyalty, even if it meant death for a loyal observer. After two years under this tutor’s instruction, bin Laden was a full-fledged activist. He finished his college education in 1981. 


Rather than use his public administration degree, he chose to become a freedom fighter in Afghanistan as a duty of his religious beliefs. When he arrived in Peshawar, Afghanistan, he joined a program led and funded by the US, the CIA’s Operation Cyclone, which was training other jihadist Mujahideens of Hezb-e-Islami, the group led by the CIA’s inside man, Hekmatyar. 

And thus the circle is complete. The very Muslim leader the US assigned blame to for 9/11 was actually a terrorist trained, bought and paid for by the United States. Is it any wonder, then, that bin Laden could not be allowed to live? It’s even likely that bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11. When one becomes acquainted with the M.O. of the US government to craft frame-up jobs to demonize someone they need to get rid of, it becomes within the realm of possibility to consider 9/11 as an inside job with bin Laden as the patsy. 


Is it too hard for the average American patriot to swallow that their government could murder thousands of its own citizens just to cover their ass? Well, the US government sure doesn’t mind murdering people abroad. Why should its own citizens be any exception? All that is necessary is an effective cover story to keep up the nation’s “good guy” appearance so that every American follows the story hook, line and sinker. Not only will a good, little American then pose zero risk for rabble-rousing, but they will also wholeheartedly support the murder of an innocent they have been conditioned to perceive as an evildoer. After all, what might happen should the American public realize that in order to truly end the war on terror, their own government would need to be overthrown and replaced?


Sources: Biography


Tracking Terrorism


National Counterterrorism Center


All That Is Interesting


Academia


Image Credit: University Hartford


Video Credit: DD News


Hezb Islami


Ali Sedarat


Audiopedia



Chile’s 9/11 Of US Sponsored Terror


If the gringa has sufficiently whetted the dear readers’ appetites on the sinister and very real nature of US sponsored dark operations and terrorism, you are in for another treat. Although every American knows the significance of 9/11, some Americans even believing this to be a US crafted dark op act of terror, this belief may be further strengthened when it is realized that the US crafted a 9/11 for Chile. But why did Chile matter so much to the US?


Chile’s 1970 democratic election offered the populace 5 presidential candidates. Chileans chose as their new leader Salvador Allende. Allende’s politics were considered center-left. As what was then known as a “developmentalist”, Allende’s favor rode the swelling tides of a populist platform. He promised to re-empower the people at the cost of dis-empowerment of foreign investors. Sound familiar? This is what is known as “going rogue” in US policy.


As a developmentalist, Allende promised to foster the growth and development of national companies. To keep foreign competition at bay, high tariffs would be imposed on imports. Sounds a lot like Trump, huh? Yeah, the US doesn’t mind a strong nationalized economy at home, where American companies benefit. But the US is not too fond of nationalized economies abroad where US corporations want a bigger slice of the capitalist pie. 


When a foreign nation with a consumer population the US desires to exploit begins these populist programs of nationalizing their economies, the US typically starts clanging the alarm bells of, wait for it….. COMMUNISM. And the US has invested great effort in conditioning Americans to have their hearts contract with disgust at the mention of that word. A good, little, patriotic American should have a reflexive response toward Communism as if one just happened upon a cockroach. You eradicate it. And if you peruse the CIA’s website about their activities in Chile during this period, you will see the word Communism as synonymous with Marxist, an equally detestable word to well-conditioned US “patriots”.

Especially during the 70s, at the very thick of the Cold War with Russia, did these particular words have even greater effect on the American people. Once Secretary of State Henry Kissinger saw what was going to happen under an Allende administration, he immediately began the Communism smear campaign. He gave this public statement:

“I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves.”

In other words, Kissinger advocated for interference in the democratic process of a sovereign country simply because it was going to make a dent in American corporate profit interests vested there. But he would convince Americans action was needed to preserve and protect democracy because Chileans were too stupid to recognize “nationalism” as “Communism” in disguise. Because, after all, every good American knows that life under capitalism is ALWAYS better than the lifestyle any communist society offers, right?


Kissinger by-passed the CIA, crafting his own clever plot to do away with an administration elected by the people on a promise to be for the people of Chile. However, Kissinger would eventually get around to using the CIA to help carry out his coup. 


The key Chilean talent Kissinger tapped to be his inside man was Chile’s top military commander, General Rene Schneider Chereau. Chereau was no fan of Allende. The gringa supposed it didn’t take much for a smooth-talker like Kissinger to get him on board. The CIA introduced Kissinger’s scheme to Chereau expecting to easily gain his confidence. They were surprised that, despite his open dislike for Allende, he flat-out refused their proposal. What a surprise for such an arrogant nation! Of course, had the US understood the concepts of loyalty and duty, they would have been able to predict the noble response of Chereau.


So, the CIA picked another Chilean military mark, General Camilo Valenzuela. He quickly jumped on the dark op bandwagon, implementing a gun smuggling operation. He was to select key conspirators who would participate in a very public assassination of Chereau (that’s what you get for refusing to cooperate with the US. Ya get dead). Because it was widely known by the public that Chereau and Allende were anything but friends, it would be easy to convince the public that Allende supporters were responsible for the heinous crime.


Chilean General Robert Viaux was the money man, receiving $50,000. As a US hit man for hire, he turned around and hired a small group of mercenaries, arming them with automatic rifles and gas grenades. October 22, 1970, Viaux’ hit squad approached Chereau’s car, smashed the back window with a sledgehammer, then delivered several gunshot wounds to his abdomen. It took him 3 days to die. 


The CIA crafted a good cover story for their involvement when details came to light. They claimed that the original plan was only for a kidnapping of Chereau. The CIA absolved itself of any responsibility for a kidnap crew that went rogue and assassinated the General. They claimed that their financial culpability was actually only $35,000 which had been paid for humanitarian reasons to particular members of the crew. Because, remember, the US is always the “good guy”.

And now we get to the heart of the matter, September 11, 1973. The US had one more Chilean General up their sleeve. General Augusto Pinochet was their ace in the hole. During the civil unrest and outrage, believing Allende was responsible for Chereau’s assassination, the Chilean people were ripe for a military coup. Which is exactly what Pinochet delivered, ousting the thorn in US corporate interest’s side after they had managed to convince the Chilean people that their political savior was really the “bad guy”. 


And what kind of man had the US gotten in bed with? It seems just the kind of guy they like to train at their terrorist school at Fort Benning. Under Pinochet’s leadership it is estimated as many as 50,000 Chilean citizens were killed from 1974-1990.


But for greedy American corporations willing to overlook all of this bloodshed for the sake of more profit, they were only going to be disappointed by Pinochet. He may have delivered the removal of Allende who would have raised their tariffs, but he ended up plunging the nation into its greatest economic crisis since ancient times. So, apparently capitalism ain’t so great after all, huh? This capitalism inspired regime change experiment was a big, fat failure.

And what happened to the CIA and Kissinger for their part in a chain of events that caused thousands upon thousands of Chileans to lose their lives to brutality and inflicted untold suffering upon the survivors? Well, Kissinger is a household name in America, synonymous with diplomacy and statesmanship. The CIA? Although Americans despise a snoop, they still revere the snoops in the CIA. That’s how amazingly effective US propaganda is. 


What’s the take away of this? The US does not really give a hoot about preserving democracy, only profits. They were willing to overthrew a democratic country for the sake of protecting US corporate interests. The only reason democracy is so seemingly well protected within the borders of the US is because it keeps the populace easier to manage. However, should US citizens ever pose a problem for the nation’s corporate interests, we can all expect democracy and liberty to take a back seat to corporate interests.


Sources: All That Is Interesting


Biography


Britannica


CIA


Image Credit: Next Year Country News


Video Credit: Miguel Ferreira




Where The US Trains Terrorists & Assassins


In a few of the gringa’s recent blog posts, I’ve suggested that things don’t always seem to be as they appear with regard to US foreign policy. I used the term “hegemony” to describe the true philosophy behind US actions of interference with other countries. So what other kinds of sinister programs is the US responsible for? The next few posts will explore some of the nation’s dark operation history. This time, we’ll explore “The Assassin’s University”.


As the CIA and US government was riding high on the success of Operation Ajax, they threw this energy into the development of a plan to streamline implementing the same type of program worldwide. The goal was to respond to complaints of American and European companies invested in foreign nations. Although the US government publicly sells regime change as “restoring democracy”, it is actually preserving corporate profits for American companies and the companies of US allies. The typical scene usually goes down something like this:

  • A US or European ally has a company invested in a foreign nation.
  • The foreign nation has a corrupt government that favors the foreign corporate interest over the interest of their own people.
  • Eventually this corruption leads to the government falling out of favor with the local populace.
  • As the client government begins to lose power and influence over its population, political rivals arise who have the voter base to win a democratic election.
  • Usually a political rival becomes popular with a dissatisfied populace by promising nationalization of assets to favor the interests of the natives rather than foreign investors. 
  • Foreign investors complain to the US and a dark operation swings into action to save profits through varying degrees of violent resistance and action.

This should all sound very familiar to the dear reader. Throughout history this pattern has repeated itself a number of times in various places:

  • 1954 – Guatemala
  • 1955 – Cambodia
  • 1958, 1959, 1960 – Series of Laos governments
  • 1960-1963 – Ecuador
  • 1960 – Congo
  • 1962-1964 – Brazil, Dominican Republic, Bolivia & Indonesia

How was the US government so successful, year after year? By creating what was called within the CIA by the codename “KUBARK“. KUBARK was more than the name of the operation. It was also the title of a how-to manual on how to use terrorism to bring about regime change. Within the book’s 128 pages readers learned how to most effectively torture prisoners for the extraction of information among other means to terrorize and brutalize a people into submission. Yeah, this didn’t all start with Abu Ghraib. The US has been torturing people through an organized strategy for more than half a century. 

It seems impossible for most Americans to believe that their nation not only sponsors terrorism, but actively engages in it and trains others how to do it. After all, look at how free and protected American citizens are when they protest and rabble rouse. But that, too, is all part of the plan. The truth is, this secret warfare is not really so secret. And according to the guidelines of how this secret warfare is waged, it is also uncontrolled and unaccountable to the American public. 

Regime change throughout Central and South America was performed with great fervor, especially after the US government funded the CIA to set-up the School of the Americas, the official name of the “School of Assassins”. The purpose of the academy was not to instruct southern neighbors of the US how to better preserve democracy and build a strong capitalist economy. The School of the Americas was an advanced training academy to mold future revolutionaries and professional assassins who would become valuable US assets for maintaining control of countries and dishing out fierce retribution if they dared to go rogue, acting in their own interest rather than US corporate interest.

One would think such a school would be concealed in the remote, deep jungles of a South American country. Guess what? The US government was so secure in the blindness and disinterest of US citizens that the school was established in Fort Benning, Georgia. The US government knew that its own population was sufficiently busy earning a living and adequately distracted with all the freedoms and luxuries they enjoy that it would never occur to them to question their country’s activities around the world. Even if they did, the nation was also so skilled at crafting propaganda to condition Americans to believe that their nation was the “good guy”, protecting vulnerable people around the world, most Americans wouldn’t even believe the truth if they did manage to stumble upon it. 

So you would think that such a dark op program would mean limiting the agencies involved. Contrary to that logic, it wasn’t the CIA that was running the show at the School of Americas, training future terrorists. It was the Green Berets. Yeah, those special forces teams the US government and mass media always hail as heroes to be worshiped, adored and emulated? Yeah, they are responsible for some of the most heinous acts of terrorism our world has ever known. They either perpetrated it themselves or provided the knowledge and training for others to do it. If you don’t believe the gringa’s words, then believe the historical evidence produced by just two of the academy’s prize graduates: Manuel Noriega and Emilio Eduardo Massera. “Who were they?” the dear reader asks. 

Noriega was a military officer from Panama who, thanks to the US, became a famous military dictator in Panama. The most ironic twist in his dramatic tale is that after being carefully groomed by the US in the bloodiest and cruelest military tactics, his instructors turned on him. 

After graduating, he returned home and put his new skills to good use. He became one of the most feared men in his native county, even mounting an assassination of a political opponent. He achieved great power by partnering with drug cartels. 

Although powerful, he was unpopular. This led to him cancelling elections and ruling the nation through a puppet government. At least, until his old friends from the US invaded his country, captured him, then brought him back to America to stand trial for a host of crimes. He eventually served time in US prisons, then French prisons and, finally, returned to Panama to serve more time there. The moral of Noriega’s story is, “Don’t get too big for your britches and don’t ever think that the US is really your friend.”

Emilio Eduardo Massera was the commander of what is known in Argentina as the “dirty war”. Some of the tricks of the terror trade he learned from US Green Berets: 

  • Crafting propaganda using words like “duty”, “patriotism” and “sacrifice” to silence critics and control masses of what threaten to become unruly citizens
  • Creation of “capuchas” which were dark, underground cells for holding blindfolded prisoners, chained and shackled, concealed throughout the country making it easy to quickly take a dissident into custody and get them out of sight, never to be seen again.
  • The prisoners, called “paquetes”, were routinely tortured. One means was a disgusting twist on water-boarding (a term, thanks to Abu Ghraib Americans are finally familiar with). Paquetes would have their heads held under a stream of urine and feces until they thought that they would drown.
  • Perhaps the swiftest means of torture unto death was to receive the “desaparecer” treatment (to “disappear). Dissident citizens were kidnapped, drugged, put on a plane then tossed out, usually into the sea. It is estimated that US trained military terrorist Massera murdered about 10,000 Argentine citizens in this manner.

Now, considering that Massera and Noriega lost power in the 80s, one might think that the School of the Americas is old news. Should US citizens really be concerned about the School of Americas? 

The Democrat party made the closure of this US terror academy such a priority that the party included a mandate for closure as part of the party’s platform in 2016. Interesting that in all the hubbub of headlines created by Trump about defeating terrorism, the US media never elaborated on this mandate promised by Clinton’s party about ending the nation’s own role in global terrorism.

Would the dear reader like to know what actually happened with the School of the Americas? It’s still operational. However, most likely as a result of the Democratic party platform highlighting the nature of this US terror academy and many activist groups who have campaigned for its closure, the Republicans did a very peculiar thing this past January after Trump took office. They re-branded the terror organization’s image.

Many opponents of the School of Americas may have breathed a sigh of relief, believing that the School of Americas was finally closed down. Nope. It just changed its name as well as management. On January 17, the same facility re-opened under the name “Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation”, managed by the Defense Department. But it is still the same school commonly called by CIA operatives “School of Assassins”. 

Who can a concerned citizen turn to about a US sponsored and run academy on US soil training terrorists? Concerned citizens can turn to the main activist group committed to putting an end to the US being the enabling and empowering shadow behind global terrorism. Representative Joe Moakley of Massachusetts was the main figure behind Congressional efforts to close this site. His passing in 2001 has passed the torch along to School of Americas Watch (SOAW) to continue these efforts and bring about the world’s greatest hope for peace, closure of this terror academy once and for all.  

If you contact the terror academy yourself, expect a load of crap propaganda to be delivered by a slick, smooth-talking Army official well-trained to convince you that, because of the academy’s efforts, human rights have improved throughout Latin America. They will claim it’s a COUNTER-terrorism academy. 

That’s when you can ask him about Noriega and Massera as well as these well known terrorists: Omar Torrijos of Panama, Hugo Banzer Suarez of Bolivia, and Leopoldo Galtieri of Argentina. Also ask about past graduates who assassinated Archbishop Oscar Romero of El Salvador in 1980 and the slaughtered 900 peasants in the El Mozote massacre. And don’t forget to ask about the 6 Jesuit priests that were murdered by graduates from the School of the Americas in 1989.

If you despise war and terrorism, before you start pointing fingers at who your government tells you is the bad guy, stop and ask why so many terrorists hate the US. Ask why so many activists claim that the US sponsors terrorism. Ask where these terrorists who seem to have no formal government structure or geographical boundaries get their sophisticated American made weapons. Ask why the US gets involved in so many “regime changes” and invades other countries. Ask how Americans are really at risk from people thousands of miles away who would have to cross multiple border barriers to ever get here and cause us harm.

But why doesn’t the US mainstream media report on this and expose the ugly truth? Wouldn’t investigative reporting be the responsible thing to do? Wouldn’t that expose the root of terrorism and enable the nation to purge this from our national fabric? The mainstream media will never report on this because it would then expose the culpability of the corporations who own them. These same corporations that own large media networks are funded by corporate advertisers who have their own interests protected by the actions of this US terrorism school. So, dear readers, the average US citizen is on their own to discover the truth and act on behalf of humanity.

And don’t believe the tripe from Washington when supporters of the School of Assassins claim that the US can’t be held responsible for what their graduates do when they leave. The US is not stupid. They know exactly what they are doing and this school for training terrorists is all part of a plan. It is all part of how the nation practices its policy of hegemony which requires terror and violence to maintain the wealth gathered through natural resource exploitation and slave wages in foreign countries which, in turn, makes a globally dominant military possible, and enable the US to keep up the appearance of clean hands.

Sources: CIA

Image Credit: Press TV

Video Credit: teleSUR English