Saturday, March 25, 2017

Virginia federal judge rules in favor of Trump's travel ban-LA Times, 3/24/17

3/24/17, "Virginia federal judge rules in favor of Trump's travel ban," LA Times, Jaweed Kaleem  

"Unlike federal judges before him, a judge in Virginia on Friday ruled in favor of President Trump’s revised travel ban in a case brought by Muslims who said the president’s executive order illegally discriminated against their religion by restricting travel from six majority-Muslim countries.

U.S. District Judge Anthony Trenga of the Eastern District Court of Virginia in Alexandria wrote that the plaintiffs, the Council on American-Islamic Relations and other Muslim community leaders from across the country, probably would not prevail in their suit. 

Trenga said the travel ban likely “falls within the bounds” of Trump’s authority as president, and he rejected a request to halt the order.

Trenga’s ruling doesn’t have an immediate effect on the ban, which was put on hold by federal judges in Hawaii and Maryland last week. But it gives ammunition to government lawyers arguing for the ban across several U.S. courts where cases against it are pending.

The Hawaii and Maryland rulings agreed with arguments that the travel ban violated the Constitution by discriminating against Muslims. The judges cited statements by Trump and his campaign associates about restricting Muslim travel to the U.S. as evidence of their intent to single out followers of Islam. 

Trenga’s opinion gave less weight to Trump’s statements. It more strictly looked at how the travel ban is worded in light of presidential power over immigration and national security.

The judge highlighted the changes made to narrow the scope of the travel ban after an initial version of the order was struck down by federal courts in January and February. Changes in the new version included omitting Iraq from the list of countries whose travelers would be blocked and removing preferential treatment of refugees who were religious minorities.

The Department of Justice, which is defending the Trump administration in court, hailed Trenga’s move. 

“The Department of Justice is pleased with the ruling,” department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores said in a statement. “As the Court correctly explains, the president’s executive order falls well within his authority to safeguard the nation’s security.” 

The original travel ban, signed Jan. 27, was halted by federal district courts and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The new ban, signed March 6 and scheduled to go into effect March 16, was modified in an attempt to pass court muster.

The Maryland ruling stopped the revised executive order’s 90-day ban on travel into the U.S. by citizens of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

The Hawaii ruling went a step further by also blocking a 120-day pause on refugee resettlement from any country. It also blocked the government’s attempt to cap refugee resettlement and the compiling of a series of government studies and reports on how refugees and foreign visitors to the U.S. are vetted.

Those rulings, as well as the one Friday in Virginia, are not final but temporary decisions on the travel ban as the cases over its constitutionality proceed.

The Department of Justice has appealed the Maryland decision to the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals but has not appealed in the Hawaii case.

Trump has said he wants to take arguments over the travel ban to the Supreme Court."


3/24/17, "Virginia court gives Trump his first win on updated travel ban,", Grant Suneson

"After two federal courts stalled his renewed attempt at a travel ban, President Trump finally has a judge on his side.

Judge Anthony Trenga of Virginia ruled in favor of Trump's plan. The order bars refugees from entering America for 120 days and blocks all people from six Muslim-majority countries for 90 days.

Judges in Maryland and Hawaii wrote that Trump's order didn't seem to be in response to any specific threat. They also noted that since Trump called for a Muslim ban while campaigning, his order violated freedom of religion.

But Trenga said only the order itself should be up for review by the courts — not the president's past comments. And since the president does have authority to halt immigration, he ruled Trump's order should go into effect.

This doesn't overturn the previous rulings that froze the executive order. But it does give the Trump administration support in the lower courts and bolsters its case if the travel ban goes to the Supreme Court."



Putin meets with France presidential candidate Marine Le Pen in Moscow. Le Pen said Russia and France should work together to save the world from globalism and Islamic fundamentalism-BBC

3/24/17, "France's Marine Le Pen urges end to Russia sanctions," BBC 

"Russian president Vladimir Putin has met France's far-right [sic] presidential candidate Marine Le Pen in Moscow, saying she represents a "fast-growing element" of European politics.

Mr Putin defended the meeting - a coup for Ms Le Pen - saying that he was not seeking to influence France's election.

Ms Le Pen has garnered widespread support at home but her extreme views have deterred most foreign leaders.

Russia was accused of meddling in the US election in support of Donald Trump.

"Of course I know that the election campaign in France is actively developing," said Mr Putin. 

"We do not want to influence events in any way, but we reserve the right to talk to representatives of all the country's political forces," he added.

Ms Le Pen, the leader of France's National Front (FN) party, called during her visit to Moscow for the lifting of EU sanctions against Russia, arguing that they were "counterproductive".

When Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine in March 2014, the US and EU imposed travel bans and asset freezes on individuals and companies linked to Russia's ruling elite.

"I believe that barring parliamentarians from speaking to each other, working together is an infringement of democratic rights," Interfax quoted Ms Le Pen.

Speaking at Russia's lower house of parliament, the Duma, she vowed to push for the so-called "blacklists" of targeted individuals to be abolished.

Ms Le Pen has previously stated her approval of Russia's annexation of of Crimea.

She also said that Russia and France should work together to save the world from globalism and Islamic fundamentalism."


"Moscow likes what Le Pen has to say: By Steven Rosenberg, BBC News, Moscow"

"Moscow likes what Marine Le Pen has to say. It likes her call for EU sanctions imposed on Russia to be scrapped. It likes her claim that "Crimea has always been Russian" and that "there was no Russian invasion of Crimea". It likes her commitment to forge a strong partnership with Moscow. Which explains why the Kremlin leader took the decision to meet her in Moscow.

It's rare for Vladimir Putin to receive a presidential candidate from abroad. I asked President Putin's spokesman Dmitry Peskov whether any Russian banks or financial institutions intend to provide financing for Ms Le Pen's campaign. "I don't have that information," he replied. 

Coverage of her in the Russian state media has been favourable. There is little doubt Russia would be happy to deal with a President Le Pen.

However, today, the French far-right presidential candidate was less than happy to deal with the media. Journalists crowded into the lower house of parliament, the Duma, for a le Pen press briefing. She never showed up. 

FN Treasurer Wallerand de Saint-Just has said Ms Le Pen's visit is not a cash-raising exercise, though party members have said they are seeking millions to fund the presidential and later the parliamentary election campaigns, the Associated Press news agency reports.

Recent opinion polls in France put Ms Le Pen neck-and-neck in the first round with centrist candidate Emmanuel Macron, with Mr Macron slated to win the run-off."


Rush Limbaugh: Politicians calling themselves "conservative" haven't been willing to endure the assaults that come with action. Enter Trump, and now we've got action. This is what it looks like. It's always going to be ugly and upsetting-Feb. 24, 2017

Rush Limbaugh: Politicians calling themselves "conservative" haven't been willing to endure the assaults that come with action. "So enter Trump into all of this, and now we've got action."

"You’ve got to win the election and then you have to implement the agenda and whatever it takes. And you have to withstand all of the assaults that are going to come your way in the process. And this has been something that many on the right, the Republican Party…They haven't wanted to endure the assaults....So they’ve been pragmatists or compromisers."

2/24/17, "What Is Conservatism in the Age of Trump?" 

"Many people who thought that they were the modern-day leaders of conservatism, in fact found themselves in a new category called Never Trumpers. They were the group of people that thought no matter what, Trump should not win....
And many of those people are still there. And they are still active in what I call the academic or intellectual side of conservatism.... 

But I don't think it's had a leader in a long time. I don’t think there’s any one person that can tell you what it is and have other conservatives agree with it....Conservatism, largely, became an academic exercise. It became a movement that wasn’t really fraught with much action. It was a lot of philosophizing....You’ve got to win the election and then you have to implement the agenda and whatever it takes. And you have to withstand all of the assaults that are going to come your way in the process. And this has been something that many on the right, the Republican Party… They haven’t wanted to endure the assaults....So they’ve been pragmatists or compromisers.... 

So enter Trump into all of this, and now we've got action. We have action. Whether by design or by accident where Trump is concerned, we have action against the left, and this is what it looks like. And it’s always going to be ugly and it’s always going to be upsetting — and it’s not going to get better.... 

Much of the alleged intellectual heft of conservatism ended up being Never Trumpers or Never Trump, and they still may be Never Trump. But Dr. Larry Arnn, who is the president of Hillsdale College — and you’ve heard me sing his praises on numerous occasions on this program...Dr. Arnn addressed CPAC yesterday morning. His speech was titled, “The Roots of Conservatism,” and he posed two fundamental questions to the CPACers....What is conservatism and what are we conserving? Now, here’s, to me, unbridled truth. 

Whether you claim to be politically conservative or not, we are in a mess that has been made by wanton liberalism — liberalism which has not been opposed much, and certainly not at all in the last eight years. It’s gotten its lip service. But the actual warrior aspect of conservatism? That’s what everybody’s wondering: “Where is that? Where is the warrior-conservative movement?” Yeah, we know we’ve got a lot of brainiacs that sit up there and they think and they write and they publish and all. But where are the warriors?...

The ‘crisis’ facing American conservatives today, Dr. Arnn proposed, is a crushing administrative state that unconstitutionally combines the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of government into one unaccountable body. ‘In those agencies there is no separation of powers,’ Arnn warned. Administrative agencies, run by unelected bureaucrats, operate outside of the bounds imposed upon the government by the U.S. Constitution. And every year these governing bodies create regulations with the force of law that strangle the economy and threaten individual liberty. 

With all the consternation on the right about whether President Trump is a conservative or not, Dr. Arnn reminded [the CPAC] audience of one simple fact: The president campaigned vigorously on cutting back regulations and limiting the unconstitutional administrative state. If the president succeeds in rolling back the administrative state, in restoring the proper function of constitutional government by limiting regulations, ‘I think that guy is a conservative,’ Dr. Arnn said, and let me tell you something: Dr. Larry Arnn is every bit the intellectual conservative that any of the others who are known as intellectual conservatives are.... 

Well, this mess that we are in — whether you claim to be politically conservative or not — the fact is that the solutions...will be conservative....And that means that as Trump solves problems, they’re going to be considered to be conservative solutions."...

Rush Limbaugh: Related Link:
Hillsdale Collegian: Arnn Calls Trump a Conservative at CPAC Speech

Laura Ingraham on governing as a "conservative:" The next governing coalition that calls itself conservative will have to reflect the views of the pro-Trump voters," she said.".

7/16/2016, "Donald Trump Forces G.O.P. to Choose Between Insularity and Outreach," NY Times, Alexander Burns, Jonathan Martin
"Laura Ingraham, a conservative radio host supportive of Mr. Trump, said the party’s future base would have to be made up of “working-class nationalists,” who have been drawn to Mr. Trump and reject the Bush-era policies around immigration and trade.

The next governing coalition that calls itself conservative will have to reflect the views of the pro-Trump voters," she said."...(8 parags. from end) 


Added on ObamaCare from Codevilla:

"Obamacare has existed strictly at the sufferance of the (GOP) House leadership since that majority took office in January 2011": Angelo Codevilla:

9/17/2013, "The Obama-Boehner Project," Angelo M. Codevilla,

"The Republican Party owes its majority in the House of Representatives – and John Boehner his speakership thereof – to the American people’s dislike of Obamacare. Because the US Constitution is explicit that the US government may expend only funds appropriated by Congress, Obamacare has existed strictly at the sufferance of the House leadership since that majority took office in January 2011. But John Boehner and his chosen band have thwarted the majority of Republican congressmen’s desire to use the constitutional power they have to refuse to appropriate money for Obamacare. In this, Boehner and co. have worked in bipartisan coordination with the ruling class, including the media, including Fox News....

The ruling class’ foolishness and insincerity, its willingness to insult the American people’s intelligence, are no joke. But we can take comfort in its transparent ineptitude."


Added: The Republican Party doesn't exist: Codevilla

"So long as the Uniparty exists, mere voters will have no way of affecting what the government does."

12/15/2013, "Breaking The UniParty," Angelo Codevilla,




Trump approval remains at 50% among registered voters nationwide, 90% among his voters, in latest Morning Consult Politico online poll, March 16-19, 2017, 1927 registered voters

Morning Consult is apparently unable to bear the pain of reporting continuing positive Trump approval numbers which have remained at around 50 percent [90% among Trump voters] since his inauguration with the exception of week 2 which dropped a few points (see chart below), so creates a "Trump Scandals" narrative for March 16-19 positive poll results. With a "scandals" narrative, busy readers would have to be predisposed to exerting extra effort to find anything not worthy of ridicule. The notion of a positive Trump number may be written off as irrational, a joke, just people with no teeth. Morning Consult Politico poll dates March 16-19, 2017, 1927 nationwide registered voters.

3/23/17, "Trump Scandals Make His Voters Like Him More," Morning Consult, Meghan McCarthy

"On the whole, these scandals don’t seem to be pulling down Trump's overall approval numbers. He has hovered around 50 percent [and 90% among Trump voters] after dropping a few points after the first executive order on immigration. [That "executive order on immigration" was approved by 55% of registered voters, tied for #1 most popular of Trump executive orders to that point, the other most popular being revoking federal funding for sanctuary cities, see chart below]. It’s also important to note that for about a 20 percent of voters, these scandals didn’t change their opinion either way."

page 12 of 276: "Table Q172: 

"Do you approve or disapprove of the job Donald Trump is doing as President?"

Among registered voters: 50% approve:

"Strongly approve 26%
Somewhat approve 24%"

Among Donald Trump voters: 90% approve:

"Strongly approve 52%
Somewhat approve 38%"

(continuing, Morning Consult): "The media-as-enemy tweet in particular was a hit with Trump voters, with 48 percent saying it gave them a more favorable view of the president. That is nine points higher than any other event we tested....

The national, online survey polled 1,927 registered voters from March 16-19. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points. Crosstabs are available here."

("Meghan is a Cofounder and Chief Content Officer of Morning Consult.")

Added: Approval of Trump Exec. orders, chart from 2/18/17, "Trump’s Approval Rating Slides Despite Support for Travel Ban," Morning Consult, Cameron Easley


Link to chart below:

3/15/17, "Poll: Trump Approval, Voter Optimism on the Rise," Morning Consult, Eli Yokley

Above chart: Trump approval rating from inauguration through March 9-13, 2017, nationwide Morning Consult/Politico online poll.


Comment: The person who wrote the top 3/23/17 Morning Consult article begins every day filled with hatred and gets paid for it.



Friday, March 24, 2017

Widely publicized Crowdstrike claims about 'Russian hacking' in Ukraine were denied in January by Ukraine Ministry of Defense. Alleged Ukraine hacking was basis for claim that Russia 'hacked' DNC emails using same Russian software used against Ukraine. Media not interested in Ukraine's denial or multiple other problems in inciting war with Russia-VOA News, 3/23/17. As usual, the American people are all alone against the entire political class and its media.

"Ukraine’s denial did not get the same attention as CrowdStrike’s report."...In early January (2017), Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense stated that Crowdstrike's claims of Ukraine combat losses and Russian  hacking never happened. 

In March 2017, military analyst, International Institute for Strategic Studies, told VOA that CrowdStrike erroneously used its data to claim Russian hacking against Ukraine and disavowed any connection to the CrowdStrike report.

Crowdstrike gets quiet, cancels March 15, 2017 interview:

"CrowdStrike declined to answer VOA’s written questions about the Ukraine report, and Alperovitch canceled a March 15 interview on the topic." 


FBI was forced to rely on Crowdstrike for information about alleged Russia access to DNC emails:

1/10/17, "Comey: DNC denied FBI's requests for access to [allegedly] hacked servers," The Hill, Katie Bo Williams

"The bureau made "multiple requests at different levels,” according to Comey, but ultimately struck an agreement with the DNC that a “highly respected private company” would get access and share what it found with investigators.

“We’d always prefer to have access hands-on ourselves if that’s possible,” Comey said, noting that he didn’t know why the DNC rebuffed the FBI’s request....

The DNC told BuzzFeed in a statement published last week [Jan. 2017] that the FBI never requested access to its servers after they were breached.

“The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been mitigated,” the official said.

CrowdStrike, the private security firm in question, has published extensive forensic analysis backing up its assessment that the threat groups that infiltrated the DNC were associated with Russian intelligence."


Not mentioned by The Hill, above: The average teenager could've accessed DNC emails:

7/27/2016, "Democrats Ignored Cybersecurity Warnings Before Theft," Bloomberg, Michael Riley  

Professionals hired by the DNC in late 2015 advised them their system was completely vulnerable, gave them a list of dozens of items to fix, such as an out of date firewall. But the DNC did nothing, thus allowing malware to remain on its site for nearly a year.  

This negligence left the DNC open to lawsuits: "Customers and shareholders could have cause to sue if an organization knowingly disregards such warnings."  


VOA article about Crowdstrike:

Crowdstrike's "Russia did it" report is disavowed by the two main sources it used as "proof" that a "Russian hacking group" interfered with the Ukraine military and caused deaths in Ukraine. CrowdStrike co-founder Dmiti Alperovitch had trumpeted its Ukraine report as more evidence of Russian election tampering. Alperovitch has said that variants of the same software were used in both [alleged] hacks."

3/23/17, "Think Tank: Cyber Firm at Center of Russian Hacking Charges Misread Data,", Oleksiy Kuzmenko and Pete Cobus, Washington. "This report was produced in collaboration with VOA's Ukrainian Service." 
"An influential British think tank and Ukraine’s military are disputing a report that the U.S. cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike has used to buttress its claims of Russian hacking in the presidential election.
The CrowdStrike report, released in December, asserted that Russians hacked into a Ukrainian artillery app, resulting in heavy losses of howitzers in Ukraine’s war with Russian-backed separatists. 

But the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) told VOA that CrowdStrike erroneously used IISS data as proof of the intrusion. IISS disavowed any connection to the CrowdStrike report. Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense also has claimed combat losses and hacking never happened.

A CrowdStrike spokesperson told VOA that it stands by its findings, which, they say, "have been confirmed by others in the cybersecurity community.”

The challenges to CrowdStrike’s credibility are significant because the firm was the first to link last year’s [alleged] hacks of Democratic Party computers to Russian actors, and because CrowdStrike co-founder Dmiti Alperovitch has trumpeted its Ukraine report as more evidence of Russian election tampering.

Alperovitch has said that variants of the same software were used in both [alleged] hacks.

While questions about CrowdStrike’s findings don’t disprove allegations of Russian involvement, they do add to skepticism voiced by some cybersecurity experts and commentators about the quality of their technical evidence.

The Russian government has denied covert involvement in the election, but U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that Russian hacks were meant to discredit Hillary Clinton and help Donald Trump’s campaign. An FBI and Homeland Security report also blamed Russian intelligence services.

On Monday, FBI Director James Comey confirmed at a House Intelligence Committee hearing that his agency has an ongoing investigation into the [alleged] hacks of Democratic campaign computers and into contacts between Russian operatives and Trump campaign associates. The White House says there was no collusion with Russia, and other U.S. officials have said they’ve found no proof.

Signature malware

VOA News first reported in December that sources close to the Ukraine military and the artillery app’s creator questioned CrowdStrike’s finding that a Russian-linked group it named “Fancy Bear” had hacked the app. CrowdStrike said it found a variant of the same “X-Agent” malware used to attack the Democrats.

CrowdStrike said the hack allowed Ukraine’s enemies to locate its artillery units. As proof of its effectiveness, the report referenced publicly reported data in which IISS had sharply reduced its estimates of Ukrainian artillery assets. IISS, based in London, publishes a highly regarded, annual reference called “The Military Balance” that estimates the strength of world armed forces.

“Between July and August 2014, Russian-backed forces launched some of the most-decisive attacks against Ukrainian forces, resulting in significant loss of life, weaponry and territory,” CrowdStrike wrote in its report, explaining that the hack compromised an app used to aim Soviet-era D-30 howitzers.

“Ukrainian artillery forces have lost over 50% of their weapons in the two years of conflict and over 80% of D-30 howitzers, the highest percentage of loss of any other artillery pieces in Ukraine’s arsenal,” the report said, crediting a Russian blogger who had cited figures from IISS.

The report prompted skepticism in Ukraine.

Yaroslav Sherstyuk, maker of the Ukrainian military app in question, called the company’s report “delusional
in a Facebook post. CrowdStrike never contacted him before or after its report was published, he told VOA.

Pavlo Narozhnyy, a technical adviser to Ukraine’s military, told VOA that while it was theoretically possible the howitzer app could have been compromised, any infection would have been spotted. “I personally know hundreds of gunmen in the war zone,” Narozhnyy told VOA in December. “None of them told me of D-30 losses caused by hacking or any other reason.”

VOA first contacted IISS in February to verify the alleged artillery losses. Officials there initially were unaware of the CrowdStrike assertions. After investigating, they determined that CrowdStrike misinterpreted their data and hadn’t reached out beforehand for comment or clarification.

In a statement to VOA, the institute flatly rejected the assertion of artillery combat losses.

The CrowdStrike report uses our data, but the inferences and analysis drawn from that data belong solely to the report's authors,” the IISS said. “The inference they make that reductions in Ukrainian D-30 artillery holdings between 2013 and 2016 were primarily the result of combat losses is not a conclusion that we have ever suggested ourselves, nor one we believe to be accurate.”

One of the IISS researchers who produced the data said that while the think tank had dramatically lowered its estimates of Ukrainian artillery assets and howitzers in 2013, it did so as part of a “reassessment” and reallocation of units to airborne forces.

"No, we have never attributed this reduction to combat losses," the IISS researcher said, explaining that most of the reallocation occurred prior to the two-year period that CrowdStrike cites in its report.

“The vast majority of the reduction actually occurs...before Crimea/Donbass,” he added, referring to the 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine.

‘Evidence flimsy'

In early January, the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense issued a statement saying artillery losses from the ongoing fighting with separatists are “several times smaller than the number reported by [CrowdStrike] and are not associated with the specified cause” of Russian hacking.

But Ukraine’s denial did not get the same attention as CrowdStrike’s report. Its release was widely covered by news media reports as further evidence of Russian hacking in the U.S. election.

In interviews, [Crowdstrike's] Alperovitch helped foster that impression by connecting the Ukraine and Democratic campaign hacks, which CrowdStrike said involved the same Russian-linked hacking group
—Fancy Bear—and versions of X-Agent malware the group was known to use.

“The fact that they would be tracking and helping the Russian military kill Ukrainian army personnel in eastern Ukraine and also intervening in the U.S. election is quite chilling,” Alperovitch said in a December 22 story by The Washington Post.

The same day, Alperovitch told the PBS NewsHour: “And when you think about, well, who would be interested in targeting Ukraine artillerymen in eastern Ukraine? Who has interest in hacking the Democratic Party? [The] Russia government comes to mind, but specifically, [it's the] Russian military that would have operational [control] over forces in the Ukraine and would target these artillerymen.”

Alperovitch, a Russian expatriate and senior fellow at the Atlantic Council policy research center in Washington, co-founded CrowdStrike in 2011. The firm has employed two former FBI heavyweights: Shawn Henry, who oversaw global cyber investigations at the agency, and Steven Chabinsky, who was the agency's top cyber lawyer and served on a White House cybersecurity commission. Chabinsky left CrowdStrike last year.

CrowdStrike declined to answer VOA’s written questions about the Ukraine report, and Alperovitch canceled a March 15 interview on the topic. In a December statement to VOA’s Ukrainian Service, spokeswoman Ilina Dimitrova defended the company’s conclusions.

“It is indisputable that the [Ukraine artillery] app has been hacked by Fancy Bear malware,” Dimitrova wrote. “We have published the indicators to it, and they have been confirmed by others in the cybersecurity community.”

In its report last June attributing the [alleged] Democratic hacks, CrowdStrike said it was long familiar with the methods used by Fancy Bear and another group with ties to Russian intelligence nicknamed Cozy Bear. Soon after, U.S. cybersecurity firms Fidelis and Mandiant endorsed CrowdStrike’s conclusions. 

The FBI and Homeland Security report reached the same conclusion about the two groups.

Still, some cybersecurity experts are skeptical that the election and purported Ukraine hacks are connected. Among them is Jeffrey Carr, a cyberwarfare consultant who has lectured at the U.S. Army War College, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and other government agencies.

In a January post on LinkedIn, Carr called CrowdStrike’s evidence in the Ukraine “flimsy.” He told VOA in an interview that CrowdStrike mistakenly assumed that the X-Agent malware employed in the hacks was a reliable fingerprint for Russian actors.

We now know that’s false,” he said, “and that the source code has been obtained by others outside of Russia.""


Additional source: Crowdstrike's false information harmed Ukraine:
1/13/17, "Crowdstrike Needs To Address The Harm It Caused Ukraine," Jeffrey Carr 

"Crowdstrike’s Danger Close intelligence report is an analytic failure of epic proportions, but more importantly, it has harmed the morale of the people of Ukraine as well as cast doubt in the minds of the Ukrainian soldiers who relied upon the app."... 

Comment: What a surprise: Crowdstrike's Dmitri Alperovitch turns out to be a deeply embedded Beltway swamp dweller, a "senior fellow at the Atlantic Council policy research center in Washington." A parasite. Good job by his parents.

Beltway insider Dmitri at 2012 Reuters 'summit'


 image via VOA


Added: FBI/DHS "report" issued in late Dec. 2016 in which Crowdstrike misidentifies "threat groups":

12/30/2016, "FBI/DHS Joint Analysis Report: A Fatally Flawed Effort," Jeffrey Carr 

"The FBI/DHS Joint Analysis Report (JAR) “Grizzly Steppe” was released yesterday as part of the White House’s response to alleged Russian government interference in the 2016 election process. It adds nothing to the call for evidence that the Russian government was responsible for hacking the DNC, the DCCC, the email accounts of Democratic party officials, or for delivering the content of those hacks to Wikileaks.
It merely listed every threat group ever reported on by a commercial cybersecurity company that is suspected of being Russian-made and lumped them under the heading of Russian Intelligence Services (RIS) without providing any supporting evidence that such a connection exists.

A common misconception of “threat group” is that refers to a group of people. It doesn’t. Here’s how ESET [link now goes to general site] describes SEDNIT, one of the names for the threat group known as APT28, Fancy Bear, etc. This definition is found on p.12 of part two “En Route with Sednit: Observing the Comings and Goings”:
"As security researchers, what we call “the Sednit group” is merely a set of software and the related network infrastructure, which we can hardly correlate with any specific organization."
Unlike Crowdstrike, ESET doesn’t assign APT28/Fancy Bear/Sednit to a Russian Intelligence Service or anyone else for a very simple reason. Once malware is deployed, it is no longer under the control of the hacker who deployed it or the developer who created it. It can be reverse-engineered, copied, modified, shared and redeployed again and again by anyone. In other words — malware deployed is malware enjoyed!...

It is both foolish and baseless to claim, as Crowdstrike does, that X-Agent is used solely by the Russian government when the source code is there for anyone to find and use at will.

Where’s the Evidence?

If the White House had unclassified evidence that tied officials in the Russian government to the DNC attack, they would have presented it by now. The fact that they didn’t means either that the evidence doesn’t exist or that it is classified.

If it’s classified, an independent commission should review it because this entire assignment of blame against the Russian government is looking more and more like a domestic political operation run by the White House that relied heavily on questionable intelligence generated by a for-profit cybersecurity firm with a vested interest in selling “attribution-as-a-service”."



Wednesday, March 22, 2017

In 2016 Obama attempted to 'hack' UK democracy and election outcome of UK Brexit vote by threatening economic harm to UK if they defied his wishes. His interference was "above and beyond what people do in Western democracies."...It was the "biggest an American president...directly in the politics of a Western democracy since the end of the Cold War"-Reuters, 4/22/16...UK voters ultimately defied Obama and passed Brexit. NY Times failed to compare Obama's interference to 9/11 or bombing of Pearl Harbor though Brexit outcome caused resignation of UK PM David Cameron thus toppling a government, perhaps partly due to voter anger over Obama's globalist intrusion

"It is the biggest intervention I can think of by an American president who has turned up in this way and intervened directly in the politics of a Western democracy since the end of the Cold War....It is above and beyond what people do in Western democracies," said a Kings College London professor. "Obama was urging Britain to pool its sovereignty with other nations in a way that the United States would never countenance for itself."

Fri., 4/22/2016, "Obama exhorts Britain to stay in EU, warns on trade if it leaves," Reuters, Roberta Rampton and Kylie MacLellan, London 

"President Barack Obama made a bold intervention into the politics of Washington's closest ally on Friday, exhorting Britons to stay in the EU and warning that if they left they would be at "the back of the queue" for a U.S. trade deal.

Obama's plea to British voters ahead of a June referendum on membership of the European Union was welcomed by Prime Minister David Cameron and other supporters of the EU, but denounced by those campaigning to leave as meddling in British affairs.

Britain's influence on the world stage was "magnified" by its membership of the 28-member bloc, Obama said at a press conference alongside Cameron, who has bet his political future by calling the referendum to put to rest an issue that has divided his own Conservative Party for generations.

Rebutting criticism that he was interfering, Obama invoked the cherished "special relationship" between Washington and London. "If one of our best friends is in an organization that enhances their influence and enhances their power and enhances their economy, then I want them to stay in it," Obama said. "Or at least I want to be able to tell them: 'I think this makes you guys bigger players.'"

On trade, he took aim at one of the main "Out" arguments -- that Britain could easily negotiate deals and get better terms on its own. The United States would regard a deal with the EU as a higher priority than a separate agreement with a much smaller market such as a stand-alone Britain, Obama said. 

"It's fair to say that maybe some point down the line there might be a UK-US trade agreement but that's not going to happen anytime soon because our focus is negotiating with a big bloc, the European Union, to get a trade agreement done," Obama said.

"And the UK is going to be in the back of the queue, not because we don't have a special relationship but because given the heavy lift on any trade agreement, us having access to a big market with a lot of countries rather than trying to do piecemeal trade agreements is hugely efficient."

4/21/16, Reuters

Cameron said Britain should listen to its friends, and he could not think of any close ally who wanted a Brexit. Obama set out his case in a newspaper article that invoked the interlinked history of the United States and Britain and the tens of thousands of Americans lying in European war graves.

"As your friend, I tell you that the EU makes Britain even greater," the headline read."...

[Ed. note: UK voters didn't buy that Obama was there as their "friend" or that massive free trade deals were "hugely efficient" for them. They knew he was there only as a globalist US president.]

(continuing): ""Together, the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union have turned centuries of war in Europe into decades of peace, and worked as one to make this world a safer, better place," Obama wrote.


But those campaigning for an "Out" vote in the June 23 referendum were dismissive.

London's New York-born Mayor Boris Johnson, a leader of the "Out" campaign from within the Conservative Party widely seen as angling for Cameron's job, said Obama's advice was "incoherent, inconsistent and downright hypocritical".

Obama was urging Britain to pool its sovereignty with other nations in a way that the United States would never countenance for itself
, Johnson wrote in a newspaper column....

Other "Out" campaigners said Obama's views did not matter because this is his last year in office. 

"Obama doesn't have the authority to deny us a (trade) deal, as he will be long gone before any such proposals are on the table," said Richard Tice, co-founder of Leave.EU, one of several "Out" campaigns.

Experts struggled to find a precedent for Obama's direct appeal to British voters.

"It is the biggest intervention I can think of by an American president who has turned up in this way and intervened directly in the politics of a Western democracy since the end of the Cold War," said Anand Menon, professor of European politics and foreign affairs at Kings College London.

It is above and beyond what people do in Western democracies. And if you think as I do that it is a fear thing, then it works." 

Opinion polls suggest that "In" is ahead, but the race is tight and the number of undecided voters is very high.

Many U.S. banks and companies fear a Brexit would cause market turmoil, diminish the clout of Washington's strongest European ally, hurt London's global financial hub status, cripple the EU and weaken Western security.

The "Out" campaign says such fears are exaggerated, and Britain would profit from greater control over its regulation, the ability to make bilateral trade deals and the right to restrict immigration from EU neighbors.

Many in the "Out" camp say they are passionate supporters of the special relationship with the United States and think Britain would open itself up to America and to the world if it cut loose from what they regard as the dysfunctional EU. 

Before talks at Cameron's Downing Street office, Obama and his wife Michelle congratulated Queen Elizabeth, who celebrated her 90th birthday on Thursday. [L5N17P4BN] 

Prince Philip, Elizabeth's 94-year-old husband, took the wheel of a Range Rover to drive the Obamas to lunch on the territory of Windsor Castle, a royal residence that traces its history back over almost 1,000 years to William the Conqueror."



6/24/16, "David Cameron resigns after UK votes to leave European Union," UK Guardian, Heather Stewart, Rowena Mason, Rajeev Syal


Friday, March 17, 2017

Bloodsucking Neocon Kagan family is back and see Trump won't stop them. Neocon goal of war with Russia begins with full-scale invasion of Syria which can be sold at first as fight against ISIS, then changed to removal of Assad, a US taxpayer funded base in Syria, and on to war with Russia-Robert Parry, Consortium News, 3/15/17...US taxpayers are back to being slaves of the US War Industry

Neocon Kagans are back in power. Endless wars are full steam ahead with Trump, so US taxpayers are still slaves after all.
3/15/17, "The Kagans Are Back; Wars to Follow," Robert Parry, Consortium News

"Exclusive: The neocon royalty Kagans are counting on Democrats and liberals to be the foot soldiers in the new neocon campaign to push Republicans and President Trump into more “regime change” wars, reports Robert Parry.... 

The Kagan family, America’s neoconservative aristocracy, has reemerged having recovered from the letdown over not gaining its expected influence from the election of Hillary Clinton and from its loss of official power at the start of the Trump presidency.

Back pontificating on prominent op-ed pages, the Family Kagan now is pushing for an expanded U.S. military invasion of Syria and baiting Republicans for not joining more enthusiastically in the anti-Russian witch hunt over Moscow’s alleged help in electing Donald Trump.

In a Washington Post op-ed on March 7, Robert Kagan, a co-founder of the Project for the New American Century and a key architect of the Iraq War, jabbed at Republicans for serving as “Russia’s accomplices after the fact” by not investigating more aggressively.

Then, Frederick Kagan, director of the Critical Threats Project at the neocon American Enterprise Institute, and his wife, Kimberly Kagan, president of her own think tank, Institute for the Study of War, touted the idea of a bigger U.S. invasion of Syria in a Wall Street Journal op-ed on March 15.

Yet, as much standing as the Kagans retain in Official Washington’s world of think tanks and op-ed placements, they remain mostly outside the new Trump-era power centers looking in, although they seem to have detected a door being forced open.

Still, a year ago, their prospects looked much brighter. They could pick from a large field of neocon-oriented Republican presidential contenders or – like Robert Kagan – they could support the establishment Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, whose “liberal interventionism” matched closely with neoconservatism, differing only slightly in the rationalizations used for justifying wars and more wars.

There was also hope that a President Hillary Clinton would recognize how sympatico the liberal hawks and the neocons were by promoting Robert Kagan’s neocon wife, Victoria Nuland, from Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs to Secretary of State.

Then, there would have been a powerful momentum for both increasing the U.S. military intervention in Syria and escalating the New Cold War with Russia, putting “regime change” back on the agenda for those two countries. So, early last year, the possibilities seemed endless for the Family Kagan to flex their muscles and make lots of money. 

A Family Business

As I noted two years ago in an article entitled “A Family Business of Perpetual War”:

“Neoconservative pundit Robert Kagan and his wife, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, run a remarkable family business: she has sparked a hot war in Ukraine and helped launch Cold War II with Russia and he steps in to demand that Congress jack up military spending so America can  meet these new security threats.

“This extraordinary husband-and-wife duo makes quite a one-two punch for the Military-Industrial Complex, an inside-outside team that creates the need for more military spending, applies political pressure to ensure higher appropriations, and watches as thankful weapons manufacturers lavish grants on like-minded hawkish Washington think tanks.

“Not only does the broader community of neoconservatives stand to benefit but so do other members of the Kagan clan, including Robert’s brother Frederick at the American Enterprise Institute and his wife Kimberly, who runs her own shop called the Institute for the Study of War.”

But things didn’t quite turn out as the Kagans had drawn them up. The neocon Republicans stumbled through the GOP primaries losing out to Donald Trump and then – after Hillary Clinton muscled aside Sen. Bernie Sanders to claim the Democratic nomination – she fumbled away the general election to Trump. 

After his surprising victory, Trump – for all his many shortcomings – recognized that the neocons were not his friends and mostly left them out in the cold. Nuland not only lost her politically appointed job as Assistant Secretary but resigned from the Foreign Service, too.

With Trump in the White House, Official Washington’s neocon-dominated foreign policy establishment was down but far from out.

The neocons were tossed a lifeline by Democrats and liberals who detested Trump so much that they were happy to pick up Nuland’s fallen banner of the New Cold War with Russia. As part of a dubious scheme to drive Trump from office, Democrats and liberals hyped evidence-free allegations that Russia had colluded with Trump’s team to rig the U.S. election.

New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman spoke for many of this group when he compared Russia’s alleged “meddling” to Japan’s bombing of Pearl Harbor and Al Qaeda’s 9/11 terror attacks.

On MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” show, Friedman demanded that the Russia hacking allegations be treated as a casus belli: “That was a 9/11 scale event. They attacked the core of our democracy. That was a Pearl Harbor scale event.” Both Pearl Harbor and 9/11 led to wars.

So, with many liberals blinded by their hatred of Trump, the path was open for neocons to reassert themselves.

Baiting Republicans

Robert Kagan took to the high-profile op-ed page of The Washington Post to bait key Republicans, such as Rep. Devin Nunes, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee who was pictured above the Post article and its headline, “Running interference for Russia.”

Gen. David Petraeus posing before the U.S. Capitol with Kimberly Kagan, founder and president of the Institute for the Study of War. (Photo credit: ISW’s 2011 Annual Report)

Kagan wrote: “It would have been impossible to imagine a year ago that the Republican Party’s leaders would be effectively serving as enablers of Russian interference in this country’s political system. Yet, astonishingly, that is the role the Republican Party is playing.”

Kagan then reprised Official Washington’s groupthink that accepted without skepticism the claims from President Obama’s outgoing intelligence chiefs that Russia had “hacked” Democratic emails and released them via WikiLeaks to embarrass the Clinton campaign.

Though Obama’s intelligence officials offered no verifiable evidence to support the claims – and WikiLeaks denied getting the two batches of emails from the Russians – the allegations were widely accepted across Official Washington as grounds for discrediting Trump and possibly seeking his removal from office. 

Ignoring the political conflict of interest for Obama’s appointees, Kagan judged that “given the significance of this particular finding [about Russian meddling], the evidence must be compelling” and justified “a serious, wide-ranging and open investigation.”"...

[Ed. note: As everyone knows but no one says, the average teenager could've accessed the DNC emails, no need for Russian expertise. Professionals advised the DNC in late 2015 that its system was completely vulnerable and gave them a list of dozens of items to fix, such as an out of date firewall. The DNC did nothing, thus allowing malware to remain on its site for nearly a year. 7/27/2016, "Democrats Ignored Cybersecurity Warnings Before Theft," Bloomberg, Michael Riley.]

(continuing): "But Kagan also must have recognized the potential for the neocons to claw their way back to power behind the smokescreen of a New Cold War with Russia.

He declared: “The most important question concerns Russia’s ability to manipulate U.S. elections. That is not a political issue. It is a national security issue. If the Russian government did interfere in the United States’ electoral processes last year, then it has the capacity to do so in every election going forward. This is a powerful and dangerous weapon, more than warships or tanks or bombers.

“Neither Russia nor any potential adversary has the power to damage the U.S. political system with weapons of war. But by creating doubts about the validity, integrity and reliability of U.S. elections, it can shake that system to its foundations.”

A Different Reality

As alarmist as Kagan’s op-ed was, the reality was far different. Even if the Russians did hack the Democratic emails and somehow slipped the information to WikiLeaks – an unsubstantiated and disputed contention – those two rounds of email disclosures were not that significant to the election’s outcome."...

[Ed. note: And nothing at all compared to 24/7 bashing by CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, NY Daily News, the permanent US war industry. War is a no-risk, cash business]. 

(continuing): "Hillary Clinton blamed her surprise defeat on FBI Director James Comey briefly reopening the investigation into her use of a private email server while serving as Secretary of State.

Further, by all accounts, the WikiLeaks-released emails were real and revealed wrongdoing by leading Democrats, such as the Democratic National Committee’s tilting of the primaries against Sen. Bernie Sanders and in favor of Clinton. The emails of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta disclosed the contents of Clinton’s paid speeches to Wall Street, which she was trying to hide from voters, as well as some pay-to-play features of the Clinton Foundation."...

[Ed. note: Podesta emails were likely released by Podesta himself. Campaign staffers assured him link was safe: 10/28/16, "How Podesta's Gmail Account Was Breached," the "Clinton campaign staff guilty of getting duped by hackers." Again, everyone knows, no one says, and no Russians needed.]

(continuing): "In other words, the WikiLeaks’ releases helped inform American voters about abuses to the U.S. democratic process. The emails were not “disinformation” or “fake news.” They were real news.

A similar disclosure occurred both before the election and this week when someone leaked details about Trump’s tax returns, which are protected by law. However, except for the Trump camp, almost no one thought that this illegal act of releasing a citizen’s tax returns was somehow a threat to American democracy.

The general feeling was that Americans have a right to know such details about someone seeking the White House. I agree, but doesn’t it equally follow that we had a right to know about the DNC abusing its power to grease the skids for Clinton’s nomination, about the contents of Clinton’s speeches to Wall Street bankers, and about foreign governments seeking pay-to-play influence by contributing to the Clinton Foundation?

Yet, because Obama’s political appointees in the U.S. intelligence community “assess” that Russia was the source of the WikiLeaks emails, the assault on U.S. democracy is a reason for World War III.

More Loose Talk

But Kagan was not satisfied with unsubstantiated accusations regarding Russia undermining U.S. democracy. He asserted as “fact” – although again without presenting evidence – that Russia is “interfering in the coming elections in France and Germany, and it has already interfered in Italy’s recent referendum and in numerous other elections across Europe. Russia is deploying this weapon against as many democracies as it can to sap public confidence in democratic institutions.”

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, flanked by Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria “Toria” Nuland, addresses Russian President Vladimir Putin in a meeting at the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia, on July 14, 2016. [State Department Photo]

There’s been a lot of handwringing in Official Washington and across the Mainstream Media about the “post-truth” era, but these supposed avatars for truth are as guilty as anyone, acting as if constantly repeating a fact-free claim is the same as proving it.

But it’s clear what Kagan and other neocons have in mind, an escalation of hostilities with Russia, and a substantial increase in spending on U.S. military hardware and on Western propaganda to “counter” what is deemed “Russian propaganda.”

Kagan recognizes that he already has many key Democrats and liberals on his side. So he is taking aim at Republicans to force them to join in the full-throated Russia-bashing, writing: 

“But it is the Republicans who are covering up. The party’s current leader, the president, questions the intelligence community’s findings, motives and integrity. Republican leaders in Congress have opposed the creation of any special investigating committee, either inside or outside Congress. They have insisted that inquiries be conducted by the two intelligence committees.

“Yet the Republican chairman of the committee in the House has indicated that he sees no great urgency to the investigation and has even questioned the seriousness and validity of the accusations. 

The Republican chairman of the committee in the Senate has approached the task grudgingly.

“The result is that the investigations seem destined to move slowly, produce little information and provide even less to the public. It is hard not to conclude that this is precisely the intent of the Republican Party’s leadership, both in the White House and Congress.…

“When Republicans stand in the way of thorough, open and immediate investigations, they become Russia’s accomplices after the fact.”

Lying with the Neocons

Many Democrats and liberals may find it encouraging that a leading neocon who helped pave the road to war in Iraq is now by their side in running down Republicans for not enthusiastically joining the latest Russian witch hunt. But they also might pause to ask themselves how they let their hatred of Trump get them into an alliance with the neocons."...

[Ed. note: Mr. Parry, your own reporting has made clear that neocons have a home in the Democrat Party-certainly Hillary was the neocon candidate. The bigger point is that Neocons control the entire Beltway, the permanent government and media, thus rendering elections meaningless. Some may use personal animus for Trump as their excuse, but the reality is that the US is a slave nation and US taxpayers are slaves. Trump appeared to "beat" the Establishment of "both" parties to get to Washington, but it's Trump voters who were beaten.] 

(continuing): "On Wednesday [March 15] in The Wall Street Journal, Robert Kagan’s brother Frederick and his wife Kimberly dropped the other shoe, laying out the neocons’ long-held dream of a full-scale U.S. invasion of Syria, a project that was put on hold in 2004 because of U.S. military reversals in Iraq. But the neocons have long lusted for “regime change” in Syria and were not satisfied with Obama’s arming of anti-government rebels and the limited infiltration of U.S. Special Forces into northern Syria to assist in the retaking of the Islamic State’s “capital” of Raqqa.

In the Journal op-ed, Frederick and Kimberly Kagan call for opening a new military front in southeastern Syria:

American military forces will be necessary. But the U.S. can recruit new Sunni Arab partners by fighting alongside them in their land. The goal in the beginning must be against ISIS because it controls the last areas in Syria where the U.S. can reasonably hope to find Sunni allies not yet under the influence of al Qaeda. But the aim after evicting ISIS must be to raise a Sunni Arab army that can ultimately defeat al Qaeda and help negotiate a settlement of the war."... 

[Ed. note: This is the sickest thing I've ever read. Every Neocon hallucination depends on enslavement of US taxpayers to a money laundering operation. The only possible explanation for Neocon's continued existence is that they launder money in a cash business].

(continuing): "“The U.S. will have to pressure the Assad regime, Iran and Russia to end the conflict on terms that the Sunni Arabs will accept. That will be easier to do with the independence and leverage of a secure base inside Syria.President Trump should break through the flawed logic and poor planning that he inherited from his predecessor. He can transform this struggle, but only by transforming America’s approach to it.” 

A New Scheme on Syria

In other words, the neocons are back to their clever word games and their strategic maneuverings to entice the U.S. military into a “regime change” project in Syria.

The neocons thought they had almost pulled off that goal by pinning a mysterious sarin gas attack outside Damascus on Aug. 21, 2013, on the Syrian government and mousetrapping Obama into launching a major U.S. air assault on the Syrian military. But Russian President Vladimir Putin stepped in to arrange for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to surrender all his chemical weapons even as Assad continued to deny any role in the sarin attack.

Putin’s interference in thwarting the neocons’ dream of a Syrian “regime change” war moved Putin to the top of their enemies’ list. Soon key neocons, such as National Endowment for Democracy president Carl Gershman, were taking aim at Ukraine, which Gershman deemed “the biggest prize” and a steppingstone toward eventually ousting Putin in Moscow.

It fell to Assistant Secretary Victoria “Toria” Nuland to oversee the “regime change” in Ukraine. She was caught on an unsecured phone line in late January or early February 2014 discussing with U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt how “to glue” or “to midwife” a change in Ukraine’s elected government of President Viktor Yanukovych.

Several weeks later, neo-Nazi and ultranationalist street fighters spearheaded a violent assault on government buildings forcing Yanukovych and other officials to flee for their lives, with the U.S. government quickly hailing the coup regime as “legitimate.”

But the Ukraine putsch led to the secession of Crimea and a bloody civil war in eastern Ukraine with ethnic Russians, events that the State Department and the mainstream Western media deemed “Russian aggression” or a “Russian invasion.”

So, by the last years of the Obama administration, the stage was set for the neocons and the Family Kagan to lead the next stage of the strategy of cornering Russia and instituting a “regime change” in Syria. 

All that was needed was for Hillary Clinton to be elected president. But these best-laid plans surprisingly went astray. Despite his overall unfitness for the presidency, Trump defeated Clinton, a bitter disappointment for the neocons and their liberal interventionist sidekicks.

Yet, the so-called “#Resistance” to Trump’s presidency and President Obama’s unprecedented use of his intelligence agencies to paint Trump as a Russian “Manchurian candidate” gave new hope to the neocons and their agenda."...

[Ed. note: The important point is that the War Industry always gets what it wants.] 

(continuing): "It has taken them a few months to reorganize and regroup but they now see hope in pressuring Trump so hard regarding Russia that he will have little choice but to buy into their belligerent schemes.

As often is the case, the Family Kagan has charted the course of action – batter Republicans into joining the all-out Russia-bashing and then persuade a softened Trump to launch a full-scale invasion of Syria. In this endeavor, the Kagans have Democrats and liberals as the foot soldiers." 

"Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and"


3/16/17, "Trump Slips into ‘Endless War’ Cycle," Consortium News, James W. Carden