Sunday, May 19, 2019

Italy’s Salvini doesn’t have to hide in the palace as Macron does


Above, May 19, 2019, “Macron: can’t get outside his palace without full military-style protection because Yellow Vests protestors want to bring him down.” Alessandra Bocchi twitter


Al Gore interfered in Australia’s democracy by seeking an interview in Australian media two days before a federal election and endorsing the candidate selling his version of non-existent catastrophic excess global CO2. Sadly, Gore also denied peer reviewed climate science from Australia’s own University of Queensland finding climate changes aren’t global, no correlation between N. and S. Hemisphere changes

Climate change not so global, University of Queensland, 8/4/2014. Al Gore’s 11th hour meddling in Australia’s democracy consisted of the CO2 profiteer requesting an interview from Australian media two days before a general election which he used to sell the multi-trillion dollar imaginary global CO2 scare. Even if CO2 scare existed, Australia is only 1.3% of global emissions--virtually nothing.  Removing all humans from Australia would make no difference to “global emissions.” Mr. Gore effectively admits he’s using Australian voters as a political weapon to supposedly make a statement with “important global implications.” In an even greater insult to Australians, Al Gore denies peer reviewed climate science from Australia’s University of Queensland published in 2014, that climate “changes” aren’t “global,” thus “reversing previous findings” promoted by Gore and others. The study found Southern and Northern Hemispheres act independently, not in unison as “global” climate suggests. Nor does either one lead or lag the other, there’s just no connection: “Glacial records from New Zealand are neither synchronous with nor simply lag or lead Northern Hemisphere ice sheet records.” (PNAS, “Significance”)

Therefore, “a generalised global approach isn’t the solution to climate issues….We showed that when the Northern Hemisphere started to warm at the end of the last ice age, New Zealand glaciers were unaffected.”… 

New Zealand glaciers responded largely to local changes in the Southern Ocean, rather than changes in the Northern Hemisphere as was previously believed,” Professor Shulmeister said. “This study highlights the need to understand regional climate rather than a global one-size-fits-all.”…These findings preclude the previously inferred rapid climate-driven ice retreat in the Southern Alps after the onset of Termination 1.”…Since a “global” climate change doesn’t exist, obviously a non-existent “global CO2” crisis doesn't merit a penny of the billions of taxpayer dollars given to it yearly for decades…Yet Al Gore intervenes in a federal election in a foreign country urging Australian voters to effectively ignore climate science from their own University of Queensland and vote for his global CO2 fraud. Two days later, the side endorsed by Gore lost an “unlosable election:”…"Morrison thanks the “quiet Australians” for shock win."…”Labor may have lost “unlosable” election.”

Image, 5/18/19,  Heartbreak: An “unlosable” election is lost following Al Gore endorsement: Shattered Labor supporters watch a broadcast of the vote count. Ryan Pierse/Getty Images”

May 16, 2019, Al Gore weighs in on Australian election, urges Australia to ‘choose the right path’,” Australia Broadcasting, Nick Wigham

 “Former US presidential candidate turned activist Al Gore has weighed in on Australia’s federal election campaign, saying the Coalition would take the country “in the wrong direction” on climate change. 

Speaking to ABC [Australian Broadcasting] radio this morning after approaching the national broadcaster, the 71-year-old said Australia had a chance to boost hope about the political will to tackle climate change before the world gathers to review the Paris Agreement on climate action. 

The Australian election “is an opportunity for Australians to play an incredibly important role in saying to the entire world: we can solve this,” he said. 

“What you do in Australia this Saturday has incredibly important global implications.” 

Climate change has become a top issue this election campaign. Across all political parties more than 80 per cent of Australians want the Government to take more action on climate change, according to the ABC’s Vote Compass. That’s up 20 percentage points from 2013. 

The Coalition is proposing to keep our current emission reduction target of 26 per cent by 2030, while Labor is proposing a much more ambitious target of 45 per cent and to ensure half of Australia’s energy comes from renewable sources. It also wants to reduce net emissions to zero by 2050. 

Mr Gore labelled the Coalition’s plan “not credible” but said Labor’s plan, if enacted, “would be seen as an extremely significant act of leadership on the part of Australia.”

Al Gore giving an updated version of his famous presentation — An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth To Power.
“This election is about two clear paths on the [so-called] climate crisis — one is about setting ambitious achievable targets, and another is about taking Australia in the wrong direction, and I trust that Australian voters will choose the right path,” he said. 

Despite Australia being responsible for about 1.3 per cent of global emissions, Mr. Gore believes the nation “punches above its weight” on political leadership. 

The UK, led by a conservative government [and the UK monarchy whose financial survival, per its recent restructuring of its expected annual income, depends on the world believing in CO2 terror], declared a climate emergency earlier this month, while New Zealand last week introduced a long-awaited bill to take a net zero carbon approach.”…

[Ed. note: “The [UK] Royal Family have secured a lucrative deal that will earn them tens of millions of pounds from the massive expansion of offshore windfarms....The seabed within Britain’s territorial waters is owned by the Crown EstateUnder new measures announced by Chancellor George Osborne last week, the Royals will soon get 15% of the profits from the Estate’s £6bn property portfolio, rather than the existing Civil List arrangement. Experts predict the growth in offshore windfarms could be worth up to £250m a year to the Crown Estate." 10/24/2010, “Queen’s £38m a year windfarm windfall,”, Martin Delgado...In 2007 UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown said the carbon market was key “to the economic fortunes of the City of London.”"] 

(continuing): “But the Coalition has torn itself apart on the issue, dumping former leader Malcolm Turnbull over its unwillingness to reduce emissions in a meaningful way.

This morning a group of more than 60 Australian scientists, including Nobel prize winners and former Australians of the year, called on the Government to prioritise [even more] action on climate change. 

“The consequences of [alleged excess global CO2 which is controlled by Communist China, p.14] climate change are already upon us — including harsher and more frequent extreme weather, destruction of natural ecosystems, severe property damage and a worldwide threat to human health,” they wrote.

“The [alleged] solutions [to alleged problem of excess CO2 involves only Communist China] are all available to address [alleged excess global CO2] climate change, all that is missing is the political will.” 

The leaders are due to give their final speech ahead of the election this weekend. Opposition Leader Bill Shorten is expected to highlight climate change in his speech and accuse members of the Government of not believing in [a particular version of] climate science.”

Added: 2014 article, “Climate Change Not So Global,” describes peer reviewed climate science study from Australia’s University of Queensland which “reverses previous findings;”…Per University of Queensland study participant James Shulmeister, This study highlights the need to understand regional climate rather than a global one-size-fits-all,”Excerpt from July 2014 PNAS study posted below:

8/4/2014, “Climate change not so global, University of Queensland, Australia, 

“Scientists are calling for a better understanding of regional climates, after research into New Zealand’s glaciers has revealed climate change in the Northern Hemisphere does not directly affect the climate in the Southern Hemisphere

The University of Queensland study showed that future climate changes may impact differently in the two hemispheres, meaning a generalised global approach isn’t the solution to climate issues. 

UQ School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Management Head Professor Jamie Shulmeister said the study provided evidence for the late survival of significant glaciers in the mountains of New Zealand at the end of the last ice age – a time when other ice areas were retreating. 

This study reverses previous findings which suggested that New Zealand’s glaciers disappeared at the same time as ice in the Northern Hemisphere,” he said. 

“We showed that when the Northern Hemisphere started to warm at the end of the last ice age, New Zealand glaciers were unaffected. 

“These glaciers began to retreat several thousand years later, when changes in the Southern Ocean led to increased carbon dioxide emissions and warming. 

"This indicates that future climate change may impact differently in the two hemispheres and that changes in the Southern Ocean are likely to be critical for Australia and New Zealand.”

The study used exposure dating of moraines – mounds of rocks formed by glaciers – to reconstruct the rate of ice retreat in New Zealand’s Ashburton Valley after the last glacial maximum – the time when the ice sheets were at their largest. 

The researchers found that the period from the last glacial maximum to the end of the ice age was longer in New Zealand than in the Northern Hemisphere. 

They also found that the maximum glacier extent in New Zealand occurred several thousand years before the maximum in the Northern Hemisphere, demonstrating that growth of the northern ice sheets did not cause expansion of New Zealand glaciers. 

New Zealand glaciers responded largely to local changes in the Southern Ocean, rather than changes in the Northern Hemisphere as was previously believed,” Professor Shulmeister said.

“This study highlights the need to understand regional climate rather than a global one-size-fits-all.” 

The research was conducted in collaboration with the University of Griefswald, Germany, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, and the University of Canterbury, New Zealand, and published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science in July."


Added: Excerpt from July 14, 2014 PNAS peer reviewed study from University of Queensland finds “global” climate doesn’t exist, no correlation between S. and N. hemisphere climate changes, nor does one lead or lag the other: 

Abstract, parag. two: “According to the Milankovitch orbital theory of glaciation, variations in northern high-latitude summer insolation are responsible for glacial–interglacial cycles (1, 2). On this basis, it is commonly assumed that climatic changes in the Northern Hemisphere (NH) constitute the principle forcing mechanism for glaciation in the Southern Hemisphere (SH) (3). However, in recent times, this view has been challenged by studies showing that at least some glacial signals in the SH have no NH correlative or precede events in the NH.”… 

7/28/2014, “The early rise and late demise of New Zealand’s last glacial maximum,”, Henrik Rothera,1 David Finkb, James Shulmeisterc, Charles Mifsudb, Michael Evansd, and Jeremy Pughe,2 


“This record from a key site in the midlatitude Southern Hemisphere shows that the largest glacial advance did not coincide with the coldest temperatures during this phase. We also show that the regional post-LGM ice retreat was very gradual, contrary to the rapid ice collapse widely inferred. This demonstrates that glacial records from New Zealand are neither synchronous with no simply lag or lead Northern Hemisphere ice sheet records, which has important implications for the reconstruction of past interhemispheric climate linkages and mechanisms.”. 


“Recent debate on records of southern midlatitude glaciation has focused on reconstructing glacier dynamics during the last glacial termination, with different results supporting both in-phase and out-of-phase correlations with Northern Hemisphere glacial signals. A continuing major weakness in this debate is the lack of robust data, particularly from the early and maximum phase of southern midlatitude glaciation (∼30–20 ka), to verify the competing models….These findings preclude the previously inferred rapid climate-driven ice retreat in the Southern Alps after the onset of Termination 1. Our record documents an early last glacial maximum, an overall trend of diminishing ice volume in New Zealand between 28–20 ka, and gradual deglaciation until at least 15 ka.” 

“This article contains supporting information online at”

Saturday, May 18, 2019

In order to be anti-Trump you have to favor even worse endless US foreign aggression than he does. If you work in media you have to favor US regime change wars with Venezuela and Syria or you’ll lose income, disappear from guest lists-Rolling Stone, Matt Taibbi, The Liberal Embrace of War

US also backed coups against Venezuela in 2002 and 2015 when Obama ordered assassination of Venezuela Pres. Maduro. In 2002’s “regime change” attempt IMF publicly supported the US intended puppet, but the coup failed. In 2007 Venezuela withdrew from US-controlled IMF and World Bank. If you withdraw from IMF and World Bank, US will starve your citizens to death….Mrs. Clinton “has consistently endorsed starting new wars and expanding others." Foreign Policy, 7/27/2016 ….Obama’s Administration Sold More Weapons Than Any Other Since World War II,“, 1/3/17

5/17/19, Taibbi: The Liberal Embrace Of War," Rolling Stone, via Zero Hedge 

Authored by Matt Taibbi via 

“The United States has just suspended flights to Venezuela. Per the New York Times: 

“CARACAS — The United States banned all air transport with Venezuela on Wednesday over security concerns, further isolating the troubled South American nation…”… 

America has been trying for ages to topple the regime of President Nicholas Maduro, after trying for years to do the same to his predecessor, Hugo Chavez. 

The new play in the Trump era involves recognizing Juan Guaidó as president and starving and sanctioning the country. Maduro, encircled, has been resisting. 

The American commercial news landscape, in schism on domestic issues, is in lockstep here. 

Every article is seen from one angle: Venezuelans under the heel of a dictator who caused the crisis, with the only hope a “humanitarian” intervention by the United States. 

There is no other perspective. Media watchdog FAIR just released results of a study of three months of American opinion pieces. Out of 76 editorials in the New York Times, Washington Post, the “big three Sunday morning talk shows” or PBS News Hour, zero came out against the removal of Maduro. They wrote: 

[Media watchdog FAIR:] “Corporate news coverage of Venezuela can only be described as a full-scale marketing campaign for [US taxpayer funded] regime change.” 

Allowable opinion on Venezuela ranges from support for military invasion to the extreme pacifist end of the spectrum, as expressed in a February op-ed by Dr. Francisco Rodriguez and Jeffrey Sachs called An Urgent Call for Compromise in Venezuela”: 

“We strongly urge…a peaceful and negotiated transition of power [regime change] rather than a winner-take-all game of chicken…” 

So we should either remove Maduro by force, or he should leave peaceably, via negotiation. These are the [only two] options. 

After the disaster of Vietnam eons ago, American thought leaders became convinced we “lost” in Indochina because of — get this — bad PR. 

The real lesson in Vietnam should have been that people would pay any price to overthrow a hated occupying force. American think-tankers and analysts however somehow became convinced (and amazingly still are) that the problem was Walter Cronkite and the networks giving up on the war effort. 

Quietly then, over the course of decades, lobbyists pushed for changes. In the next big war, there would be no gruesome pictures of soldiers dying, no photos of coffins coming home, no pictures of civilian massacres (enforced more easily with new embedding rules), and no Cronkite-ian defeatism. 

They got all of that by the time we went into Iraq. The TV landscape by then was almost completely sterilized. Jesse Ventura and Phil Donahue were pulled from MSNBC because they opposed invasion. Networks agreed not to film coffins or death scenes. 

Yet the invasion of Iraq was a failure for the same reason Vietnam was a failure, and Libya was a failure, and Afghanistan is a failure, and Venezuela or Syria or Iran will be failures, if we get around to toppling regimes in those countries: America is incapable of understanding or respecting foreigners’ instinct for self-rule.”… 

[Ed. note: It’s not America or Americans making these decisions, it’s US elites. And it’s not just foreigners, US elites have no respect for any human beings but themselves. Often globalist and open borders in orientation, to these people the US is just a bank that finances their global military ventures. As to “self-rule,” US elites don’t allow Americans to have it. Proof if needed was how easily the Nov. 2016 election was nullified. On 7/3/1984, The Wall St. Journal Editorial Board called for open borders: “If Washington still wants to “do something” about immigration, we propose a five-word constitutional amendment: There shall be open borders."] 

(continuing): “The pattern in American interventions has been the same for ages. We are for self-determination everywhere, until such self-determination clashes with a commercial or security objective. 

A common triggering event for American-backed overthrows is a leader trying to nationalize the country’s resources. This is why we ended up replacing democratically-elected Mohammed Mossadeq with the Shah in Iran, for instance. 

Disrupting trade is also a frequent theme in these ploys, with a late-Fifties coup attempt in Indonesia or our various Cuban embargoes key examples. The plan often involves stimulating economic and political unrest in target nations as a precursor for American intervention. 

We inevitably end up propping up dictators of our own, and the too-frequent pattern now — vividly demonstrated in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan — is puppet states collapsing and giving way to power vacuums and cycles of sectarian violence. Thanks, America! 

Opposing such policies used to be a central goal of American liberalism. No more. Since 2016, it’s been stunning to watch the purging and/or conversion of what used to be antiwar voices, to the point where Orwellian flip-flops are now routine. 

Earlier this month, onetime fierce Iraq war opponent Rachel Maddow went on TV to embrace John Bolton in a diatribe about how the poor National Security Adviser has been thwarted by Trump in efforts to topple Maduro. 

“Regardless of what you thought about John Bolton before this, his career, his track record,” Maddow said. 

“Just think about John Bolton as a human being.” 

The telecast was surreal. It was like watching Dick Cheney sing “Give Peace a Chance.” 

Bolton stood out as a bomb-humping nut even among the Bush-era functionaries who pushed us into Iraq. He’s the living embodiment of “benevolent hegemony,” an imperial plan first articulated in the nineties by neoconservatives like Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan. 

It involves forcefully overturning any regime that resisted us, to spread the wonders of the American way to, as Norman Podhoretz once put it,as many others as have the will and the ability to enjoy them.” 

When Bush gave his famed “Axis of Evil” speech about Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, Bolton — prophetically, it seemed — gave a speech called Beyond the Axis of Evil, adding Cuba, Syria and Libya to the list. 

Bolton, of course, is also on board with regime change in Venezuela, saying “this is our hemisphere.” Echoing the sentiment, Alabama Democratic Senator Doug Jones said Maduro, and his allies in Russia, need to vacate our part of the world.” 

This has all been cast as opposition to Russian support of Maduro. Maddow was ostensibly reacting to triggering news that Trump was stepping back on Venezuelan action after a chat with Vladimir Putin. 

This isn’t about Russia, however. MSNBCCNN, the New York Timesthe Washington Post were open cheering sections even when it came to endorsing Trump’s original decision to recognize Guaidó. It’s been much the same script with Syria, too, where even the faintest hint of discomfort with the idea of regime change has been excised from public view. 

The social media era has made it much easier to keep pundits in line. Propaganda is effective when it’s relentless, personal, attacking, and one-sided. The idea isn’t to debate people, but to create an “ick” factor around certain ideas, so debate is pre-empted. 

Don’t want to invade Syria? Get ready to be denounced as an Assadist. Feel ambivalent about regime change in Venezuela? You must love Putin and Maduro. 

People end up either reflexively believing these things, or afraid to deal with vitriol they’ll get if they say something off-narrative. In the media world, it’s understood that stepping out of line on Venezuela or Syria will result in being removed from TV guest lists, loss of speaking income, and other problems. 

This has effectively made intellectual objections to regime change obsolete. In the Trump era, things that not long ago aroused widespread horror — from torture to drone assassination to “rendition” to illegal surveillance to extrajudicial detention in brutal secret prisons around the world — inspire crickets now. 

A few weeks ago, the New York Times ran an exposé about Guantanamo Bay that should have been a devastating piece of journalism. It showed site officials building a hospice, because prisoners are expected to grow old and die rather than ever sniff release. One prisoner was depicted sitting gingerly in court because of “chronic rectal pain” from being routinely sodomized in CIA prisons. 

Ten years ago, Americans would have been deeply ashamed of such stories. Now, even liberals don’t care. The cause of empire [including routinely starving millions of innocent people] has been cleverly re-packaged as part of #Resistance to Trump, when in fact it’s just the same old arrogance, destined to lead to the same catastrophes. Bad policy doesn’t get better just because you don’t let people talk about it.” 


Added: “Obama’s end-of-term anti-Russian hysteria may be leading the Democratic Party into supplanting the Republicans as America’s leading pro-war party allied with neocons, liberal hawks, the CIA and the Military-Industrial Complex– in opposition to President Trump’s less belligerent approach toward Russia.”…1/24/17, Obama Bequeaths a More Dangerous World,” Robert Parry, Consortium News

Added: US “democracy” is two tier. As such, US isn’t a democracy. It’s a dictatorship or monarchy: 

What William Kristol and Robert Kagan proposed [in 1997] when helping to draft the ‘Project for the New American Century’, was a manufactured narrative that led the average citizen to believe that their security depended on elites who could explain the threats they were exposed to...a win-win solution designed to keep them believing that they needed the protection of elites. And what the elites were telling them was that the military establishment was a bulwark against chaos and the destruction of their state and the possibility that they might become subservient to non-white people. 

The West, having created a bifurcated paradigm called democracy sold it to the public as a vector capable of promoting the verity of good governance. But unfortunately, as all paradigms contain bias, the model in question went to great lengths to conceal the presence of the schism within. An upper tier and a lower tier came into existence, whereby the resolution of conflicts was subject to the veto powers of the upper tier. Soon the upper tier set about training minds in the lower-tier to shepherd the resources of the state in ways that benefited the upper-tier. Sadly, over time, the upper tier became more interested in the subject of fiscal welfare (for themselves) rather than pursuing outcomes that could serve the interests of the entire polity…. 

And as the wealth of the nation continued its rise upwards, the lower tier showed signs that something had become unsustainable. The top-heaviness of the unequal economic order had begun to impact unfavourably on the lower tier.”…May 17, 2019, “Fake Has Become Realer Than Real And The Dogs Of War Are There To Keep It That Way,” Denis A. Conroy, The Saker blog

Image from The Technocratic Tyranny, published 2/27/2016, “State Department’s Mission: Coup d’etat"


Friday, May 17, 2019

Putin and Xi don’t believe a word Trump says. Even when his promises are sincere, they know he’s powerless to deliver on them-Tom Luongo, Strategic Culture

If Trump really cared about the US as he claims to, he’d resign immediately to draw attention to the only issue that matters: the fact that the US is a failed state, a pretend country. Pres. Trump has done the reverse of what Candidate Trump promised. If no US president can or will do what Candidate Trump promised, then the US should stop having elections, admit it’s a dictatorship and that US taxpayers are slaves. Candidate Trump said many times that a country without a border isn’t a country. It follows that a country that can’t or won’t defend its border is a failed state. Pres. Trump perpetuates a fraud by remaining a figurehead of a non-existent country illegally collecting tax dollars and illegally funding a military. 

5/17/19, From False Hope to False Flags, Trump Sets the Stage for Global War," Strategic Culture, Tom Luongo 

Trump’s only emotional connection to Venezuela is his vanity. If it worked, great. He’ll use that. But, since it didn’t in the most embarrassing way, he’s now ready to talk with Russian President Vladimir Putin to resolve it if that will win him re-election. 

Iran is a different matter altogether. His presidency has been a revolving door of uber Iran hawks, from Generals James Mattis and H.R. McMaster to his current group of Iagos. 

Too bad Pompeo snubbed Putin to put pressure on Europe to back his play with Iran after another provocation near the Strait of Hormuz over the weekend. More on that later. 

Why do these guys even go through the motions of laying the groundwork in the media for these things? Do they really think they are convincing anyone else of how evil Iran is? Or does it even matter at this point?… 

I’m sure Pompeo made that point very clearly to Putin in Sochi; that the US is prepared to do anything to protect its upcoming peace plan for Israel. These lunatics think they can threaten Russia with a wider war, read: potentially nuclear, and force Putin to abandon Iran to push the deal across the line. Even Henry Kissinger thought this plan was stupid. 

Their thinking being the only reason Iran is willing to stand up to the US is because it is backed by Russia and China….Remove Russia by threatening nuclear war, invoke a trade war Trump thinks he can win with China to attack their weak banking system and Trump will have secured a safer world for Israel. That is the obvious strategic play here. 

And I’m also sure Lavrov and Putin told Pompeo to go scratch and stay away from the buffet table. 

It’s pretty clear that Bolton believes this is the best path to winning….Remember, neocons like Bolton and Cheney see negotiation as weakness and that the world only makes sense if you can force it to. 

I remind you that Iran, Russia and China have all been playing for time, using attrition to their advantage watching the US slowly reveal the extent of this depravity while making counter preparations. 

And it’s also obvious that time has run out on that policy. Bolton convinced Trump not only to stay in Syria but also to tighten the screws as part of the Iran policy, starving the country of gasoline by continuing to control the oil fields in the southeast near Iraq. 

Even more obvious are the provocations to back Iran into violating the JCPOA’s limits on storing enriched Uranium and heavy water through sanctions which amount to export bans while sending a carrier group to the Persian Gulf. 

But the icing on the cake is the latest version of the Gulf of Tonkin incident with four oil tankers getting sabotaged over the weekend near the UAE port of Fujairah on the Arabian Sea. Elijah Magnier is reporting that Iran did indeed do this as a warning to all the Gulf states that if Trump goes to war, they will all suffer. 

We have immediate denouncements from the Iranians blaming Israel’s Mossad and the US accusing the Iranians of doing it. 

If that is the case, and I’m not sure I believe it, then Iran is calling Trump and Bolton’s bluff. They [Iran] are prepared for a war with the US they don’t think the US electorate can stomach. And no one wants to actually see if Iran is capable of downing one of the US’s aircraft carriers. 

Iran, apparently, stands ready to show the world just how thin the paper of Trump’s tiger truly is. 

If Iran didn’t do this and it is a false flag, then Trump has already made his decision and war will happen at some point if he is unsuccessful in bringing Iran’s regime to its knees through sanctions. 

Between now and then Trump will try and wheedle a deal out of Putin and Xi, neither of whom believe a word that comes out of his mouth or in his ability to deliver on promises he’s sincere about. 

Such is the deplorable state of diplomatic dialogue between Trump’s administration and the rest of the world. Remember, fight a war on thirty fronts and have no friends. 

The setup for this event was made by Mike Pompeo and John Bolton last week using very broad language to threaten Iran with stern military action if Iran or its proxies ‘damaged US interests’ in the region. 

Now we have a leak about plans to put 120,000 US troops in the region. This is like Bolton writing “5000 troops to Colombia” on his legal pad to ensure everyone saw it. I don’t believe it anymore than I believed that. 

There comes a point where everyone knows you’re either ready and willing to get into all-out conflict with Russia and China or you aren’t. You are willing to court the complete destruction of Israel in retaliation for beginning this righteous war or you aren’t. Trump and Bolton make like they are willing to but are they really?… 

Trump expects Iran to call him and come to the bargaining table. They refuse to do that. By not calling him it infuriates him more…. 

So, Trump is now pot-committed having listened to idiots full of sound and fury while he has nothing to gain if Iran simply says no, which they continue to do…. 

He [Trump] allowed the worst people in D.C. to maneuver him into this pitiful position or it was always his intention from the beginning. It’s ultimately irrelevant…. 

Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif made an overture to Trump last month which was ignored. But Trump is a bully and a coward. He won’t stand up to his staff, his family or his benefactors and he can’t climb down off his hobby horse to open a dialogue. Such is the price of one’s vanity. 

So, we sit here staring at the abyss locked on a course that was set decades ago by men eviller than him, in whose footprints he walks.”…


Mueller's report is rendered worthless by his omitting forensic examination of DNC and Podesta servers and his refusal to interview Julian Assange or Bill Binney, key steps that any honest “investigator” would take. RIP, American “justice”-Craig Murray, The Real Muellergate Scandal

“Mueller, as a matter of determined policy, omitted key steps which any honest investigator would undertake. He did not commission any forensic examination of the DNC servers. He did not interview Bill Binney. He did not interview Julian Assange. His failure to do any of those obvious things renders his report worthless.To run an “investigation” with a pre-determined idea as to who are the guilty parties, and then to name and condemn those parties in a report, without hearing the testimony of those you are accusing, is a method of proceeding that puts the cowardly and corrupt Mr Mueller beneath contempt.” 

May 9, 2019, “The Real Muellergate Scandal,” Craig Murray,

“Robert Mueller is either a fool, or deeply corrupt. I do not think he is a fool. I did not comment instantly on the Mueller Report as I was so shocked by it, I have been waiting to see if any other facts come to light in justification. Nothing has. I limit myself here to that area of which I have personal knowledge – the leak of DNC and Podesta emails to Wikileaks. 

On the wider question of the corrupt Russian 1% having business dealings with the corrupt Western 1%, all I have to say is that if you believe that is limited in the USA by party political boundaries, you are a fool. 
On the DNC leak, Mueller started with the prejudice that it was “the Russians” and he deliberately and systematically excluded from evidence anything that contradicted that view. 
Mueller, as a matter of determined policy, omitted key steps which any honest investigator would undertake. He did not commission any forensic examination of the DNC servers. He did not interview Bill Binney. He did not interview Julian Assange. His failure to do any of those obvious things renders his report worthless. 
There has never been, by any US law enforcement or security service body, a forensic examination of the DNC servers, despite the fact that the claim those servers were hacked is the very heart of the entire investigation. Instead, the security services simply accepted the “evidence” provided by the DNC’s own IT security consultants, Crowdstrike, a company which is politically aligned to the Clintons. 
That is precisely the equivalent of the police receiving a phone call saying: 
“Hello? My husband has just been murdered. He had a knife in his back with the initials of the Russian man who lives next door engraved on it in Cyrillic script. I have employed a private detective who will send you photos of the body and the knife. No, you don’t need to see either of them.” 
There is no honest policeman in the world who would agree to that proposition, and neither would Mueller were he remotely an honest man. 
Two facts compound this failure. 
The first is the absolutely key word of Bill Binney, former Technical Director of the NSA, the USA’s $14 billion a year surveillance organisation. Bill Binney is an acknowledged world leader in cyber surveillance, and is infinitely more qualified than Crowdstrike. Bill states that the download rates for the “hack” given by Crowdstrike are at a speed – 41 Megabytes per second – that could not even nearly be attained remotely at the location: thus the information must have been downloaded to a local device, eg a memory stick. Binney has further evidence regarding formatting which supports this. 
Mueller’s identification of “DC Leaks” and “Guccifer 2.0” as Russian security services is something Mueller attempts to carry off by simple assertion. Mueller shows DNC Leaks to have been the source of other, unclassified emails sent to Wikileaks that had been obtained under a Freedom of Information request and then Mueller simply assumes, with no proof, the same route was used again for the leaked DNC material. His identification of the Guccifer 2.0 persona with Russian agents is so flimsy as to be laughable. Nor is there any evidence of the specific transfer of the leaked DNC emails from Guccifer 2.0 to Wikileaks. Binney asserts that had this happened, the packets would have been instantly identifiable to the NSA. 
Bill Binney is not a “deplorable”. He is the former Technical Director of the NSA. Mike Pompeo met him to hear his expertise on precisely this matter. Binney offered to give evidence to Mueller. Yet did Mueller call him as a witness? No. Binney’s voice is entirely unheard in the report. 
Mueller’s refusal to call Binney and consider his evidence was not the action of an honest man. 
The second vital piece of evidence we have is from Wikileaks Vault 7 release of CIA material, in which the CIA themselves outline their capacity to “false flag” hacks, leaving behind misdirecting clues including scraps of foreign script and language. This is precisely what Crowdstrike claim to have found in the “Russian hacking” operation. 
So here we have Mueller omitting the key steps of independent forensic examination of the DNC servers and hearing Bill Binney’s evidence. Yet this was not for lack of time. While deliberately omitting to take any steps to obtain evidence that might disprove the “Russian hacking” story, Mueller had boundless time and energy to waste in wild goose chases after totally non-existent links between Wikileaks and the Trump campaign, including the fiasco of interviewing Roger Stone and Randy Credico. 
It is worth remembering that none of the charges against Americans arising from the Mueller inquiry have anything to do with Russian collusion or Trump-Wikileaks collusion, which simply do not exist. The charges all relate to entirely extraneous matters dug up, under the extraordinary US system of “Justice”, to try to blackmail those charged with unrelated crimes turned up by the investigation, into fabricating evidence of Russian collusion. The official term for this process of blackmail is of course “plea-bargaining.” 
Mueller has indicted 12 Russians he alleges are the GRU agents responsible for the “hack”. The majority of these turn out to be real people who, ostensibly, have jobs and lives which are nothing to do with the GRU. Mueller was taken aback when, rather than simply being in absentia, a number of them had representation in court to fight the charges. Mueller had to back down and ask for an immediate adjournment as soon as the case opened, while he fought to limit disclosure. His entire energies since on this case have been absorbed in submitting motions to limit disclosure, individual by individual, with the object of ensuring that the accused Russians can be convicted without ever seeing, or being able to reply to, the evidence against them. Which is precisely the same as his attitude to contrary evidence in his Report. 
Mueller’s failure to examine the servers or take Binney’s evidence pales into insignificance compared to his attack on Julian Assange. Based on no conclusive evidence, Mueller accuses Assange of receiving the emails from Russia. Most crucially, he did not give Assange any opportunity to answer his accusations. For somebody with Mueller’s background in law enforcement, declaring somebody in effect guilty, without giving them any opportunity to tell their side of the story, is plain evidence of malice. 
Inexplicably, for example, the Mueller Report quotes a media report of Assange stating he had “physical proof” the material did not come from Russia, but Mueller simply dismisses this without having made any attempt at all to ask Assange himself. 
It is also particularly cowardly as Julian was and is held incommunicado with no opportunity to defend himself.
Assange has repeatedly declared the material did not come from the Russian state or from any other state. He was very willing to give evidence to Mueller, which could have been done by video-link, by interview in the Embassy or by written communication. But as with Binney and as with the DNC servers, the entirely corrupt Mueller was unwilling to accept any evidence which might contradict his predetermined narrative. 
Mueller’s section headed “The GRU’s Transfer of Stolen Material to Wikileaks” is a ludicrous farrago of internet contacts between Wikileaks and persons not proven to be Russian, transferring material not proven to be the DNC leaks. 
It too is destroyed by Binney and so pathetic that, having pretended he had proven the case of internet transfer, Mueller then gives the game away by adding “The office cannot rule out that stolen documents were transferred by intermediaries who visited during the summer of 2016”. He names Mr Andrew Muller-Maguhn as a possible courier. Yet again, he did not ask Mr Muller-Maguhn to give evidence. Nor did he ask me, and I might have been able to help him on a few of these points. 
To run an “investigation” with a pre-determined idea as to who are the guilty parties, and then to name and condemn those parties in a report, without hearing the testimony of those you are accusing, is a method of proceeding that puts the cowardly and corrupt Mr Mueller beneath contempt. 
Mueller gives no evidence whatsoever to back up his simple statement that Seth Rich was not the source of the DNC leak. 
He accuses Julian Assange of “dissembling” by referring to Seth Rich’s murder. It is an interesting fact that the US security services have shown precisely the same level of interest in examining Seth Rich’s computers that they have shown in examining the DNC servers. It is also interesting that this murder features in a report of historic consequences like that of Mueller, yet has had virtually no serious resource put into finding the killer. 
Mueller’s condemnation of Julian Assange for allegedly exploiting the death of Seth Rich, would be infinitely more convincing if the official answer to the question “who murdered Seth Rich?” was not “who cares?”.”
“Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the articles, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.”