10/7/15

Putin’s “Moral Clarity” Disguises Evil Intent

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

We as a nation are discussing ways to isolate and treat mental illness in society. How do we identify those who are mentally ill and get them help? These questions are also relevant on the world stage, as Russian President Vladimir Putin poses as the savior of the world.

You know that moral confusion is taking hold in society when a conservative website hails Vladimir Putin for his “moral clarity” in the War on Terror, and compares him to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Yet, Dr. Robin McFee, who generally focuses on Weapons of Mass Destruction preparedness as well as medical matters, writes that Putin, who has invaded Ukraine and is now backing the Assad dictatorship in Syria with troops and weapons, “has emerged as the go to global statesmen [sic] on the world stage” because he gave a U.N. speech describing chaos in the Middle East resulting from President Obama’s policies.

Both Obama and Putin have created instability in the Middle East, but that doesn’t mean that one is a statesman and the other is not. It may mean that they are both working in tandem to reduce American influence in the region, just as they partnered on behalf of a nuclear deal with Iran.

Regarding their U.N. speeches, McFee wrote, “Both Netanyahu and Putin shared a refreshing moral clarity, presenting an unvarnished snapshot of the world as it is, the threats awaiting us, and gave an unfiltered insight into the challenges they face, as well as approaches each will take in the protection of their respective nation’s interests and sovereignty.”

The idea that Putin is a leader we should admire is a notion that is nonsensical on its face. He gave asylum to NSA defector Edward Snowden, who still lives in Russia. In a recent edition of The Intelligencer, the journal of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers (AFIO), Peter Oleson writes about how Snowden’s disclosures have facilitated the activities of the Islamic State—a group that Putin claims he opposes—along with other American enemies and adversaries.

Oleson, a former assistant director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) who served as senior intelligence policy advisor to the Under Secretary of Defense Policy, writes, “The damage to US intelligence has been extensive. Snowden leaked the identities of over 1,000 targets of US intelligence and 31,000 files revealing what US policymakers want intelligence to provide (i.e., a list revealing what the US doesn’t know). His releases contain sufficient detail to identify US and allied intelligence officers. He revealed previously secret details of the US intelligence budget.”

He goes on, “Perhaps even more significant is the exposure of specific sources and methods and techniques US intelligence uses. Snowden has exposed how the US tracks terrorists via e-mails, social media, and cell phones.”

These are some of the same terrorists running wild in the Middle East that Putin says he opposes.

Indeed, Oleson notes that “The MI-5 head warned that the Snowden leaks undermined British security as concerns grow over British Islamists fighting in Syria. He also revealed the hacking techniques of NSA’s Tailored Access Office, the group that focuses on difficult electronic targets. Islamic State of Iraq and Syria’s (ISIS) leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, has altered his communications to avoid detection. Electronic eavesdropping techniques used against Al Qaeda in Iraq no longer work.”

Summarizing the damage Snowden has done, Oleson concludes that Snowden is a traitor to the United States and quite possibly a spy.

There are other reasons to categorically reject the notion that Putin is a statesman who sees the world like Israel’s Netanyahu. The Russians created the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) to destroy Israel. Israel has been terrorized by Soviet/Russian trained terrorists for decades.

But Putin, a former KGB colonel, wanted the world to forget this record of backing international terrorism when he spoke to the U.N.

McFee approvingly quotes Putin as saying in his U.N. speech, “We believe that any attempts to play games with terrorists, let alone to arm them, are not just short-sighted. This may result in the global terrorist threat increasing dramatically and engulfing new regions, especially given that Islamic State camps train militants from many countries, including the European countries.”

She then adds, “Beyond a few glaringly obvious issues, like Russian influence in Iran, and criminal money laundering, nevertheless, Putin highlights important facts.”

“Russian influence in Iran?” Is that how Russian sponsorship of the Iranian regime and its nuclear weapons program is best described?

Relegating “Russian influence in Iran” to a throwaway line ignores the terrorism this alliance has meant for the Middle East and the world. It is the Iranian relationship with Syria and Russia that Putin is determined to support in the Middle East. Iranian-supported terrorist groups are just as lethal as the Islamic State, and Netanyahu knows it. That’s why he has pleaded with Putin, to no avail, to look the other way when Israel bombs Syrian and Iranian supply lines for Hezbollah in Lebanon.

The fact that Putin invaded Ukraine, and that his separatist forces brought down a civilian airliner over areas they control, should also disabuse us of any notion that he is a moral statesman on the world stage. Of course, Putin also kills journalists and opposition figures. But particularly gruesome ways of killing, such as the poisoning of former KGB officer Alexander Litvinenko, are reserved for those who spill secrets about Putin and his KGB comrades. Litvinenko disclosed Russian training of al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri.

McFee’s praise for Putin’s “moral clarity on radical Islam at the U.N.” ignores the evidence that the Russians have their fingerprints all over the activities of the Islamic State, not only through facilitating Snowden’s disclosures but through the provision of actual manpower.

The Homeland Security Committee’s recent report on foreign fighters in the Islamic State lists Russia as number four among the top 10 countries of origin. Russia has supplied 1,700 fighters. The United States isn’t even in the top 10. Russia has done little to stop this flow of people to the Islamic State, suggesting that some are leaving under the watchful eye of Putin’s intelligence services. One Islamic State military commander is, in fact, considered a Russian plant.

Russia may not control every faction of the Islamic State, but it’s a sure bet that Putin’s intelligence operatives are in charge of at least some of them. It is significant that initial Russian airstrikes were determined to be hitting opponents of Assad, not Islamic State fighters.

As we have seen by the intervention in Syria, the Islamic State serves Russian interests by giving Putin the opportunity to act decisively on behalf of the Syrian regime, which also benefits Iran. Putin comes out on top no matter which side wins and looks like a statesman in the process. At least he looks that way to some.

It’s time to face reality: Putin is a bloodthirsty killer whose only concern is building up Russian power and damaging the interests of the United States. Disgust for Obama should not blind people to that fact.

It’s time to identify Putin as not only mentally unstable, but so bloodthirsty that he constitutes a threat to the Middle East, America and the world. Putin’s nuclear weapons buildup is so alarming that our top generals have called Russia an “existential threat” to the United States.

We’ve identified the problem. So who among the presidential candidates has a plan to rid the world of this lunatic before thousands, or even millions, of Americans die?

10/7/15

Listen Live – House of Bribes: How the United States Led the Way to a Nuclear Iran

Please note change in time below…

Listen live Wednesday October 8th at 9:00 AM Eastern

Mike Hewitt

Mike Hewitt (News Talk 1090 WKBZ-AM) interviews Denise Simon, one of the authors of House of Bribes: How The United States Led The Way To A Nuclear Iran

  • Valerie Jarrett, John Kerry, and George Soros have used Barack Hussein Obama and the Presidency to legitimize Islamic terror. Their plans were helped along by a patient and methodical domestic Iranian lobby.
  • The United States government, in particular the White House and Congress, are deeply corrupt. The representatives of the American people put a higher value on personal profit and reelection than they do on national security and the security of America’s allies.  According to a recent Gallup poll, a full 75% of Americans see “widespread corruption” in their government.
  • The sovereignty of the United States has been sold to the international highest bidder. Congress no longer serves as an effective check on treaty-making. The U.S.A.’s foreign policy is now largely directed by the United Nations, which is, in turn, dominated by the 57-state Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC).
  • The Obama administration seems to be more interested in the profitability of foreign companies as opposed to domestic companies. Indeed, a reasonable reading of events indicates that Obama viewed foreign business interests as his best allies in securing the Iran nuclear deal.
  • IAPAC (Iranian-American Political Action Committee) donated the most money to political candidates in 2008. This was certainly to ensure the election of Barack Hussein Obama.
  • From the beginning, the bi-partisan Iranian lobby was tied to Tehran, the United Nations, and George Soros.
  • The United States’ reputation is now tied to that of Iran, the most prolific state sponsor of Islamic terror. Unless a military strike cripples the Iranian nuclear facilities, the terror regime will very soon have nuclear weapons with which to strike Israel, the Gulf region, Europe, and any other enemy within range.

10/4/15

The Moscow-Washington-Tehran Axis of Evil

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

The conventional wisdom is that Vladimir Putin has blindsided Barack Obama in the Middle East, catching the U.S. off-guard. It’s another Obama “failure,” we’re told. “Obama administration scrambles as Russia attempts to seize initiative in Syria,” is how a Washington Post headline described it. A popular cartoon showsPutin kicking sand in the faces of Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry on a beach.

The conventional wisdom is driven by the notion that Obama has the best of intentions but that he’s been outmaneuvered. What if his intention all along has been to remake the Middle East to the advantage of Moscow and its client state Iran? What if he knows exactly what he’s doing? Too many commentators refuse to consider that Obama is deliberately working against U.S. interests and in favor of the enemies of the U.S. and Israel.

In his U.N. address, Obama said, “As President of the United States, I am mindful of the dangers that we face; they cross my desk every morning. I lead the strongest military that the world has ever known, and I will never hesitate to protect my country or our allies, unilaterally and by force where necessary.”

This is laughable. We still have a strong military, but the inevitable conclusion from what’s recently transpired is that he doesn’t want to protect the interests of the U.S. or its allies in the Middle East. This is not a “failure,” but a deliberate policy.

The trouble with conventional wisdom is the assumption that Obama sees things the way most Americans do. In order to understand Obama’s Middle East policy, it is necessary to consult alternative sources of news and information and analysis. That includes communist news sources.

A fascinating analysis appears in the newspaper of the Socialist Workers Party, The Militant, one of the oldest and most influential publications among the left. You may remember the old photos which surfaced of Lee Harvey Oswald selling copies of The Militant before he killed the American president.

The headline over The Militant story by Maggie Trowe caught my eye: “‘Reset’ with US allows Moscow to send arms, troops to Syria.” It was not about Hillary Clinton’s reset with Moscow years ago, but a more recent one.

Here’s how her story began: “Moscow’s rapid military buildup in Syria is a result of the ‘reset’ in relations forged with the Russian and Iranian governments by the Barack Obama administration. The deal—reshaping alliances and conditions from Syria, Iran and the rest of the Middle East to Ukraine and surrounding region—is the cornerstone of U.S. imperialism’s efforts to establish a new order in the Mideast, but from a much weaker position than when the now-disintegrating order was imposed after World Wars I and II.”

Of course, the idea that “U.S. imperialism” is served by giving the advantage to Russia and Iran is ludicrous. Nevertheless, it does appear that a “reset” of the kind described in this article has in fact taken place. The author writes about Washington’s “strategic shift to Iran and Russia” and the “downgrading” of relations with Israel and Saudi Arabia. She notes that Moscow “seeks more influence and control of the country [Syria] and its Mediterranean ports and a stronger political hand in Mideast politics.” Iran “has sent Revolutionary Guard Quds forces to help prop up Assad, and collaborates with Moscow on operations in Syria,” she notes.

It is sometimes necessary to reject the conventional wisdom and instead analyze developments from the point of view of the Marxists, who understand Obama’s way of thinking. They pretend that Obama is a pawn of the “imperialists” but their analysis also makes sense from a traditional pro-American perspective. Those who accept the evidence that Obama has a Marxist perspective on the world have to consider that his policy is designed to help Moscow and Tehran achieve hegemony in the region.

At the same time, the paper reported, “Since Secretary of State John Kerry’s congenial visit with Putin in May, it has become clear that Washington would accept Moscow’s influence over its ‘near abroad’ in Ukraine and the Baltics, in exchange for help to nail down the nuclear deal with Tehran.” Hence, Obama has put his stamp of approval on Russian aggression in Europe and the Middle East. This analysis, though coming from a Marxist newspaper, fits the facts on the ground. It means that more Russian aggression can be expected in Europe.

The wildcard is Israel and it looks like the Israeli government is being increasingly isolated, not only by Obama but by Putin. The story notes that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with Putin in Moscow on September 21, saying his concern was to “prevent misunderstandings” between Israeli and Russian troops, since Israel has carried out airstrikes in Syrian territory targeting weapons being transported to the Iranian-backed Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon.

Some reports indicated that Israel had set up a joint mechanism with the Russian military to coordinate their operations in Syria.

However, the Russian leader reportedly told Obama during their U.N. meeting that he opposes Israeli attacks in Syria. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz ran a storythat Russia intends to “Clip Israel’s Wings Over [the] Syrian Skies.” The paper added that Putin’s remarks to Obama showed that despite Netanyahu’s meeting with Putin in Moscow, “Russia intends to create new facts on the ground in Syria that will include restricting Israel’s freedom of movement in Syrian skies.”

It hardly seems to be the case that Obama has been outsmarted in the Middle East, or that Putin and Obama don’t like each other. Instead, it appears that Obama is working hand-in-glove with Putin to isolate Israel and that Obama is perfectly content to let the former KGB colonel take the lead.

Israel has always been seen by most U.N. members as the real problem in the region. Obama is the first U.S. President to see Israel in that same manner and to act accordingly. This is why Putin has not caught Obama off-guard in the least. They clearly see eye-to-eye on Israel and Iran.

Don’t forget that Obama actually telephoned Putin to thank him for his part in the nuclear deal with Iran. The White House issued a statement saying, “The President thanked President Putin for Russia’s important role in achieving this milestone, the culmination of nearly 20 months of intense negotiations.”

Building off the Iran nuclear deal, it looks like the plan is for Russia and the United States to force Israel to embrace a U.N. plan for a nuclear-free Middle East. That would mean Israel giving up control of its defensive nuclear weapons to the world body. Iran will be able to claim it has already made a deal to prohibit its own nuclear weapons development.

Such a scheme was outlined back in 2005 in an article by Mohamed Elbaradei, the director-general at the time of the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). That’s the same body that is now supposed to guarantee Iranian compliance with the terms of the nuclear deal signed by Russia and the U.S.

Elbaradei argued there would have to be “a dialogue on regional security as part of the peace process,” to be followed by an agreement “to make the Middle East a nuclear-weapons-free zone.”

The “dialogue” appears to be taking place now, mostly under the authority and auspices of the Russian government, with President Obama playing a secondary role.

The obvious danger is that Israel would be forced to comply with the plan for a “nuclear-weapons-free-zone,” while Iran would cheat and develop nuclear weapons anyway.

Netanyahu told the U.N. that “Israel deeply appreciates President Obama’s willingness to bolster our security, help Israel maintain its qualitative military edge and help Israel confront the enormous challenges we face.”

This must be his hope. But he must know that Israel’s security is slipping and that the survival of his country is in grave danger in the face of this Moscow-Washington-Tehran axis.

Before Putin further consolidates his military position in the Middle East and Iran makes more progress in nuclear weapons development, Netanyahu will have to launch a preemptive strike on the Islamic state. “Israel will not allow Iran to break in, to sneak in or to walk in to the nuclear weapons club,” the Israeli Prime Minister said.

In launching such a strike before the end of Obama’s second presidential term, Israel would bring down the wrath of the world, led by Russia and the U.S., on the Jewish state.

09/21/15

Israel’s Enemies in Washington and Moscow

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

Angry over President Obama’s abandonment of Israel in the Iranian nuclear deal, several commentators are now proposing that Israel work with Russia in the Middle East for their mutual interests and concerns. But Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is too knowledgeable about the roots of international terrorism to fall into such a trap.

Caroline Glick, Director of the Israel Security Project at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and adjunct senior fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs at the Center for Security Policy, writes in The Jerusalem Post that while Israel can’t depend on the United States with Barack Obama as its president, Israel can work with Russia’s Vladimir Putin. She writes that “…we need to recognize that Russia is not the Soviet Union. Yes, Russia has superpower aspirations, which include projecting its power in the Middle East. But unlike the Soviet Union, Russia’s actions are not informed by an overarching world view that is inherently anti-Semitic.”

Let’s look at the record.

Putin is a former Soviet KGB colonel and his regime is based on the remnants of the old Soviet Union, including its military and intelligence establishment. In a very real sense, Russia is the Soviet Union. Russia sponsors Iran’s nuclear program and considers the regime a Russian ally in the Eurasian geopolitical project conceived by influential Russian philosopher Alexander Dugin. His vision of “Eurasianism” is a revival of the Russian empire that includes Islamic Iran. Dugin has explained in the article, “Eurasianism, Iran, and Russia’s Foreign Policy,” that a “strategic alliance” exists between Iran and Russia, and that Russia “will not cease its efforts to reduce sanctions against Iran” over its support for terrorism and pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Former KGB officer Konstantin Preobrazhensky says Dugin has been backed by the KGB and his vision is regarded as a replacement for, or supplement to, the old Soviet ideology. In fact, he writes that “the ideology of Eurasianism was developed by Soviet intelligence in the 1920s and seeded among the Russian immigrants in Europe.”

As noted by the anti-communist Brazilian writer Olavo de Carvalho, who has debated Dugin, the Jewish state is regarded by Dugin as “a modern capitalist and Atlantist entity and an ally of American imperialism.” This view helps explain why Moscow backs the government of Iran with weapons, nuclear technology and diplomatic support.

Glick writes, “Today Israel has only two threats that it really needs to worry about: the Iranian threat and the Palestinian threat to Jerusalem.” However, both of these threats are backed by Russia. Russia stands behind Iran as well as the Palestinian Authority, the governmental body of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).

While Putin has refrained from open anti-Semitism, he made the controversial assertion that at least 80 percent of the members of the first Soviet government were Jewish—a claim exposed by Jewish journalist Yori Yanover as an anti-Semitic lie. A popular view held by so-called Russian nationalists is that communism was imposed on Russia by a conspiracy of Jewish bankers. Dugin was photographed meeting with former American Ku Klux Klan leader and neo-Nazi David Duke in Russia.

Glick argues that Israel and Russia can somehow come to an understanding about their mutual interests, and that Israel can help Russia “fight anti-Russian jihadists operating out of Syria.”

Pro-Israel commentator David Singer agrees, writing that “Russia and America now need to solely focus on defeating Islamic State—whilst putting their support for [Syrian dictator] Assad or his overthrow on the backburner until Islamic State is defeated.”

Russia is establishing major bases in Syria and doesn’t need any help in fighting those jihadists, should it want to do so. However, Russia has not joined the international coalition fighting Islamic State terrorists in Syria. In fact, there is substantial evidence of Russian involvement with those same jihadists, who are increasingly targeting Europe and the United States. It appears that at least one very important leader of the “anti-Russian Jihadists” is quite possibly a Russian agent.

On the surface, this seems strange, since some of the jihadists are fighting the Russian-backed government in Syria. But the dialectical approach to world events employed by Marxist-Leninists has been to manipulate both sides of a conflict, in order to come out on top. There is no reason to believe the Russians have discontinued this approach and have given up on the Arab and Islamic assets they maintained in the Middle East during the Soviet era.

Since the days of Lenin, the Russians considered Muslims of the world to be included in the “oppressed peoples” capable of being incited toward world revolution. Lenin told the Muslims in 1920, “Support, then, this Revolution and its sovereign Government. Comrades! Brothers! Let us march towards an honest and democratic peace. On our banners is inscribed the freedom of all oppressed peoples.”

In reality, the Muslims have been repressed and co-opted for the cause of world revolution. The Russians rule their Muslim-dominated region of Chechnya with an iron fist today. When you examine a list of countries where the thousands of Muslim refugees fleeing the Middle East want to go, Russia is not a place they seek or desire. Europe, especially Germany under Angela Merkel, has been far more accommodating toward this foreign invasion.

The Soviets created the PLO for the purpose of destroying Israel, but were also influential with al-Qaeda, whose current leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, was trained by the KGB. The Iranian Ayatollah was trained by the Russians at Patrice Lumumba University.

An excellent analysis of the Soviet/Russian hand in the Middle East, “Do traces of KGB, FSB and GRU lead to Islamic State?,” was written by Marius Laurinavi?ius, a senior analyst at the Eastern Europe Studies Center. The acronyms represent Russian intelligence agencies.

To buttress her claim that the Russians are threatened by the jihadists in Syria, Glick writes that “One of Islamic State’s senior commanders in Syria is Tarkhan Batirashvili, a former Georgian special forces commander trained by the U.S. According to McClatchy, Batirashvili fought against the Russians in both South Ossetia and in Chechnya. In 2012 he traveled to Turkey where he joined other jihadists in founding IS. Today, Chechens form one of the largest groups of foreign fighters in Islamic State.”

The more thorough analysis provided by Laurinavi?ius looks at the evidence of how Tarkhan Batirashvili, also known as Abu Omar al-Shishani, is connected to the Russian secret services and is working on their behalf. It looks like the Russians may have flipped him at some point in his career.

Russian-speaking jihadists make up a significant number of foreign fighters in the Islamic State. One estimate puts their number at 800 to 1,500. But it appears they are leaving Russia with the cooperation of the authorities. A study by the Zurich-based Center for Security Studies says that while Russian anti-terrorism legislation makes it a criminal offense to participate in an armed group abroad “whose aims are contrary to Russian interests,” only one prosecution has been launched. This suggests the Russians joining the jihad are working on behalf of Russia and its interests.

The “anti-Russian Jihadists” seem to be extremely weak, in comparison to the anti-Western faction that makes news with kidnappings of Western hostages. The New York Times reported in October 2014 that a jihadist faction had shot dead a Russian hostage named Sergei Gorbunov, but questions soon emerged about the identity of the Russian and whether he did in fact exist or was killed.

Caroline Glick, an influential and highly respected columnist, should join with Laurinavi?ius in urging more research into the “KGB traditions” that authorize the Russians to use and direct their agents “towards weakening Western states” through the phenomenon of Arab and Islamic terrorism.

Since the Russians have dirty hands and appear to be playing both sides, a proposed deal between Israel and Russia would only benefit Russia and further damage Israeli and Western interests. Israel would be falling into a trap that would backfire on the Jewish state.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has extensive knowledge of the Soviet role in international terrorism, having edited or written the books, Terrorism: How the West Can Win (editor, 1987), and Fighting Terrorism: How Democracies Can Defeat Domestic and International Terrorism (1996).

It is significant that Netanyahu did not attend Russia’s victory parade on May 9 to mark the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II in Europe. And since that time, tensions have increased even further with Russia’s decision this month to ship its S-300 air-defense missile system to Iran. Such a system can be used to protect Iran’s nuclear facilities.

In regard to the September 21 “working visit” to Russia, Netanyahu’s officereports that he will discuss with Putin “the stationing of Russian forces in Syria” and “the threats posed to Israel as a result of the increased flow of advanced war materiel to the Syrian arena and the transfer of deadly weapons to Hezbollah and other terror organizations.”

Netanyahu surely recognizes the fact that Russia is not only behind Iran, but is also reinforcing Syria and various terrorist groups in the region, with the ultimate objective of targeting Israel for destruction. In blunt talk, Netanyahu can be expected to tell Putin that he understands that Soviet support for international terrorism and terrorist regimes has been replaced by Russian support of the same. Hence, Israel has to regard Russia has an avowed enemy of the Jewish state, even more dangerous than Iran, its sponsored terrorist groups, and the Palestinian Authority and Hamas.

09/10/15

Joe Biden’s Secret Backers

By: Cliff Kincaid
America’s Survival

Author and analyst Trevor Loudon discusses the U.S. presidential election and the various candidates on the Democratic and Republican sides, in the context of the Russian role in global conflict and the Middle East refugee crisis. Loudon exposes how Joe Biden, Obama’s “moderate” Vice President and possible presidential candidate, is linked to the far-left Council for a Livable World, Al Gore, and the Soviet agent of influence Armand Hammer. Trevor also addresses the controversy over whether Bernie Sanders is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), the same group which backed Barack Obama’s political career. Members of the DSA “are communists,” says Loudon, who notes that Sanders helped set up the Congressional Progressive Caucus in the U.S. Congress. This is the group (80 members strong) behind Obamacare, illegal alien amnesty, and the gutting of the American military. Sanders “is a hard-core communist,” Loudon says. He is “lying about his true intentions” while “popularizing socialism.” What’s more, convicted communist spy Kurt Stand is campaigning for Bernie!