Skip to content

9/11 – A Cheap Magic Trick

How false flag attacks are manufactured by the world's elite.

August 21, 2017
Paul Craig Roberts

When Trump was elected I wrote that it was unlikely that he would be successful in accomplishing the three objectives for which he was elected—peace with Russia, the return home of offshored US jobs, and effective limits on non-white immigration—because these objectives conflicted with the interests of those more powerful than the president.

I wrote that Trump was unfamiliar with Washington and would fail to appoint a government that would support his goals. I wrote that unless the ruling oligarchy could bring Trump under its control,Trump would be assassinated.

Trump has been brought under control by assassinating him with words rather than with a bullet. With Steve Bannon’s dismissal, there is now no one in Trump’s government who supports him. He is surrounded by Russophobic generals and Zionists.

But this is not enough for the liberal/progressive/left. They want Trump impeached and driven from office.

Marjorie Cohn, whom I have always admired for her defense of civil liberty, has disappointed me. She has written in Truthout, which sadly has become more like PropagandaOut, that the House must bring articles of impeachment against Trump for his abuse of power and before he launches a new civil war and/or nuclear war.

This is an extraordinary conclusion for a normally intelligent person to reach. What power does Trump have? How does he abuse his non-existent power? The ruling Establishment has cut his balls off. He is neutered. Powerless. He has been completely isolated within his own government by the oligarchy.

Even more astonishingly, Marjorie Cohn, together with 100% of the liberal/progressive/left are blind to the fact that they have helped the military/security complex destroy the only leader who advocated peace instead of conflict with the other major nuclear power. Cohn is so deranged by hatred of Trump that she thinks it is Trump who will bring nuclear war by normalizing relations with Russia.

Read more

July 30, 2017
by Kevin Ryan

In 2004, U.S. Air Force General Richard Myers responded to a pointed question on the subject of military exercises, or war games, practiced prior to September 11th 2001. Myers reported that the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) had practiced “five exercise hijack events” between November 1999 and October 2000, all of which “included a suicide crash into a high value target.” Records released since that time show that NORAD had practiced 28 hijack exercise events in the 20 months leading up to 9/11. At least six of these were focused on hijackings located entirely within the Unites States, putting to rest the excuse that NORAD was only looking for threats coming from outside of U.S. borders.

One of these exercises, Vigilant Guardian in October 2000, practiced the interception of an airliner hijacked for a suicide attack against the 39-story United Nations building in New York City, just a few blocks from the World Trade Center. Another air defense exercise, called Amalgam Virgo and practiced just three months before 9/11, was accompanied by a planning document that had a picture of Osama bin Laden on the cover.

Many of the war games that were occurring on the day of 9/11 were under the sponsorship of Ralph Eberhart, commander in chief (CINC) of NORAD. Eberhart was in command of the war games that had the greatest impact on the nation’s air defenses and has therefore been named as a suspect in the crimes. Of course, he had help.

NORAD is divided into several large areas that cover the U.S. and Canada, one of which is the region of the continental U.S. called CONR, headed on 9/11 by General Larry Arnold. Within CONR there are three sectors. The 9/11 attacks took place in the airspace monitored by CONR’s Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS). Personnel at NEADS were therefore primarily responsible for trying to coordinate the NORAD response to the hijackings.

Read more



Where does Bannon go next? What will his allies in the White House do? How will the Democrats respond?

Curt Mills
August 18, 2017
The Natonal Interest

The former White House chief strategist concluded his tenure Friday with the president almost a year to the day that he took over the then-Republican nominee’s beleaguered campaign. Judging by the social-media activity of some of his old colleagues at Breitbart News, he may return to that outlet and launch a full-scale offensive against his old enemies in the White House: Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump, Gary Cohn, H. R. McMaster and national security official Dina Powell. He may also become involved in leading a new, well-funded venture backed by the powerful Mercer family.

Whether this means Bannon, and the national populist movement that reveres him, is actually done with this president is less clear. It’s entirely possible Friday’s news could be looked back on as a positive turning point for the anti-establishment forces that got Trump elected president. Bannon, “unchained,” could be more valuable to the president as a firebreather on the outside than as an inexperienced government hand that offends swath of Trump’s family on the inside. It’s perhaps underemphasized, but in the eight months as the president’s off-and-on Svengali, Bannon’s personal record of directly delivering legislative achievements was lacking. He notably failed to persuade the hard-right House Freedom Caucus to play ball on health care in one particularly brutal March exchange. Writer Yashar Ali floats the possibility that Bannon could become Trump’s Dick Morris, potentially covertly saving Trump’s presidency at a dark early hour just as the controversial New York political consultant did for Bill Clinton. Roger Stone, another colorful political consultant (who sometimes has Trump’s ear and also used to work for him), laid out the case earlier this week in the Daily Caller that Bannon was essentially self-serving in the White House and it was time for him to go. Stone was quick to make the point he was by no means on the side of establishment forces like McMaster, either.

Read more


Julian Assange has the evidence – but will he reveal it?

by Justin Raimondo
August 18, 2017

There’s an exciting new development in the “Russia-gate” investigation, one that has the potential to blast apart what is arguably the biggest hoax in the history of American politics.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-California) has met with Julian Assange – the first US congressman to do so – and returned with some spectacular news:. The Hill reports:

“Julian Assange told a U.S. congressman on Tuesday he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents he published during last year’s election did not come from Russia and promised additional helpful information about the leaks in the near future.”

Assange has maintained all along that the Russians had nothing to do with procuring the DNC/Podesta emails, despite the intelligence community’s assertions – offered without evidence – that Vladimir Putin personally approved the alleged “hack.” Yet credible challenges to this view have emerged in recent days, including from a group of former intelligence officials, that throw considerable doubt on the idea that there was even a “hack” to begin with. “Pressed for more detail on the source of the documents,” says The Hill,

“Rohrabacher said he had information to share privately with President Trump. ‘Julian also indicated that he is open to further discussions regarding specific information about the DNC email incident that is currently unknown to the public,’ he said.”

What this looks like is an attempt by Assange to negotiate with the US government over his current status as a political prisoner: he has been confined to the Ecuadorian embassy in London for many years. Hanging over him is the threat of arrest should he leave and his rendition to the United States to face charges. Could he be making a bid for freedom, offering to provide evidence of how he got his hands on the DNC/Podesta emails in exchange for a pardon?

Read more

August 17, 2017
Paul Craig Roberts

The liberal/progressive/left are enjoying their drunkfest of denunciation. I can’t say I have ever witnessed anything like it. These are the people who sat on their hands for 16 years while Washington destroyed in whole or part seven countries. Not being satisfied with this level of warmongering and crimes against humanity, Washington orchestrated a conflict situation with Russia. Americans elected a president who said he would defuse this dangerous conflict, and the liberal/progressive/left turned on him. In contrast, one person is killed after the hated Charlottesville protest event was over, and there is endless absurd outrage against the president of the US.

Three New York Times presstitutes yesterday blamed the crisis on Trump, declaring him “increasingly isolated in a racial crisis of his own making.” Apparently, Trump is responsible for the crisis because he blamed both protest groups for the violence.

But isn’t that what happened? Wasn’t there violence on both sides? That was the impression I got from the news reporting. I’m not surprised that Trump got the same impression. Indeed, many readers have sent emails that they received the same impression of mutual violence.

So Trump is being damned for stating the truth.

Let’s assume that the impression Trump and many others got from the news is wrong. That would make Trump guilty of arriving at a mistaken conclusion. Yet, he is accused of instigating and supporting Nazi violence. How is it possible to transform a mistake into evil intent? A mistaken impression gained from news reporting does not constitute a “defense of white nationalist protesters.” An assertion by the New York Times cannot turn the absence of intent into intent. What the Establishment is trying to do is to push Trump into the arms of white supremacists, which is where they want him.

Clearly, there is no basis for this charge. It is a lie, an orchestration that is being used to delegitimize President Trump and those who elected him.

The question is: who is behind this orchestration?

The orchestration is causing people to run away from Trump or is being used as an excuse by them to further the plot to remove him from office.

Trump’s Strategic and Policy Forum headed by Stephen A. Schwarzman ran away, just as members of the Carter Center’s board deserted President Jimmy Carter when he criticized Israel for its apartheid policy toward the Palestinians. The New York Times says that the armed services chiefs are running away. And the entire Republican Party.

The hypocrisy is stunning. For 16 years the armed services chiefs, the New York Times and the rest of the presstitute media, both political parties and the liberal/progressive/left have participated actively or passively in massive crimes against humanity. There are millions of dead, maimed, and displaced people. Yet one death in Charlottesville has produced a greater outpouring of protest.

Read more


Lack of forensics leads to muddy waters indeed.

By Philip Giraldi
August 15, 2017
The American Conservative

Congress and Special Counsel Robert Mueller are looking into whether there was Donald Trump campaign collusion with the Russian government to “influence” the results of the 2016 presidential election. Stupidity and naivete will probably be revealed in abundance, but collusion to alter the outcome of an election—and thereby damage American democracy—is unlikely to be demonstrated.

The mantra in Washington, both within the media and the inside-the-beltway establishment, is that Russia actively “interfered” in the election and may have changed the outcome, but that is largely speculative. Since the line between possibly influencing or favoring a certain outcome and interfering has been rather difficult to discern, Russiagate has evolved into a seemingly never-ending inquiry that will likely produce nothing in terms of indictable criminality among the Trumpsters. The Russians for their part will likely be seen to have engaged important individuals in a foreign country to advance their own interests—something governments worldwide do.

Indeed, the process itself seems to be backwards. Unlikely to be revealed is how the whole affair became a national-security issue in the first place. Who exactly stole the files from the DNC server and the emails from John Podesta? It would seem to me that appreciating how the theft of the documents took place is crucial to understanding what has come to be called Russiagate. Demonstrate exactly what occurred and many of the other pieces will inevitably fall into place.

At this point, all that is clearly known after more than a year of huffing and puffing is that last summer files and emails pertaining to the election were copied and then made their way to WikiLeaks, which published some of them at a time that was damaging to the Clinton campaign. Those who are blaming Russia believe that there was a hack of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) server and also of John Podesta’s emails that was carried out by a Russian surrogate or directly by Moscow’s military intelligence arm. They base their conclusion on a statement issued by the Department of Homeland Security on October 7, 2016, and on a longer assessment prepared by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence on January 6.

Read more

Antiwar.com has a sterling record of being right

by Justin Raimondo
August 14, 2017
Antiwar.com

One of the most gratifying – and, simultaneously, frustrating – aspects of my job is the rapidity with which I’m proven right. Yes, I know how that sounds, and yet it’s true. The latest example is my Friday column, in which I challenged the veracity of reports that North Korea has the capacity to strike US targets with a nuclearized ICBM. Based on a “leak” from the intelligence community, we were told by the Washington Post that a miniaturized nuclear warhead could be landing on American soil at any moment. So I asked the question that almost no one was asking: How do we know this is true? After all, the Post story was based on a single sentence from an intelligence “assessment” that was read to a reporter over the phone! The answer, I concluded, is that we don’t know, and can’t know. We’re left in the dark.

The next day Newsweek revealed that the vaunted ICBMs supposedly developed by North Korea are a “hoax” – their word. Reporter Nine Burleigh writes:

“As President Donald Trump escalates his war of words against North Korea and its leader, Kim Jong Un, a team of independent rocket experts has asserted that the two rockets the rogue regime launched in July and described as intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) are incapable of delivering a nuclear payload to the continental United States, and probably not even to Anchorage, Alaska.

“Massachusetts Institute of Technology rocket expert Ted Postol and two German experts, Markus Schiller and Robert Schmucker of Schmucker Technologie, published their findings Friday in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, in a paper they titled “North Korea’s ‘Not Quite’ ICBM Can’t Hit the Lower 48 States.”

According to Postol, Schiller, and Schmucker, it’s highly doubtful that the North Korean Hwasong-14 missile could reach Alaska, but even if the miniaturized warhead is a reality – another highly doubtful proposition – Kim Jong-un “will, with certainty, not be able to deliver such an atomic bomb to the lower 48 states of the United States with the rocket tested on July 3 and July 28.”

Read more

Does any member have the courage and vision to take responsibility?

By Andrew J. Bacevich
August 11, 2017
The American Conservative


20th Century “Angel of Mercy.” D. R. Howe (Glencoe, MN) treats the wounds of Private First Class D. A. Crum (New Brighton, PA), “H” Company, 2nd Battalion, Fifth Marine Regiment, during Operation Hue City, Vietnam, 1968. (Public Domain/USMC)

Just shy of fifty years ago on November 7, 1967, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chaired by J. William Fulbright, Democrat of Arkansas, met in executive session to assess the progress of the ongoing Vietnam War. Secretary of State Dean Rusk was the sole witness invited to testify. Even today, the transcript of Rusk’s remarks and the subsequent exchange with committee members make for depressing reading.

Responding to questions that ranged from plaintive to hostile, Rusk gave no ground. The Johnson administration was more than willing to end the war, he insisted; the North Vietnamese government was refusing to do so. The blame lay with Hanoi. Therefore the United States had no alternative but to persist. American credibility was on the line.

By extension, so too was the entire strategy of deterring Communist aggression. The stakes in South Vietnam extended well beyond the fate of that one country, as senators well knew. In that regard, Rusk reminded members of the committee, the Congress had “performed its function…when the key decisions were made”—an allusion to the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, a de facto declaration of war passed with near unanimous congressional support. None too subtly, Rusk was letting members of the committee know that the war was theirs as much as it was the administration’s.

Read more

By Patrick J. Buchanan
August 11, 2017
The American Conservative

“When a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight,” Samuel Johnson observed, “it concentrates his mind wonderfully.”

And the prospect of a future where Kim Jong Un can put a nuclear weapon on a U.S. city is going to cause this nation to reassess the risks and rewards of the American Imperium.

First, some history.

“Why should Americans be first to die in any second Korean war?” this writer asked in 1999 in “A Republic, Not an Empire.”

“With twice the population of the North and twenty times its economic power, South Korea … is capable of manning its own defense. American troops on the DMZ should be replaced by South Koreans.”

This was denounced as neo-isolationism. And, in 2002, George W. Bush declared the U.S. “will not permit the world’s most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world’s most destructive weapons.”

Bluster and bluff. In 2006, Pyongyang called and raised and tested an atom bomb. Now Kim Jong Un is close to an ICBM.

Our options?

As Kim believes the ability to hit America with a nuclear weapon is the only certain way he has of deterring us from killing his regime and him, he will not be talked out of his ICBM. Nor, short of an embargo-blockade by China, will sanctions keep him from his goal, to which he inches closer with each missile test.

As for the “military option,” U.S. strikes on Kim’s missile sites could cause him to unleash his artillery on Seoul, 35 miles south. In the first week of a second Korean war, scores of thousands could be dead.

Read more

Better Tag Cloud