Historic Lies We Need to Put Behind Us: The New Deal

New Deal Lies

How FDR Made the Depression Worse

Robert Higgs 02/01/1995 
Franklin Roosevelt “did bring us out of the Depression,” Newt Gingrich told a group of Republicans after the recent election, and that makes FDR “the greatest figure of the 20th century.” As political rhetoric, the statement is likely to come from someone who does not support a market economy. The New Deal, after all, was the largest peacetime expansion of federal government power in this century. Moreover, Gingrich’s view that FDR saved us from the Depression is indefensible; Roosevelt’s policies prolonged and deepened it.There’s no doubt that Roosevelt changed the character of the American government—for the worse. Many of the reforms of the 1930s remain embedded in policy today: acreage allotments, price supports and marketing controls in agriculture, extensive regulation of private securities, federal intrusion into union-management relations, government lending and insurance activities, the minimum wage, national unemployment insurance, Social Security and welfare payments, production and sale of electrical power by the federal government, fiat money—the list goes on.

Roosevelt’s revolution began with his inaugural address, which left no doubt about his intentions to seize the moment and harness it to his purposes. Best remembered for its patently false line that “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself,” it also called for extraordinary emergency governmental powers.

The day after FDR took the oath of office, he issued a proclamation calling Congress into a special session. Before it met, he proclaimed a national banking holiday—an action he had refused to endorse when Hoover suggested it three days earlier.

Invoking the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, Roosevelt declared that “all banking transactions shall be suspended.” Banks were permitted to reopen only after case-by-case inspection and approval by the government, a procedure that dragged on for months. This action heightened the public’s sense of crisis and allowed him to ignore traditional restraints on the power of the central government.

In their understanding of the Depression, Roosevelt and his economic advisers had cause and effect reversed. They did not recognize that prices had fallen because of the Depression. They believed that the Depression prevailed because prices had fallen. The obvious remedy, then, was to raise prices, which they decided to do by creating artificial shortages. Hence arose a collection of crackpot policies designed to cure the Depression by cutting back on production. The scheme was so patently self-defeating that it’s hard to believe anyone seriously believed it would work.

The goofiest application of the theory had to do with the price of gold. Starting with the bank holiday and proceeding through a massive gold-buying program, Roosevelt abandoned the gold standard, the bedrock restraint on inflation and government growth. He nationalized the monetary gold stock, forbade the private ownership of gold (except for jewelry, scientific or industrial uses, and foreign payments), and nullified all contractual promises—whether public or private, past or future—to pay in gold.

Besides being theft, gold confiscation didn’t work. The price of gold was increased from $20.67 to $35.00 per ounce, a 69% increase, but the domestic price level increased only 7% between 1933 and 1934, and over rest of the decade it hardly increased at all. FDR’s devaluation provoked retaliation by other countries, further strangling international trade and throwing the world’s economies further into depression.

… Read More https://mises.org/library/how-fdr-made-depression-worse

War is a Racket: All Wars are Planned and Could be Ended at Any Time

Butler

All Wars Are Well Planned Banker Wars, Including World War 3

Jamie Lee,
May 28, 2014

Two Fundamental Views of History

There are two fundamental ways to view history. We call one the catastrophic or accidental view of history. We call the other view the conspiratorial view of history.

Accidental History

In the catastrophic or accidental view of history we are led to believe that historical events, such as wars and revolutions were the direct result of some sudden or surprising event. While the catastrophic view is accurate for weather, volcanoes and earthquakes, it does not always provide a realistic view of humanity and events influenced by man.

Young, malleable American and other Western minds are sadly taught the Accidental view of history in the government school systems.  This view is reinforced throughout their lives by the controlled mass media.  As a result, when most discover the Conspiratorial View of History, the immediate reaction is shock, disbelief and a refusal to accept something other than they’ve been taught to believe.

Conspiratorial History

Conspiratorial history studies that part of history that is a product of man’s planning. In conspiratorial history we are led to believe that events, such as wars and revolutions, are the result of planned events. While the conspiratorial view is not accurate for weather, volcanoes and earthquakes, it is a realistic and accurate view of the interrelationship of man and nations. Since the planning for most of these events was done in secret, we use the term conspiratorial history. That is; this history is the result of plans constructed in secret, which by definition is a conspiracy.

Interestingly enough, the Conspiratorial View of History is also the Biblical View of History. Try Psalms 2 for starters.

We believe that current world events are not simply circumstantial, but the result of an organized campaign by an elite group of unseen and widely unknown world leaders. Their goal is to exercise absolute dictatorial control over the world, to establish a New World Order.

It is possible, therefore, to summarize the major events of history into two alternative schools of thought.

Franklin D. Roosevelt who certainly saw many monumental events occur during his consecutive administrations has been quoted as saying:

“In politics, nothing happens by accident.  If it happens, it was planned that way.”

****

Americans are recognizing the link between the military-industrial complex and the Wall Street oligarchs—a connection that goes back to the beginning of the modern U.S. empire. Banks have always profited from war because the debt created by banks results in ongoing war profit for big finance; and because wars have been used to open countries to U.S. corporate and banking interests. Secretary of State, William Jennings Bryan wrote:

“…the large banking interests were deeply interested in the world war because of the wide opportunities for large profits.”

The most decorated Marine in history, Smedley Butler, described fighting for U.S. banks in many of the wars he fought in. He said:

“I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”

In Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, John Perkins describes how World Bank and IMF loans are used to generate profits for U.S. business and saddle countries with huge debts that allow the United States to control them. It is not surprising that former civilian military leaders like Robert McNamara and Paul Wolfowitz went on to head the World Bank. These nations’ debt to international banks ensures they are controlled by the United States, which pressures them into joining the “coalition of the willing” that helped invade Iraq or allowing U.S. military bases on their land. If countries refuse to “honor” their debts, the CIA or Department of Defense enforces U.S. political will through coups or military action.

Bankers are Behind the Wars

Dr. Henry Kissinger has called military personnel “nothing but dogs to serve our needs.” George W. Bush, when visiting the VA hospitals would snicker and show rudeness to those injured and maimed “fighting for our freedoms” after he invaded Iraq and Afghanistan under lies…and millions of innocent people in those country died.

Vietnam it estimated that over 2 million Vietnamese died due to U.S. Imperialism, for what? WWI and WWII tens of millions died while countries were carved up like turkey thereinafter by the powers who began the wars under lies as we, the United States of America, dropped atomic bombs on innocent people in Nagasaki and Hiroshima to test our new military toys, killing tens of thousands and giving many more cancer through the fallout.

For what? And we honor  all those killed today with their bravery to defend and protect our “freedoms”… and it has all been a huge lie.

What if for nearly a century now the handful of global Central Bankers have been in such control of nation-state governments around the world that they could control who is in power, what policies are enacted and what wars are fought where and when while providing the accompanying propaganda to foist one created enemy against another.

All the while they, the very few, make incredible sums of money, loaned at interest, to the nation-states to finance these wars.

Could you, would you believe it?

Consider Switzerland. It has never been invaded. Every citizen is armed and the country provides the police force for the Vatican. It is also home to the worlds largest bank, has extreme secrecy laws and is home the Rothschilds.

…. Read More: http://www.wakingtimes.com/2014/05/28/wars-well-planned-banker-wars-including-world-war-3/

Continuous Global War is a Racket that is Controlled by Corporations

ike-military-industrial-quote-1

How the Military Controls America

Eric ZUESSE  25.03.2018

Unlike corporations that sell to consumers, Lockheed Martin and the other top contractors to the US Government are highly if not totally dependent upon sales to governments, for their profits, especially sales to their own government, which they control — they control their home market, which is the US Government, and they use it to sell to its allied governments, all of which foreign governments constitute the export markets for their products and services. These corporations control the US Government, and they control NATO. And, here is how they do it, which is essential to understand, in order to be able to make reliable sense of America’s foreign policies, such as which nations are ‘allies’ of the US Government (such as Saudi Arabia and Israel), and which nations are its ‘enemies’ (such as Libya and Syria) — and are thus presumably suitable for America to invade, or else to overthrow by means of a coup. First, the nation’s head-of-state becomes demonized; then, the invasion or coup happens. And, that’s it. And here’s how.

Because America (unlike Russia) privatized the weapons-industry (and even privatizes to mercenaries some of its battlefield killing and dying), there are, in America, profits for investors to make in invasions and in military occupations of foreign countries; and the billionaires who control these corporations can and do …

Read More: https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/03/25/how-military-controls-america.html

George Soros NGO Partners with Facebook for “Election Security”

Darth Soros

Facebook partners with Atlantic Council to improve election security

ALI BRELAND – 

Facebook announced on Thursday that it is launching a partnership with the Atlantic Council to boost its global election security efforts.

Experts from the international think tank’s Digital Forensic Research Lab will help provide Facebook “real-time insights and updates on emerging threats and disinformation campaigns from around the world.”

Facebook said it will also use the Atlantic Council’s Digital Research Unit Monitoring Missions during elections and other “highly sensitive moments,” according to a post written by Facebook’s global politics and government outreach director, Katie Harbath.

The social media company will also consult with the Atlantic Council to address other political security issues that could arise on its platform.

The partnership comes as a part of Facebook’s efforts to beef up election security on its platforms following some groups attempting to use it as a tool to interfere in other countries’ elections.

The company has fielded heavy criticism from politicians over how Russian trolls spread misinformation and attempted to sow discord during the 2016 presidential race. Foreign groups attempted similar operations in other countries’ elections as well.

Though the most firey criticism directed at Facebook over the issue of election security has come from the U.S., the company said that it is focused on making sure its platform can’t be manipulated by nefarious groups abroad as well.

Read More: http://thehill.com/policy/technology/388166-facebook-partners-with-atlantic-council-to-improve-election-security

They Hate Tax Cuts Because They Lose Power and Money When You Keep More of Your Own Wealth

federal taxes fund wars

Tax Cuts Work

Deficits rise only because governments keep spending too much
July 5, 2018

It happened again. Tax receipts soared in the United States after the recent tax cuts.

Although it will take a while for the full effect of the 2017 tax reform to kick in, U.S. state and local government tax revenue climbed to $350.2 billion in the first quarter of 2018, a rise of 5.8 percent compared with the same time period in 2017. Individual income tax collections had big gains for a second-straight quarter with a 12.8 percent increase to $107.4 billion in 2018’s first quarter.

But the evidence of the positive impact on growth, jobs, and wages of lower corporate taxes has been published in many studies over time. The example of more than 200 cases in 21 countries shows that tax cuts and expenditure reductions are much more effective in boosting growth and prosperity than increasing government spending.

Multiple studies conclude that in more than 170 cases, the impact of tax cuts has been much more positive for growth.

In Denial

However, some commentators continue to deny the positive impact of tax cuts using the argument that deficits rise.

The fallacy that “deficits rise” has nothing to do with tax cuts, but with increases in government spending on top of the tax cuts.

The deficit excuse is very simple. It says taxes should not be cut because governments will spend all revenues, even if these increase, and more. But this excuse is wrong.

The mistake of pointing at deficits as proof that tax cuts don’t work is debunked by looking at the proposals of the same economists that argue against tax cuts. Economist Paul Krugman is one example. He argued against tax cuts in his New York Times article “Time to Borrow” after the Obama administration increased debt by $10 trillion. These demand-side economists defend deficit spending, yet consider tax cuts as negative … because deficits may increase. Only Keynesian economists manage to pull off such mindbending logic.

Deficits need not rise or exist at all if governments spend in line with revenue growth. And the evidence points to rising revenues from lower taxes and higher growth.

Deficit Spending

While analyzing the deficits of the G-20 economies during the past 15 years, we found that more than 80 percent come from higher spending. Even in the 2008–2010 crisis, European government deficits were explained more by the “stimulus” plans and government spending increases than any loss of revenues.

Spain, for example, lost 40 billion euros of tax revenues from the bursting of the real estate bubble but deficits rose by 300 billion euros, driven by stimulus and automatic “stabilizers.” The European Union spent almost 1.5 percent of its GDP on stimuli and increased taxes, sending deficits and debt to GDP to all-time highs.  The United States increased taxes by $1.5 trillion under the Obama administration but the average deficit was 5 percent of GDP. The final tally was a $10 trillion increase in national debt.

During the Obama administration and the massive expansionary monetary policies of three rounds of quantitative easing (QE) and ultra-low interest rates, economic growth on average was only 1.4 percent and 2.1 percent if we exclude the crash year of 2009. That compares to an average of 3.5 percent during the Reagan administration, 3.9 percent during Clinton’s, and 2.1 percent during Bush Jr.’s.

Positive Effects

The evidence of the positive effects of tax cuts on jobs and growth is clear.

The 2018 “Economic Report of the President” shows that tax cuts generated more federal revenues even after adjusting for inflation and population growth.

President John F. Kennedy’s major tax cut, which included chopping the top marginal rate to 70 percent from 91 percent, became law in early 1964. The economy grew at an average 5.5 percent, and unemployment fell to 3.8 percent. In turn, the annual deficit shrank to $1 billion from $7 billion as individual income-tax receipts nearly doubled.

President Ronald Reagan cut the top personal rate from 70 percent all the way down to 28 percent. Between 1982, when the first round of Reagan’s across-the-board tax cuts went into effect, and 1990, when President George H.W. Bush broke his no-new-taxes pledge, individual tax receipts jumped 57 percent to $467 billion.

And even President Bill Clinton’s budget surpluses didn’t materialize until after the president in 1997 signed a GOP tax bill that cut the capital-gains rate to 20 percent from 28 percent. Tax receipts from capital gains soared as capital investment more than tripled. Between 1996 and 2000, “the increase in capital gains revenues accounted for a little over 20 percent of the total increase in federal revenues,” former Treasury official Bruce Bartlett said. For the first time, individual tax receipts hit $1 trillion.

After President George W. Bush in 2003 signed the largest tax cut since Reagan—including dropping the top marginal rate to 35 percent from 39.6 percent—government receipts from individual income taxes rose from $794 billion to a peak of $1.2 trillion in 2007, when the mortgage crisis began—a jump of 47 percent.

Stronger economic growth expanded the tax base and brought in so much revenue that Bush more than halved the deficit over that period.

There are plenty more examples globally. Professor Juan Manuel Lopez-Zafra from CUNEF in Madrid points to a few:

  • Russia introduced a 13 percent flat tax in 2001. Revenues rose 25 percent in 2002, and a further 24 percent and 15 percent in 2003 and 2004 respectively. Revenues rose 80 percent in three years. Russia is a country where government deficit spending is limited and the excuse of deficits does not mask the revenue improvement.
  • In 2012, Hungary implemented a 16 percent flat tax. Tax revenues soared 7.6 percent despite a decline in GDP of 1.6 percent. In its 2016 report, the OECD showed that the key to Hungary’s recovery was its tax system.
  • Ireland cut taxes to corporates to 12.5 percent from 50 percent and reduced the value-added tax, and tax revenues soared 67 percent. Between 2010 and 2017, Ireland’s tax revenues increased 21 percent and thanks to an attractive tax policy, Ireland is one of the few Eurozone countries that left the crisis with growth, lower unemployment and cutting deficits. Because spending did not soar.
  • Spain finally decided to cut taxes in 2015 and in 2016 and tax revenues grew 4.3 percent, more than nominal GDP, a level of increase that accelerated in 2017. Unfortunately, governments took the opportunity to increase expenditure, so deficits remained.
  • UK corporation tax receipts surged to a record high in 2017, up 21 percent rise from 2016 and an all-time high, despite the main rate falling from 30 percent in 2008 to 19 percent. The United Kingdom cut the corporate tax rate and did not lose any revenue. It paid for itself.
  • Corporate tax and marginal income tax have been reduced in the Nordic countries since the 2000s, and revenues have increased well above nominal GDP.

The evidence is clear. Tax cuts boost jobs, growth, and, in most cases, revenues. Those who choose to ignore it tend to do so because of a misguided view that governments need to spend more and that private individuals and companies make too much money.

But there is no public sector without a thriving private sector. Taxes cannot be a burden for growth and job creation because governments decide they want to spend more.

Deficits are no excuse for tax cuts. Deficits need to be addressed by curbing spending. Tax cuts are a necessary tool to keep an ever-expanding bureaucratic system from destroying the economy.

Read More: https://www.theepochtimes.com

How Governments Ruined Healthcare and Why Single Payer is Based on Falsehoods

Wait Times in Canadian Healthcare

The Myth They Used to Pass Canada’s Universal Healthcare

  04/06/2018

A History Lesson

During the 19th and early 20th centuries, health care was offered in various ways, including through voluntary mutual-aid associations in Britain, Australia, and the United States. Roderick Long wrote about these fraternal societies, where members could subscribe to various services, including life insurance, disability insurance, and lodge practice. Lodge practice was an arrangement whereby a particular society or lodge would contract with a doctor to provide medical care to its members.

The doctor received a regular salary on a retainer basis, rather than charging per item; members would pay a yearly fee and then call on the doctor’s services as needed. If medical services were found unsatisfactory, the doctor would be penalized, and the contract might not be renewed. Lodge members reportedly enjoyed the degree of customer control this system afforded them. And the tendency to overuse the physician’s services was kept in check by the fraternal society’s own “self-policing”; lodge members who wanted to avoid future increases in premiums were motivated to make sure that their fellow members were not abusing the system.

The average cost of lodge practice for each member was between one and two dollars (a day’s wage) annually, whereas non-members paid the same price for each visit to the doctor. Doctors competed for lodge contracts, which kept costs low. The Canadian experience with lodge practice was similar, and, as in America and Britain, this infuriated the medical establishment.

The Medical Establishment

Most people (including rank and file doctors in the 19th century) are content to pursue their goals through voluntary interactions with others, and do not claim the right to tell others what they can and cannot do. However, there is always a minority who detest voluntary exchange on the free market, preferring to outlaw this activity by using government legislation to enrich themselves by dictating the terms of trade. This describes the medical establishment in the 19th century (and today). In Canadian Medicine, A Study In Restricted Entry (pp 195, 197), Ronald Hamowy wrote:

By the 1890s, lodge practice had reached sufficient proportions to become a common subject of condemnation in the medical journals. Of particular concern was the “cut-rate” fees for services charged by lodge practitioners, with a concomitant reduction in demand for full-priced medical services.

. . . the Canada Lancet, in commenting on the subject in 1905, noted: Just think for a moment how absurd it appears that a doctor should agree to attend a lodge of 200 men for $1.25 per year and supply the medicine! We do not hesitate to say that he would be better off by declining the $250 and take what he can get in the ordinary way.

What the Canada Lancet was really saying was “How absurd it is that a doctor should have the freedom to voluntarily negotiate fees with the riff raff. We do not hesitate to say that his selfish actions are preventing the superior medical establishment from raising their own incomes by dictating fees to the general public.”

The medical establishment wanted to raise their incomes by restricting the number of doctors (in part, by imposing irrelevant licensing criteria), but the public was not easily fooled. Hamowy (p 125) wrote:

Despite the actions of the College to suppress unregistered physicians, the public continued to firmly oppose prosecution of these practitioners throughout the nineteenth century. Nor did they believe the College and the medical journals when they insisted that their campaign against “quacks” was designed to separate out educated from unqualified physicians.

. . . many, especially poorer, Canadians persisted in consulting unlicensed physicians, whose fees were lower and who appeared no less competent in prescribing medications than did their registered brethren. The profession’s attempt to suppress these doctors was not motivated out of a selfless interest in improving the quality of medical care offered the public, but out of a desire to lessen competition, which would in turn increase their incomes.

Sadly, the medical establishment got its wish, as Hamowy (pp 129, 237) explains:

As early as 1869, one of the Council’s [Ontario Medical Council] representatives had remarked, to the delight of its other members, that “it would be a great boon to the country if not another student passed for ten years to come.”

. . . by the first decade of the twentieth century physicians throughout the Dominion had succeeded in gaining enactment of laws in each of the provinces limiting entry into the profession . . .

After many years of lobbying, the government gifted the medical establishment with legislation granting them monopoly powers over their industry, including licensing, under the pretense that only qualified physicians should be allowed to serve the public. (Government regulations always serve the interests of those who lobbied for the regulations.)

The medical establishment was highly incentivized to lobby and bribe politicians because the average monetary gain for each member of the establishment would be huge, compared to the average loss suffered by each member of the public. This dispersal of costs over a large number of citizens meant that they lacked an incentive to mount an effective opposition. Thus, the establishment gained at the expense of the public. That’s democracy!

Read More: https://mises.org/wire/myth-they-used-pass-canadas-universal-healthcare

“Stable and Just” Means, Controlled by the Oligarchs for Power and Profit

George Soros Quote: The US is the main obstacle to world order.
By “stable and just” he means, controlled by the oligarchs of the world and not by democracies

Soros Is Sorrowful That Trump’s “Revolution In World Affairs” Is Succeeding

 06/21

…”Obama, who can be regarded as Soros’ surrogate in the White House, worked towards building a world where the US bows before the authority of the UN on many (but crucially, not all) key issues such as climate change and sustainable development agendas, heralding in a new multilateralism that would have moved International Relations closer to a so-called “one world government”, albeit one that would still be largely under indirect American influence. Concurrent with this, the Obama-Soros vision was to have the media attack all of their opponents as “racist, fascist, white supremacists” for daring to think that the future might be different, but then all of a sudden Trump came along and committed to undoing their legacy.”…

Read More: https://orientalreview.org/2018/06/21/soros-is-sorrowful-that-trumps-revolution-in-world-affairs-is-succeeding/

The US Engineered “Arab Spring”: The NGO Raids in Egypt

John McCain with ISIS Terrified by your Radical Friends Walk Away
Tony Cartalucci December 31, 2011

The LA Times reported, “Egypt raids foreign organizations’ offices in crackdown. Three U.S. groups are among those raided. Activists say the army is using the ruse of foreign intervention to stoke nationalism and deflect criticism of abuses.”

….
However, it is no “ruse” as the US-funded “activists” claim. And while the LA Times denies its readership a documented back-story either confirming or denying “activist claims,” understanding the US role in funding sedition in Egypt is essential to understanding why not only are the raids of NGOs justified, but an absolute necessity to protect both Egyptian national sovereignty and international stability.

Documented Back-Story of the US-Engineered “Arab Spring” in Egypt

In January of 2011, we were told that “spontaneous,” “indigenous” uprising had begun sweeping North Africa and the Middle East, including Hosni Mubarak’s Egypt, in what was hailed as the “Arab Spring.” It would be almost four months before the corporate-media would admit that the US had been behind the uprisings and that they were anything but “spontaneous,” or “indigenous.” In an April 2011 article published by the New York Times titled, “U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings,” it was stated:

“A number of the groups and individuals directly involved in the revolts and reforms sweeping the region, including the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights and grass-roots activists like Entsar Qadhi, a youth leader in Yemen, received training and financing from groups like the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute and Freedom House, a nonprofit human rights organization based in Washington.”

The article would also add, regarding the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED):

“The Republican and Democratic institutes are loosely affiliated with the Republican and Democratic Parties. They were created by Congress and are financed through the National Endowment for Democracy, which was set up in 1983 to channel grants for promoting democracy in developing nations. The National Endowment receives about $100 million annually from Congress. Freedom House also gets the bulk of its money from the American government, mainly from the State Department. ”

It is hardly a speculative theory then, that the uprisings were part of an immense geopolitical campaign conceived in the West and carried out through its proxies with the assistance of disingenuous organizations including NED, NDI, IRI, and Freedom House and the stable of NGOs they maintain throughout the world. Preparations for the “Arab Spring” began not as unrest had already begun, but years before the first “fist” was raised, and within seminar rooms in D.C. and New York, US-funded training facilities in Serbia, and camps held in neighboring countries, not within the Arab World itself.

In 2008, Egyptian activists from the now infamous April 6 movement were in New York City for the inaugural Alliance of Youth Movements (AYM) summit, also known as Movements.org. There, they received training, networking opportunities, and support from AYM’s various corporate and US governmental sponsors, including the US State Department itself. The AYM 2008 summit report (page 3 of .pdf) states that the Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, James Glassman attended, as did Jared Cohen who sits on the policy planning staff of the Office of the Secretary of State. Six other State Department staff members and advisers would also attend the summit along with an immense list of corporate, media, and institutional representatives.

Shortly afterward, April 6 would travel to Serbia to train under US-funded CANVAS, formally the US-funded NGO “Otpor” who helped overthrow the government of Serbia in 2000. Otpor, the New York Times would report, was a “well-oiled movement backed by several million dollars from the United States.” After its success it would change its name to CANVAS and begin training activists to be used in other US-backed regime change operations.

The April 6 Movement, after training with CANVAS, would return to Egypt in 2010, along with UN IAEA Chief Mohammed ElBaradei. April 6 members would even be arrested while awaiting for ElBaradei’s arrival at Cairo’s airport in mid-February. Already, ElBaradei, as early as 2010, announced his intentions of running for president in the 2011 elections. Together with April 6, Wael Ghonim of Google, and a coalition of other opposition parties, ElBaradei assembled his “National Front for Change” and began preparing for the coming “Arab Spring.”

Clearly then, unrest was long planned, with activists from Tunisia and Egypt on record receiving training and support from abroad, so that they could return to their home nations and sow unrest in a region-wide coordinated campaign.

An April 2011 AFP report would confirm this, when US State Department’s Michael Posner stated that the “US government has budgeted $50 million in the last two years to develop new technologies to help activists protect themselves from arrest and prosecution by authoritarian governments.” The report went on to explain that the US “organized training sessions for 5,000 activists in different parts of the world. A session held in the Middle East about six weeks ago gathered activists from Tunisia, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon who returned to their countries with the aim of training their colleagues there.” Posner would add, “They went back and there’s a ripple effect.” That ripple effect of course, is the “Arab Spring.”

NED & Freedom House are Run by Warmongering Neo-Cons

The National Endowment for Democracy, despite the lofty mission statement articulated on its website, is nothing more than a tool for executing American foreign policy.

Read More: https://www.globalresearch.ca/

Why Was the Establishment so Against a Trump/Putin Summit?

Make Earth Great Again Trump and Putin in Helsinki

Because they were afraid someone would say something very inconvenient, like Putin did:

For instance, we can bring up Mr. Browder, in this particular case.  Business associates of Mr. Browder have earned over $1.5 billion in Russia and never paid any taxes neither in Russia or the United States and yet the money escaped the country. They were transferred to the United States. They sent [a] huge amount of money, $400,000,000, as a contribution to the campaign of Hillary Clinton.  Well that’s their personal case.

It might have been legal, the contribution itself but the way the money was earned was illegal.  So we have solid reason to believe that some [US] intelligence officers accompanied and guided these transactions.  So we have an interest in questioning them.

This Browder guy is apparently a hedge fund billionaire that plundered Russia during the post-Soviet era, effectively steeling tons of Russian wealth in the regulatory confusion. Then he snuk the money out of Russia, without paying any taxes (according to Putin.) 

According to Philip Giraldi at The Strategic Culture Foundation, that’s not all. Browder has been up to plenty since the late nineties.

Browder is also symptomatic of why the United States government is so poorly informed about international developments as he is the source of much of the Congressional “expert testimony” contributing to the current impasse. He has somehow emerged as a trusted source in spite of the fact that he has self-interest in cultivating a certain outcome. Also ignored is his renunciation of American citizenship in 1998, reportedly to avoid taxes. He is now a British citizen.

Browder is notoriously the man behind the 2012 Magnitsky Act, which exploited Congressional willingness to demonize Russia and has done so much to poison relations between Washington and Moscow. The Act sanctioned individual Russian officials, which Moscow has rightly seen as unwarranted interference in the operation of its judicial system.

Browder, a media favorite who self-promotes as “Putin’s enemy #1,” portrays himself as a selfless human rights advocate, but is he? He has used his fortune to threaten lawsuits for anyone who challenges his version of events, effectively silencing many critics. He claims that his accountant Sergei Magnitsky was a crusading “lawyer” who discovered a $230 million tax-fraud scheme that involved the Browder business interest Hermitage Capital but was, in fact, engineered by corrupt Russian police officers who arrested Magnitsky and enabled his death in a Russian jail.

Many have been skeptical of the Browder narrative, suspecting that the fraud was in fact concocted by Browder and his accountant Magnitsky. A Russian court recently supported that alternative narrative, ruling in late December that Browder had deliberately bankrupted his company and engaged in tax evasion. He was sentenced to nine years prison in absentia.

William Browder is again in the news recently in connection with testimony related to Russiagate. On December 16th Senator Diane Feinstein of the Senate Judiciary Committee released the transcript of the testimony provided by Glenn Simpson, founder of Fusion GPS. According to James Carden, Browder was mentioned 50 times, but the repeated citations apparently did not merit inclusion in media coverage of the story by the New York Times, Washington Post and Politico.

Fusion GPS, which was involved in the research producing the Steele Dossier used to discredit Donald Trump, was also retained to provide investigative services relating to a lawsuit in New York City involving a Russian company called Prevezon. As information provided by Browder was the basis of the lawsuit, his company and business practices while in Russia became part of the investigation. Simmons maintained that Browder proved to be somewhat evasive and his accounts of his activities were inconsistent. He claimed never to visit the United States and not own property or do business there, all of which were untrue, to include his ownership through a shell company of a $10 million house in Aspen Colorado. He repeatedly ran away, literally, from attempts to subpoena him so he would have to testify under oath.

Per Simmons, in Russia, Browder used shell companies locally and also worldwide to avoid taxes and conceal ownership, suggesting that he was likely one of many corrupt businessmen operating in what was a wild west business environment. My question is, “Why was such a man granted credibility and allowed a free run to poison the vitally important US-Russia relationship?” The answer might be follow the money. Israel Shamir reports that Browder was a major contributor to Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland, who was the major force behind the Magnitsky Act.

Of course the oligarch owned-and-controlled media at Politifact, WaPo and NYTimes have rolled out their lazy-brained “fact checks,” all relying on the idea that:
– Browder is an upstanding patriot that would never break the law,
– that that donation was never reported by the Clinton campaign,
– if they had taken that much money it would have been illegal,

If you read these entire articles, you can see for yourself that they’re gas lighting again, which is mouthing off a bunch of inanity and fallacies to deflect the real issues being raised.

It’s true that, it would have been illegal to take that much money from a single source (and to also not report it.) But what if the someones we’re talking about broke the law?

Judging from the reactions of some of the Deep State, they aren’t too happy. For instance, the claim of treason made by former CIA director Brennan…

Last Rablings of a Gitmo Detainee Brennan

…Also, there was the call for “patriots to stand up and reject the behavior” of this [sitting U.S. president,] from former FBI Director Comey…

It sure does seem like the Putin and Trump summit stirred up the Deep State’s Pretty Hate, propaganda machine. It will be very interesting to see if anything comes out of this.