The American Empire And Its Enemies

Most of us live within what we consider to be a republic. In that republic the citizens vote and elect representives who will pass laws, carry out the executive functions of government, and appoint judges to administer the law. All three of these "branches" of our constitutional order are charged with upholding the Constitution.

Of course, that outline is increasingly seen to be hopelessly simplistic. For conservatives it's an ideal to be restored. For "progressives," it's an instrument of oppression that stands in the way of a fundamental transformation of American society (Obama's words)--this constitutional order is to be resisted and ultimately overthrown.

The Impeachment Theater, flowing from the Ukraine Hoax, has revealed a different America--one that few of us truly feel that we belong to: the American Empire. For most Americans our foreign policy is intended to safeguard our security at home, not to police the world in the name of a non-national ideology of Globalism. And yet, what's being revealed in the Impeachment Theater is that there exists a confederation of interests--both within the government as well as outside (but very much connected with) the government--that view America as an empire. These interests are broadly bi-partisan--think: Uniparty, as sundance at CTH famously says. They are also broadly "progressive," even among the non-Dem members. Their focus on Empire is designed to "fundamentally transform" the world in the interests of a global order of their making, just as the progressive project on the domestic front is to transform American society in fundamental ways. The two projects are, of course, closely related, as we see in the growing effort to bind American domestic life to globalist norms, regulations, and laws. This effort even enjoys significant support within the progressive wing of our legal establishment and judiciary.

In these terms, Impeachment Theater is all about waging a scorched earth war against the enemies of the progressive transformation of America. Those enemies are personified in Donald Trump. Because Trump's rise and governance has been strictly in conformity with our recognized constitutional order, the forces of progressivism have obtained little traction in their "resistance" to Trump and to his conservative vision. Thus, we have--in contrast to all previous impeachments--the remarkable spectacle of serial coup attempts being run against a president, based in foreign policy rather than in domestic politics. This dynamic is what has forced this confederation of globalist interests to emerge into the open.

Who Paid For The Russia Hoax?

We did! You and I--Joe taxpayers. We pay the salaries of the bureaucrats at DoJ, the FBI, the CIA, the DoS and the NSC--the bureaucrats who tried to stage a coup.

OK, that's hardly news, but there's another less direct way in which taxpayer funding helped pay for the Russian Hoax: through grants to Non Government Organizations (NGOs). Today at The American Thinker Leo Goldstein discusses one particular such NGO, and his discussion plays into a blog I did back in November: The American Empire And Its Enemies.

Goldstein's article is The Russia Hoax Was Aided by NGOs Peddling Junk Science, but rather than focusing on the junk science angle, I want to point out the political connections, the confluence of persons, organizations, and--of course--MONEY. With that in mind, here's how Goldstein begins:

Some of the most vicious anti-Trump voices have come from US government-funded Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), affiliated with the State Department, Big Tech, and Soros afiliates. Many of these NGOs have existed since the Cold War, with a mandate to promote freedom and democracy abroad. They are forbidden to operate in the US, especially in partisan fashion. 

Note that well. These NGOs were set up to advance the cause of freedom and democracy, but they've been coopted by the international Left and the Democrat Party to advance their own cause--which happens to be what Obama termed the "fundamental transformation" of America. It's subordination to the new Globalist order.

What's So Special About That Relationship?

How it's done in Merrye Olde England ...

A little less than a week ago, Mike Sylwester drew my attention to a series of posts at the Moon of Alabama blog. These blog posts deal with the role that British intelligence agencies and their proxies played in our Russia Hoax. While they don't offer any breakthrough factual discoveries, per se, they do offer a valuable look inside the world of state sponsored intelligence operations that target public opinion as well as tantalizing links to US based people and organizations.

A good way to work our way into this topic is a piece that appeared today at Zerohedge: The Not So Special US-UK Relationship. The author begins by discussing the general notion of the Special Relationship between the US and the UK:

The Anglo-American ‘Special Relationship’ has been known to exist as a close alliance between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom since the days of FDR and Churchill forged during the Second World War. It is called special because of the unique historical and cultural bonds of kinship that unite the American and British peoples through a perceived shared heritage, common political/social/economic values and language. Together over the course of 72 years it has been the White House with the support of 10 Downing Street as its principal strategic leading ally in Europe.

Of course, nowadays we also speak of the Five Eyes,

an anglophone intelligence alliance comprising Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States. These countries are parties to the multilateral UKUSA Agreement, a treaty for joint cooperation in signals intelligence.

Indeed, we've seen the significant role that Australian intel operatives also played in our 2016 Presidential election. Nevertheless, the Anglo-American relationship remains special, especially because of the role the UK's GCHQ plays in monitoring worldwide communications:

Briefly Noted: A Humor Break

Two especially humorous items today.

First: Progs who just don't get it. 

WHO advisory board member: I'm a progressive Dem who was called a 'right-wing nut' over Wuhan lab leak theory

Jamie Metzl slammed Peter Daszak's 2020 Lancet letter condemning lab leak theory as 'scientific propaganda'

Jamie Metzl sounds for all the world like a prototypical prog. If you don't believe me, check him out at Wikipdedia or at his profile page. Whatever else those pages suggest to you, he's probably a natively very smart guy. He's a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and previously worked for Zhou Baiden and the Clinton Admin. With that background, you have to wonder: Exactly what about the Progressivism doesn't he get?

Obviously there's a disconnect somewhere, because he went and got himself labeled as a "right wing conspiracy theorist." You can imagine the amount of heartburn he--a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and a member of WHO's advisory board--is suffering! It's to the point that he actually appeared on Fox and Friends, seemingly the only platform willing to grant him an audience. And he still doesn't seem to understand what hit him--as if pleading his case on Fox will somehow restore him to the good graces of World Progressivism.

Here's how he responds to a question about Peter Daszak's orchestration of the Lancet statement, the statement that, 'Hey, that Covid thing was totally not engineered in a lab--are you crazy?' That's the statement that's now being revealed as complete bullsh*t, basically coerced from scientists who were on the government grant take. 

The clueless Metzl went on Fox to protest his Prog credentials jproceeds to congratulate his right wing hosts on defending science against the progressive Left and generally getting the whole story absolutely correct. Then Metzl goes on to compound matters by naively claiming that science--as practiced in the 21st century--isn't about politics:

What Should Winning Over The Russia Hoax Look Like?

I've been stewing a bit over the last few days, since Bill Barr's nolle prosequi in the wake of the Comey memos OIG investigation. Yes, I know that this is hardly the end game for Comey, but it's still irksome. And I'm not the only one who feels that way. For example, John Hinderaker writes today:

We have gotten to the point where, when the Department of Justice’s Inspector General releases a harshly critical report on former FBI Director James Comey, finding repeated instances of Comey violating FBI regulations and his own employment agreement to advance a political agenda, but the Attorney General decides not to press criminal charges, Comey declares victory and demands apologies from his critics. “I am not a crook!” is the proudest claim Obama’s FBI Director can make.

Hinderaker goes on to quote Rep. Andy Biggs, who expects indictments from the FISA report OIG is nearing completion on. Hinderaker is left sputtering: Let's hope so!

And he's absolutely right: "The Obama DOJ/FBI/CIA scandal is Watergate x 10,000. Someone needs to wind up in a federal penitentiary."

To explain in more detail what has me stewing, let's look at what Kevin Brock, a former top FBI official, wrote a few days ago regarding Comey's actions--from an FBI administrative standpoint:

[H]ere in the real world, this is what the IG’s investigation has confirmed: James Comey, as FBI director, created and maintained a separate record system that he kept in a desk drawer. He then also took most of those official records home. If that wasn’t enough recklessness, he leaked some of those records to the press after he was fired. 

To Comey, all of this is justified because some hero has to rise up and stand in the breach. But the IG methodically lists the numerous policies Comey violated, policies carefully designed over time to prevent the abuse of authority by those who self-craft a “higher loyalty” in their minds, thereby exempting themselves from the rules. Comey was no hero; he was nothing more than an executive vigilante. 

Creating a separate record system in the FBI is a mortal sin, and with good reason. Every newly minted agent at Quantico learns this as part of FBI 101. Anytime an FBI agent, to include the director, collects information in an official capacity, that information must be documented, associated with a case file number and entered into the FBI’s case management system. Comey never did that. In fact, his now infamous memos weren’t entered into the official FBI system until after he was fired.

That's the rub. Here in the real world, none of that happened in some sort of a vacuum. I'm not going to argue that "the numerous policies Comey violated" add up to a slam dunk criminal case. My point is simply that in the real world those policy violations were part--an important part--of a much bigger effort that, by the time Comey got the boot he so richly deserved, had extended for over a year. That effort constituted, in Jed Babbin's words,

UPDATED: Four Important Reads: Liberal Schadenfreude

While waiting for whether there will be late Friday revelations in the aggregated Russia Hoax scandal, here are four important stories on major shakeups in the Left Universe--as Thomas Lifson describes it at AmThinker: Media, Higher Education, Government Schools (aka "public" schools), the organs of mass indoctrination. Start with Lifson's thoughtful article:

Propaganda organs of the left hard hit by lockdown

The nation’s blue state governors seem to be far more enthusiastic about lockdowns than their red state counterparts, perhaps because they recognize that the small businesses being driven toward extinction are a key component of the GOP base. But if their motives are so ruthless, perhaps they need to reckon with the damage being done to the key propaganda organs of the left: progressive media, higher education, and government schools.

From there he covers the three bases of mass indoctrination, and the forces shaking their foundations.

Also at AmThinker, Monica Showalter takes a specific example--and it's delish:

Schadenfreude: Mommy Warbucks shuts her purse on The Atlantic's lefty denizens

The Lefty social revolutionaries thought they were shielded from the real world because they had The Billionaires on their side, not hated greedy shareholders. Joke's on you, suckers!

Here Showalter quotes Forbes

The Global Threat

Yesterday we took a look at the way in which the Zhou Baiden regime is marshalling all the resources at its disposal to wage war against domestic enemies (We Will Crush You). Those resources include government resources--Congressional inquiries, prosecution through DoJ that will focus on conservative dissidents, and a purge of the military to ensure that our armed forces will be a loyal arm of the regime. The resources also include non-governmental entities that are being charged with the all important task of controlling the flow of information and of public discussion. After the fact government measures by means of law enforcement and prosecution working through the courts are too little and too late in the information war--non-governmental social media and tech companies such as Twitter, Facebook, Google, and Amazon can act more efficiently and flexibly without the delay involved with working through the courts. In that regard we quote Caitlin Johnstone regarding the Corporatist model of the regime:

In A Corporatist System Of Government, Corporate Censorship Is State Censorship

In all this we saw the consistent twin focus of the regime and its proxies, a focus that tells us that their immediate concerns are 

1) to safeguard instruments of social control represented by the Covid regime and its vaxxing campaign, and 

2) to safeguard the legitimacy of the regime by suppressing all questioning regarding Election 2020.

 

It's worthwhile to turn to anti-war activist Johnstone's prescient 2018 article for a reminder of how this works and, especially, for the role of the Deep State:

The Deep State And The NSC

Phil Giraldi, a former CIA officer, has a nice piece up at Zerohedge this morning. Giraldi is no fan of Donald Trump but is disturbed at what's going on in the National Security Council. He sees Alexander Vindman--probably the actual originator of the "whistleblower" hoax--as a window into that world, and its distortion of American interests. I offer some excerpts. The entire article can be read here: Deep State On The National Security Council: Colonel Vindman Is An "Expert" With An Agenda.

The current frenzy to impeach President Donald Trump sometimes in its haste reveals that which could easily be hidden about the operation of the Deep State inside the federal government. ... 

The prepared opening statement by Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, described as the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council (NSC), provides some insights into how decision making at the NSC actually works. ... 

Vindman, Ukrainian both by birth and culturally, clearly was a major player in articulating and managing US policy towards that country, but that is not really what his role on the NSC should have been. As more than likely the US government’s sole genuine Ukrainian expert, he should have become a source of viable options that the United States might exercise vis-à-vis its relationship with Ukraine, and, by extension, regarding Moscow’s involvement with Kiev. But that is not how his statement, which advocates for a specific policy, reads. Rather than providing expert advice, Vindman was concerned chiefly because arming Ukraine was not proceeding quickly enough to suit him, an extremely risky policy which has already created serious problems with a much more important Russia. 

Vindman apparently sees Ukraine-Russia through the established optic provided by the Deep State, which considers global conflict as the price to pay for maintaining its largesse from the US taxpayer. Continuous warfare is its only business product, which explains in part its dislike of Donald Trump ... “”When I joined the NSC in July 2018, I began implementing the administration’s policy on Ukraine. In the Spring of 2019, I became aware of outside influencers promoting a false narrative of Ukraine inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency. This narrative was harmful to US government policy. While my interagency colleagues and I were becoming increasingly optimistic on Ukraine’s prospects, this alternative narrative undermined US government efforts to expand cooperation with Ukraine.” 

Translation: A narrative that is "inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency" is ipso facto a "false narrative" and "harmful to US government policy." Nota Bene: Not necessarily harmful to the United States, but harmful to the "consensus views of the interagency" which constitute, according to Vindman, the only legitimate source for "US government policy."

The Russia Hoax: Who Benefits?

Over at Zerohedge there's a perceptive piece that raises the obvious question. If the Russia Hoax is so transparently bogus--and it is--then the only reason it has shown so much staying power must be because someone or some group derives a substantial benefit from it. And so the author asks: Cui Bono? RussiaGate As Organized Distraction. The author is Oliver Boyd-Barrett at ConsortiumNews.com, and he focuses largely on actors in the global influence sphere. However, he then moves on to note the effect the use of an inherently implausible hoax has had on the free exchange of information in the US. Here is the concluding section:

Why then does the RussiaGate discourse have so much traction? Who benefits? 

RussiaGate serves the interest of a (No. 1) corrupted Democratic Party, whose biased and arguably incompetent campaign management lost it the 2016 election, in alliance (No. 2) with powerful factions of the U.S. industrial-military-surveillance establishment that for the past 19 years, through NATO and other malleable international agencies, has sought to undermine Russian President Vladimir Putin’s leadership, dismember Russia and the Russian Federation (undoubtedly for the benefit of Western capital) and, more latterly, further contain China in a perpetual and titanic struggle for the heart of EurAsia. 

In so far as Trump had indicated (for whatever reasons) in the course of his campaign that he disagreed with at least some aspects of this long-term strategy, he came to be viewed as unreliable by the U.S. security state. 

The Swamp Of Ukraine Corruption--And The Dems

The swamp of Ukraine corruption is far too vast a topic for me to take on--I prefer to stick to issues more directly related to areas in which I have more experience. However, several commenters, including Mike Sylwester and Cassander, have been exploring the topic. Here I'll simply offer some recent articles by knowledgeable students of what's been going on--how Ukrainian corruption has intersected with US politics.

We'll begin by linking to a blog at Moon of Alabama that Cassander pointed to: A Timeline Of Joe Biden's Intervention Against The Prosecutor General Of Ukraine.

The first article that I'll draw attention to is a relatively brief one by Patrick Lawrence: The Impeachment Pantomime. And here's a little teaser:

If everyone knows the whistleblower’s identity, why have the corporate media declined to name him? There can be but one answer to this question: If Ciaramella’s identity were publicized and his professional record exposed, the Ukrainegate narrative would instantly collapse into a second-rate vaudeville act — farce by any other name, although “hoax” might do, even if Trump has made the term his own.  

There is another half to this burlesque. While Schiff and his House colleagues chicken-scratch for something, anything that may justify a formal impeachment, a clear, documented record emerges of Joe Biden’s official interventions in Ukraine in behalf of Burisma Holdings, the gas company that named Hunter Biden to its board in March 2014 — a month, it is worth noting, after the U.S.–cultivated coup in Kiev. 

There is no thought of scrutinizing Biden’s activities by way of an official inquiry. In its way, this, too, reflects upon the pantomime of the impeachment probe. Are there sufficient grounds to open an investigation? Emphatically there are. Two reports published last week make this plain by any reasonable measure. 

The next two articles are much longer.

Briefly Noted: World War Three?

Since the very beginning of the Zhou Baiden regime the US military has adopted provocative measures with regard to Russia. As early as the first week of February the deployment of B-1 bombers to Norway's Arctic regions (close to sensitive Russian naval bases) was announced. A ramped up presence in Syria, near Russian forces supporting the Syrian government, has also been underway. Finally, US Navy activity in Russia's strategic backyard of the Black Sea has continued, along with the supply of hundreds of tons of military equipment to Ukraine. All this has been accompanied by a pretty much no holds barred war of words against Russia in general and Vladimir Putin in particular--including US assurances of support to Ukraine against Russia.

Ukraine, of course, is ground zero for George Soros' globalist ambitions. In addition to the military activity, US intelligence agencies, such as the FBI office in Ukraine, have coordinated with Soros operatives. The impression one gets is that Soros is having an enormous influence on US foreign policy once again, now that the restraining influence of President Trump has been removed by the Deep State and replaced by amateurish Clinton/Obama warhawks.

Ukraine has been making belligerent sounds as well, since the Zhou regime took over. Russia has responded by beefing up its own military presence in the Crimea and near the border with Ukraine in the Don basin. Zerohedge explains, via Michael Snyder--As Russian Tanks Move Toward Ukraine, The Globe Braces For World War 3:

Pandemic simulation games – Preparation for a new era?

I'm going to be presenting, below, a transcript of a bit less than half of a presentation by a German journalist--the presentation being under the same title. What the presenter, Paul Schreyer, does is to present the history of various crisis management scenarios simulated and planned for by the US government over quite a long time span. Those scenarios have come to focus in recent decades on pandemic response. It's a very interesting picture that gets presented. Schreyer doesn't argue for any overall perspective, urging instead that his viewers decide for themselves what it all means. 

As you'll see, I've embedded the Youtube of the presentation. There is an English voiceover, as well as English subtitles. The reason I've provided a transcript is because this will provide readier access for anyone wishing to return to any specific point. My transcript begins after Schreyer summarizes earlier simulations, and continues from the financial crisis of 2007. However, to give you an idea of some of the content in the first half (or a bit more) of the presentation, here is one example.

Schreyer points out that the US government decided to conduct a project to see whether "terrorists" could--using "off the shelf" materials--construct an anthrax weapon. The results were successful! Later, he deals with the famous "anthrax letters"--a case that mirabile dictu has still not been solved. He notes that the two senators to whom anthrax letters were directed--Leahy and Daschle--had been opposing proposed measures to grant the Deep State extensive new powers. They changed their minds. Make of that what you will. In that first half you'll also learn about the significance of Zhou's reference to the US facing a "Dark Winter."

Before we get into Schreyer's presentation, I want to point out what appears to be some good news on a related matter--passports. The so-called Covid passports. Today at AmThinker there's an embed of a Naomi Wolf video (15 minutes) that explains how the passport regime would essentially equate to the Chinese regime of "social credit" points. You'll want to keep that in mind while following Schreyer's presentation. However, Karl Denninger maintains today that the passport offensive appears to have failed, and the NYT is also saying pretty much the same thing. Americans are balking.

I'm going to all this trouble because I believe that the perspective afforded by Schreyer ties in well with other social and political developments that we've experienced over the last years. For example, Schreyer explicitly ties these developments into US politics, while leaving you to draw conclusions. Obviously, he can't cover everything, but I'm guessing that readers here will be "triggered" by what he has to say. The close cooperation between governments, their intelligence and LE agencies, NGOs, private foundations, and the communication and tech media companies is a feature that will surely draw your interest.

So first I'll embed the video, followed by the intro and a table of contents, that may prove useful. That will be followed by the transcript, which covers 25 minutes of talking.

Why Bill Barr Makes Libs Hysterical: Opus Dei And The All-Powerful President

Have I mentioned that I have trouble concentrating on the things that I'm supposed to be doing? Here's a MUST READ for anyone who's inclined to give any credence to the paranoid fantasies of such as sundance that AG Bill Barr is planning to sell out Trump to Deep State institutional interests. In reality, a better version of Barr's views is that he would tend to say the the President IS the Deep State. So, behold, a long, long New Yorker article designed--as if it were necessary--to arouse the deepest liberal fears of theocracy in America, under the direction of Donald J. Trump as a sort of Divine Right Monarch.

You've really got to read it, because it does contain a lot of information to go with the expected disinformation. Conveniently, as I hope you'll see in a few days, this will play very much into my projected blog on the constitutionality of FISA.

WILLIAM BARR, TRUMP’S SWORD AND SHIELD

The Attorney General’s mission to maximize executive power and protect the Presidency.

By David Rohde

January 13, 2020

For decades, Barr has argued that Congress is a menace to the Presidency. As Attorney General, he’s poised to fight back.

 God, I LUV that title! The Russia Hoax lives! Here it is, the Bill Barr coat of arms:

Sinister enough for you? No? Then how about the image at the top of the article, that captures Barr as the Éminence grise behind Trump:

The impersonal evil of the man! The menace!

Bill Barr: Deep State Actor--Or Not?

One area in which I've received a fair amount of pushback from commenters has been my belief that Bill Barr may be exactly what is needed as AG if the country is to navigate the Russia Hoax--undoubtedly the most significant political scandal in our history--without grave damage to our constitutional form of government. The Team Mueller "probe" phase may be winding down, but no one should be under any illusion that calm waters lie ahead.

As far as Barr himself goes, let me offer two brief quotes for the positive case, from differing perspectives. First, Jonathan Turley, a very liberal law professor who also happens to be a leading expert on impeachment. In 5 myths about William Barr he writes in frankly glowing terms of the presumptively conservative Barr, with an added caution:

I testified Wednesday in favor of his confirmation before the Senate Judiciary Committee. I have known Barr for many years and represented him, along with other former attorneys general, during the Bill Clinton impeachment period. He is one of the best lawyers I have ever known, as well as one of the most educated and circumspect. For that reason, I have been taken aback by many false accounts of his views and background.

People are free to disagree with his view of executive power or with his tough on crime approach. However, critics seems to be more interested in reconstructing his record than in recognizing it. Even the most direct answers seem to get distorted.

Next up, Conrad Black, a Trump partisan, presents the hopes--and the reason for hope--that many Trump supporters place on Barr in The Greatest Constitutional Crisis Since the Civil War. In doing so he also alludes to a fact of political life in this republic that I pointed out in a comment recently: Barr is not the sole hope; he is not operating totally on his own:

This entire monstrous travesty [the Russia Hoax] is finally coming apart without even waiting for the horrible disappointment of the special counsel’s inability to adduce a scrap of evidence to justify his replication of Torquemada as an inquisitor and of the Gestapo and KGB at rounding up and accusing unarmed individuals who were not flight risks. The collapse of this grotesque putsch, under the irresistible pressure of a functioning attorney general and Senate committees that are not hamstrung by NeverTrumpers, will cause a revulsion against the Democratic Party that will be seismic and prolonged.

So, with that introduction, let's turn to what we know about Barr and his past relationship to the Deep State. Because the fact of the matter is, Barr does have strong ties to the Deep State, ties that go back to the very beginnings of his career in Washington.