Tribute and a Reunion for Dick Cheney in Capital
George W. Bush speaks at unveiling of marble bust of Dick Cheney


 Cheney’s Bust

Former President George W. Bush and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. spoke at a presentation of a bust of former Vice President Dick Cheney in the Capitol.

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS on Publish DateDecember 3, 2015. Photo by Brendan Smialowski/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images. Watch in Times Video »

WASHINGTON — Before making a rare return visit to the nation’s capital on Thursday, former President George W. Bush said he mentioned to his father that he would be attending a ceremony honoring his vice president,Dick Cheney.

“Dad perked up,” the younger Mr. Bush recalled, “and he said, ‘Send my best regards to Old Iron Ass.’ ”

Mr. Cheney and a roomful of admirers at the Capitol on Thursday laughed at the joke, a knowing reference to a new biography of the elder George Bush that quoted him criticizing his son’s vice president for being too hard-line. The younger Mr. Bush grinned at Mr. Cheney and then added, “That is indeed a badge of honor.”

Mr. Bush joined Republican congressional leaders, veterans of his administration and hundreds of others on Thursday to pay tribute to Mr. Cheney as his official bust was unveiled at the Capitol. Under the Constitution, the vice president serves as president of the Senate and since 1885 Congress has cast in marble the likenesses of those who held the position.

Mr. Bush used the occasion to embrace his former vice president despite the distance between them after leaving office amid various disagreements. The two have appeared in public together only a few times in the last seven years — at the groundbreaking and later opening of the Bush presidential library and at a party Mr. Bush threw last year for Mr. Cheney’s wife, Lynne Cheney, when she published a biography of James Madison.

Mr. Bush heaped praise on Mr. Cheney on Thursday. “For eight years, Dick stood by my side and always did what was right for our nation,” he said. “I could not have asked for a better vice president than Dick Cheney. He’s a good man who loves his country and really loves his family.”

Mr. Cheney returned the sentiment. “I worked for someone who I respected and liked without reservation,” he said. “He’s a man of great strength and also great gentleness. He has integrity, a sense of humor and utter lack of pretense.”

The former vice president also offered kind words for the elder Mr. Bush despite the criticism in “Destiny and Power,” the biography by Jon Meacham. “If you had to design an individual to serve as commander in chief during those times, it would look a lot like George H.W. Bush,” said Mr. Cheney, who was his defense secretary. “I was proud and honored to serve under him.”

No mention was made of Mr. Cheney’s controversial positions on waterboarding and the Iraq war, but then, it was something of a one-sided affair because Democrats stayed away. Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic leader, was listed in the program as a speaker alongside Republicans like Senators Mitch McConnell and Roy Blunt and Speaker Paul D. Ryan. But Mr. Reid canceled after scheduling a Democratic caucus meeting for the same time.

The only prominent elected Democrat on hand was Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

“I actually like Dick Cheney,” Mr. Biden said. “I have nothing but inordinate respect for you, Dick, and I mean that sincerely.”

Mr. Biden noted that after his son Beau died this year, the Cheney family reached out with condolences and contributed money to a memorial. Washington should not personalize political differences, Mr. Biden said.

“Dick and I can argue like hell about everything from foreign policy to domestic policy,” he said. “But if we went at each other in personal ways, questioning motives, there would be no possibility of reaching resolution.”

In addition to Mrs. Cheney and the Cheneys’ daughters, Liz and Mary, the event brought together well-known figures of the past administration. Mr. Biden jokingly thanked his predecessor “for letting me crash your family reunion.”

Beyond Mr. Biden, one of the few Democrats was Robert Barnett, the Washington lawyer who played Mr. Cheney in debate preparations for the Democrats in 2000 and 2004 before representing him in selling his memoir.

The bust, sculpted by William Behrends of North Carolina, captures the former vice president’s famously serious visage with just a hint of his tight-lipped crooked smile. Mr. Cheney pronounced it “superb” and told Mr. Biden, “You see, Joe? There’s something to look forward to.”

Mr. Bush said the bust would be “prominently displayed in an undisclosed location” and that his own “looked like Alfred E. Neuman” of Mad magazine. He said he never worried that Mr. Cheney could step in as president “if I were to get hurt by a bus or choke on a pretzel.”

He also teased Mr. Cheney about the time he cursed Senator Patrick J. Leahy, a Democratic critic. “Although he didn’t spend much time speaking on the floor, he managed to convey a lot in a few words,” Mr. Bush said. “Just ask Senator Leahy.”

Referring to the unveiling of his official portrait at the White House, Mr. Bush said returning to Washington had its worries: “The last time I showed up here I was hanged in the White House. This time, I return to find my vice president getting busted in the Capitol.”

Who is behind the riots? Charlotte police says 70% of arrested protesters had out of state IDs — Nwo Report

Source: Zero Hedge Confirming what many had suspected when viewing the sudden and intense collapse into anrchy that occurred in Charlotte this week, Todd Walther, spokesman for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Fraternal Order of Police told CNN’s Erin Burnett: “This is not Charlotte that’s out here. These are outside entities that are coming in and causing these […]

via Who is behind the riots? Charlotte police says 70% of arrested protesters had out of state IDs — Nwo Report

British Parliament Confirms Libya War Was Based On Lies … Turned Nation Into a “Shit Show” … Spread Terrorism


Anthony Freda:

Parliamentary Report Confirms What the Alternative Media Has Been Saying for Years

The UK Parliament just confirmed what the alternative media has been saying for years.

Specifically, a new report from the bipartisan House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee – based on interviews with all of the key British decision-makers, review of documents, and on-the-ground investigations in Africa – found that the Libyan war was based on lies, that it destroyed the country, and that it spread terrorism far and wide.

The War Based On Bogus Intelligence … Like the Iraq War

Initially, the report finds that the threat to civilians from Libyan  government forces was dramatically overstated:

Former French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé, who introduced Resolution 1973 [imposing a no-fly zone over Libya, and laying the groundwork for overthrowing the government], asserted in his speech to the Security Council that “the situation on the ground is more alarming than ever, marked by the violent re-conquest of cities”. He stressed the urgency of the situation, arguing that “We have very little time left—perhaps only a matter of hours.” Subsequent analysis suggested that the immediate threat to civilians was being publicly overstated and that the reconquest of cities had not resulted in mass civilian casualties.


The proposition that Muammar Gaddafi would have ordered the massacre of civilians in Benghazi  [which was the basis for the West’s war to overthrow Gaddafi] was not supported by the available evidence. The Gaddafi regime had retaken towns from the rebels without attacking civilians in early February 2011 …. Gaddafi regime forces targeted male combatants in a civil war and did not indiscriminately attack civilians. More widely, Muammar Gaddafi’s 40-year record of appalling human rights abuses did not include large-scale attacks on Libyan civilians.


On 17 March 2011, Muammar Gaddafi announced to the rebels in Benghazi, “Throw away your weapons, exactly like your brothers in Ajdabiya and other places did. They laid down their arms and they are safe. We never pursued them at all.” Subsequent investigation revealed that when Gaddafi regime forces retook Ajdabiya in February 2011, they did not attack civilians. Muammar Gaddafi also attempted to appease protesters in Benghazi with an offer of development aid before finally deploying troops.


An Amnesty International investigation in June 2011 could not corroborate allegations of mass human rights violations by Gaddafi regime troops. However, it uncovered evidence that rebels in Benghazi made false claims and manufactured evidence. The investigation concluded that

much Western media coverage has from the outset presented a very one-sided view of the logic of events, portraying the protest movement as entirely peaceful and repeatedly suggesting that the regime’s security forces were unaccountably massacring unarmed demonstrators who presented no security challenge.


In short, the scale of the threat to civilians was presented with unjustified certainty. US intelligence officials reportedly described the intervention as “an intelligence-light decision”.

Just like the ginned up intelligence used to justify the Iraq war. And the “humanitarian wars” waged over the last couple of decades.

The Libyan Government Was Fighting Terrorists

The report also notes that the Libyan government really was – as Libyan dictator Gaddafi claimed at the time – fighting Islamic terrorists:

Intelligence on the extent to which extremist militant Islamist elements were involved in the anti-Gaddafi rebellion was inadequate.


Abdelhakim Belhadj and other members of the al-Qaeda affiliated Libyan Islamic Fighting Group were participating in the rebellion in March 2011.

Secret intelligence reports from 2011, written before and during the illegal US-led attack on Libya and recently obtained by the Washington Times, state:

There is a close link between al Qaeda, Jihadi organizations, and the opposition in Libya…

Indeed, the Libyan rebel commander admitted at the time that his fighters had links to Al Qaeda.  And see this.

We reported in 2012:

The U.S. supported opposition which overthrew Libya’s Gadaffi was largely comprised of Al Qaeda terrorists. According to a 2007 report by West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center’s center, the Libyan city of Benghazi was one of Al Qaeda’s main headquarters – and bases for sending Al Qaeda fighters into Iraq – prior to the overthrow of Gaddafi:

The Hindustan Times reported last year:

“There is no question that al Qaeda’s Libyan franchise, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, is a part of the opposition,” Bruce Riedel, former CIA officer and a leading expert on terrorism, told Hindustan Times.

It has always been Qaddafi’s biggest enemy and its stronghold is Benghazi.


(Incidentally, Gaddafi was on the verge of invading Benghazi in 2011, 4 years after the West Point report cited Benghazi as a hotbed of Al Qaeda terrorists. Gaddafi claimed – rightly it turns out – that Benghazi was an Al Qaeda stronghold and a main source of the Libyan rebellion.  But NATO planes stopped him, and protected Benghazi.)

The Daily Mail reported in 2014:

A self-selected group of former top military officers, CIA insiders and think-tankers, declared Tuesday in Washington that a seven-month review of the deadly 2012 terrorist attack has determined that it could have been prevented – if the U.S. hadn’t been helping to arm al-Qaeda militias throughout Libya a year earlier.

‘The United States switched sides in the war on terror with what we did in Libya, knowingly facilitating the provision of weapons to known al-Qaeda militias and figures,’ Clare Lopez, a member of the commission and a former CIA officer, told MailOnline.

She blamed the Obama administration for failing to stop half of a $1 billion United Arab Emirates arms shipment from reaching al-Qaeda-linked militants.

‘Remember, these weapons that came into Benghazi were permitted to enter by our armed forces who were blockading the approaches from air and sea,’ Lopez claimed. ‘They were permitted to come in. … [They] knew these weapons were coming in, and that was allowed..

‘The intelligence community was part of that, the Department of State was part of that, and certainly that means that the top leadership of the United States, our national security leadership, and potentially Congress – if they were briefed on this – also knew about this.’


‘The White House and senior Congressional members,’ the group wrote in an interim report released Tuesday, ‘deliberately and knowingly pursued a policy that provided material support to terrorist organizations in order to topple a ruler [Muammar Gaddafi] who had been working closely with the West actively to suppress al-Qaeda.’

‘Some look at it as treason,’ said Wayne Simmons, a former CIA officer who participated in the commission’s research.

The West and Its Allies Directly Supported and Armed the Rebels

The UK report confirms that the West and its allies directly supported and armed the rebels:

The combat performance of rebel ground forces was enhanced by personnel and intelligence provided by states such as the UK, France, Turkey, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. For example, Lord Richards told us that the UK “had a few people embedded” with the rebel forces.

Resolution 1973 called on United Nations member states to ensure the “strict implementation of the arms embargo”. However, we were told that the international community turned a blind eye to the supply of weapons to the rebels. Lord Richards highlighted “the degree to which the Emiratis and the Qataris … played a major role in the success of the ground operation.” For example, Qatar supplied French Milan anti­tank missiles to certain rebel groups. We were told that Qatar channelled its weapons to favoured militias rather than to the rebels as a whole.

The REAL Motivation for War

The real motivation for the war?  The Parliamentary report explains:

A further insight into French motivations was provided in a freedom of information disclosure by the United States State Department in December 2015. On 2 April 2011, Sidney Blumenthal, adviser and unofficial intelligence analyst to the then United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, reported this conversation with French intelligence officers to the Secretary of State:

According to these individuals Sarkozy’s plans are driven by the following issues:

  1. A desire to gain a greater share of Libya oil production,
  2. Increase French influence in North Africa,
  3. Improve his internal political situation in France,
  4. Provide the French military with an opportunity to reassert its position in the world,
  5. Address the concern of his advisors over Qaddafi’s long term plans to supplant France as the dominant power in Francophone Africa.

The sum of four of the five factors identified by Sidney Blumenthal equated to the French national interest. The fifth factor was President Sarkozy’s political self-interest.

Gaddafi Tried to Step Down … But the West Insisted On Violent Regime Change

Gaddafi had offered to hand over power, but the West instead wanted violent regime change. (The British report notes: “By the summer of 2011, the limited intervention to protect civilians had drifted into an opportunist policy of regime change.”)

The Parliamentary report notes that Gaddaffi may have been attempting to flee the country when he was killed:

Muammar Gaddafi might have been seeking an exit from Libya in February and March 2011. On 21 February 2011, for example, Lord Hague told reporters that he had seen credible information that Muammar Gaddafi was on his way to exile in Venezuela. Concerted action after the telephone calls conducted by Mr Blair might have led to Muammar Gaddafi’s abdication and to a negotiated solution in Libya. It was therefore important to keep the lines of communication open. However, we saw no evidence that the then Prime Minister David Cameron attempted to exploit Mr Blair’s contacts.


Political options were available if the UK Government had adhered to the spirit of Resolution 1973, implemented its original campaign plan and influenced its coalition allies to pause military action when Benghazi was secured in March 2011. Political engagement might have delivered civilian protection, regime change and reform at lesser cost to the UK and to Libya. If political engagement had been unsuccessful, the UK and its coalition allies would not have lost anything. Instead, the UK Government focused exclusively on military intervention. In particular, we saw no evidence that it tried to exploit former Prime Minister Tony Blair’s contacts and influence with the Gaddafi regime.

The U.S. and France were also hell-bent on regime change.  And the New York Times confirms that Hillary Clinton is largely responsible for the violent regime change in Libya.

Why Should We Care?

Why should we care?

Well, the House of Commons report confirms that the Libyan war has wrecked the country:

The Libyan economy generated some $75 billion of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2010. This economy produced an average annual per capita income of approximately $12,250, which was comparable to the average income in some European countries. [The former Indian representative to the U.N. notes that, before the war, Libya had less of its population in poverty than the Netherlands.  Libyans had access to free health care, education, electricity and interest-free loans, and women had great freedoms that were applauded by the U.N. Human Rights Council]. Libyan Government revenue greatly exceeded expenditure in the 2000s. … The United Nations Human Development Report 2010—a United Nations aggregate measure of health, education and income—ranked Libya as the 53rd most advanced country in the world for human development and as the most advanced country in Africa.


In 2014, the most recent year for which reliable figures are available … the average Libyan’s annual income had decreased from $12,250 in 2010 to $7,820.  Since 2014, Libya’s economic predicament has reportedly deteriorated. Libya is likely to experience a budget deficit of some 60% of GDP in 2016. The requirement to finance that deficit is rapidly depleting net foreign reserves, which halved from $107 billion in 2013 to $56.8 billion by the end of 2015. Production of crude oil fell to its lowest recorded level in 2015, while oil prices collapsed in the second half of 2014. Inflation increased to 9.2% driven by a 13.7% increase in food prices including a fivefold increase in the price of flour. The United Nations ranked Libya as the world’s 94th most advanced country in its 2015 index of human development, a decline from 53rd place in 2010.


In 2016, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs estimated that out of a total Libyan population of 6.3 million, 3 million people have been impacted by the armed conflict and political instability, and that 2.4 million people require protection and some form of humanitarian assistance. In its World Report 2016, Human Rights Watch stated that Libya is

heading towards a humanitarian crisis, with almost 400,000 people internally displaced and increasing disruption to basic services, such as power and fuel supplies. Forces engaged in the conflict continued with impunity to arbitrarily detain, torture, unlawfully kill, indiscriminately attack, abduct and disappear, and forcefully displace people from their homes. The domestic criminal justice system collapsed in most parts of the country, exacerbating the human rights crisis

People-trafficking gangs exploited the lack of effective government after 2011, making Libya a key transit route for illegal migration into Europe and the location of a migrant crisis. In addition to other extremist militant groups, ISIL emerged in Libya in 2014, seizing control of territory around Sirte and setting up terrorist training centres. Human Rights Watch documented unlawful executions by ISIL in Sirte of at least 49 people by methods including decapitation and shooting. The civil war between west and east has waxed and waned with sporadic outbreaks of violence since 2014. In April 2016, United States President Barack Obama described post-intervention Libya as a “shit show”. It is difficult to disagree with this pithy assessment.

The Parliamentary report confirms that the Libyan war – like the Iraq war – has ended up spreading terrorism around the globe:

Libyan weapons and ammunition were trafficked across North and West Africa and the Middle East.


The United Nations Panel of Experts appointed to examine the impact of Resolution 1973 identified the presence of ex-Libyan weapons in Algeria, Chad, Egypt, Gaza, Mali, Niger, Tunisia and Syria. The panel concluded that “arms originating from Libya have significantly reinforced the military capacity of terrorist groups operating in Algeria, Egypt, Mali and Tunisia.” In the 2010-15 Parliament, our predecessor Committee noted that the failure to secure the Gaddafi regime’s arms caches had led to “a proliferation of small arms and light weapons, and some heavier artillery, across North and West Africa”. It identified that Libyan small arms had apparently ended up in the hands of Boko Haram militants.


In January 2014, Egyptian Islamist insurgents used an ex-Libyan MANPAD to shoot down an Egyptian Army helicopter in the Sinai.


The FCO told us that “Political instability in Libya has led to a permissive environment for terrorist groups in which to operate, including ISIL [i.e. ISIS] affiliated groups”.   Professor Patrick Porter, Professor of Strategic Studies at the University of Exeter, agreed with the FCO analysis, stating that “a lack of effective government is creating opportunities for the Islamic State.”


ISIL has used its presence in Libya to train terrorists. For example, Sefeddine Rezgui, the gunman who killed Western holidaymakers in Tunisia in June 2015, was trained by ISIL at its base in Sabratha along with the two gunmen who killed 22 tourists at the Bardo museum in Tunis. ISIL’s plans may extend beyond terrorism. Vice-Admiral Clive Johnstone, a Royal Navy officer and NATO commander, commented that

We know they [ISIL] have ambitions to go offshore … There is a horrible opportunity in the future that a misdirected, untargeted round of a very high quality weapons system will just happen to target a cruise liner, or an oil platform, or a container ship.

And the UK report confirms that the Libyan war has created a tidal wave of refugees:

The International Organization for Migration (IOM) estimated that some 1 million migrants were present in Libya in June 2016. This estimate comprised 425,000 internally displaced Libyans, 250,000 non-Libyan migrants and 250,000 returnees. Most non-Libyan migrants travelled from West Africa, the Horn of Africa, South Asia and the Middle East. The most common countries of origin for non-Libyan migrants were Niger, Egypt, Chad, Ghana and Sudan. Between 1 January and 31 May 2016, 47,851 migrants arrived in Italy after crossing the Mediterranean from Libya. A similar number of migrants attempted the crossing over the same period in 2015. Despite the increased resources committed to Operation Triton, however, crossing the Mediterranean is becoming increasingly hazardous for migrants transiting through Libya. The IOM recorded 2,061 migrants as dead or missing between 1 January and 31 May 2016, which showed a 15% increase in fatalities compared with the same period in 2015.

In other words – just like the Iraq war – the Libyan war was based on fake intelligence, was carried out for reasons having little to do with national security or protecting civilians, destroyed a nation and created a “shit show”, spread terrorism far and wide, and created waves of refugees.

15 years of 911 Deception Matrix Reviewed 11 September 2016

Published on 11 Sep 2016

~credits video: & SUBSCRIBE: On 11 September 2001, the world was shocked. It proved to be a milestone in history. Suddenly we were “at war”; a ‘war on terror’ we were told that proved to be endless and hopeless. Fifteen years after the event, this ‘WeAreChange.NL’ documentary challenges your ability “to see what you see” and invites you to critically re-examine and take responsibility accordingly regarding the impact of 9/11 on our lives. We let activists, journalists, scientists, people in the street, and critics reflect on the initial events and its ramifications in the present.

What Really Happened on 9/11 and Why It’s Still a Secret

Published on 11 Sep 2016

I am not a truther. (And as Gore Vidal noted famously) nor am I a conspiracy theorist; I’m a conspiracy analyst. The official story of 9/11 is folklorish and mythological. It’s beyond unbelievable and is, like Napoleon’s definition of history, a set of lies that people have agreed upon. If you’ve never spent any time deconstructing the amazing rewriting of the physical evidence, eyewitness testimony, the laws of gravity, physics, structural engineering, architectural science, piloting, aerodynamics, evidence, common sense — well, you’ve missed one of life’s rare events.

But there’s no evidence of it being a US government “inside job” or false flag or state-sponsored. There. Feel relieved? I know that’s what bothers many Americans, especially those in the Ted Baxter sockpuppet media. I mean, when has the government ever lied about its knowledge or complicity? Heavens! Now, that’s not to say it’s not a possibility or unlikely or even far-fetched. No, certainly not. There’s simply no evidence of it. Nor is there evidence of motivation, goal or intended results or beneficiaries. Cui bono? Cui prodest? I think we know, certainly. But that’s not evidence of anything. Notwithstanding a mountain of fascinating facts and data that scream out for further investigation and review. Think a permanent Russell-Sartre Tribunal of sorts. Anything but the dog and pony show of Congress. And on a personal, individual level, and from having spent my life investigating reality versus “history” I do not believe that President Cheney or his manservant Dubya knew anything in advance or were involved directly in any aspects of our day of horror. Aside from the lack of evidence indicating such, there’s the benefit of plausible deniability and the absolute folly that would involve their involvement. While I believe also that Pearl Harbor was not as recorded or believed, I do not believe FDR was directly involved or had knowledge beforehand. Know when to be detective; know when to be juror. Suspicion versus the weighing of probity. Just because you have an Aha! moment in determining that a piece of evidence as advanced is not what you believe to be true, culpability is not assigned thereafter. Dig?…

BREAKING! Trump Just Did In a Hour what the Last FOUR Administrations Couldn’t Do in Decades!



Liberals were salivating today over Trump’s trip to Mexico, just praying that it would be a disaster. Unfortunately for them, their prayers went unanswered and Trump knocked it out of the park!

Trump showed respect for Mexican President Enrique Peñawhile, but also made it clear that he wouldn’t waver when it comes to protecting the lives of Americans. Trump’s meeting was so successful, he was able to convince a Mexican president that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) needs to be changed. No president has been able to do that in 22 years!

In 1992, Bill Clinton promised that NAFTA would result in an increase in the number of high quality jobs for Americans and reduce illegal immigration. Republicans warned that just the opposite would happen and millions of jobs will leave this country. Most Americans chose to believe Bill Clinton. Well, it is 20 years later and it turns out Republicans were right and Bill Clinton was dead wrong.

Hillary has referred to NAFTA as “the gold standard”, but statistics show NAFTA has been devastating to our economy.

We need a leader who will put politics aside and put AMERICAN jobs first! Trump just proved to the world that he has what it takes to be diplomatic without compromising strength.

THAT is what it will take to make America great again.

Watch the full press conference below…

The Broken Chessboard: Brzezinski Gives Up On Empire


Submitted by Mike Whitney via,

The main architect of Washington’s plan to rule the world has abandoned the scheme and called for the forging of ties with Russia and China. While Zbigniew Brzezinski’s article in The American Interest titled “Towards a Global Realignment” has largely been ignored by the media, it shows that powerful members of the policymaking establishment no longer believe that Washington will prevail in its quest to extent US hegemony across the Middle East and Asia. Brzezinski, who was the main proponent of this idea and who drew up the blueprint for imperial expansion in his 1997 book The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, has done an about-face and called for a dramatic revising of the strategy. Here’s an excerpt from the article in the AI:

As its era of global dominance ends, the United States needs to take the lead in realigning the global power architecture.


Five basic verities regarding the emerging redistribution of global political power and the violent political awakening in the Middle East are signaling the coming of a new global realignment.


The first of these verities is that the United States is still the world’s politically, economically, and militarily most powerful entity but, given complex geopolitical shifts in regional balances, it is no longer the globally imperial power.”


(Toward a Global Realignment, Zbigniew Brzezinski, The American Interest)

Repeat: The US is “no longer the globally imperial power.” Compare this assessment to a statement Brzezinski made years earlier in Chessboard when he claimed the US was ” the world’s paramount power.”

“…The last decade of the twentieth century has witnessed a tectonic shift in world affairs. For the first time ever, a non-Eurasian power has emerged not only as a key arbiter of Eurasian power relations but also as the world’s paramount power. The defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union was the final step in the rapid ascendance of a Western Hemisphere power, the United States, as the sole and, indeed, the first truly global power.” (“The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives,” Zbigniew Brzezinski, Basic Books, 1997, p. xiii)

Here’s more from the article in the AI:

“The fact is that there has never been a truly “dominant” global power until the emergence of America on the world scene….. The decisive new global reality was the appearance on the world scene of America as simultaneously the richest and militarily the most powerful player. During the latter part of the 20th century no other power even came close. That era is now ending.” (AI)

But why is “that era is now ending”? What’s changed since 1997 when Brzezinski referred to the US as the “world’s paramount power”?

Brzezinski points to the rise of Russia and China, the weakness of Europe and the “violent political awakening among post-colonial Muslims” as the proximate causes of this sudden reversal. His comments on Islam are particularly instructive in that he provides a rational explanation for terrorism rather than the typical government boilerplate about “hating our freedoms.” To his credit, Brzezinski sees the outbreak of terror as the “welling up of historical grievances” (from “deeply felt sense of injustice”) not as the mindless violence of fanatical psychopaths.

Naturally, in a short 1,500-word article, Brzezniski can’t cover all the challenges (or threats) the US might face in the future. But it’s clear that what he’s most worried about is the strengthening of economic, political and military ties between Russia, China, Iran, Turkey and the other Central Asian states. This is his main area of concern, in fact, he even anticipated this problem in 1997 when he wrote Chessboard. Here’s what he said:

“Henceforth, the United States may have to determine how to cope with regional coalitions that seek to push America out of Eurasia, thereby threatening America’s status as a global power.” (p.55)


“…To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together.” (p.40)

“…prevent collusion…among the vassals.” That says it all, doesn’t it?

The Obama administration’s reckless foreign policy, particularly the toppling of governments in Libya and Ukraine, has greatly accelerated the rate at which these anti-American coalitions have formed. In other words, Washington’s enemies have emerged in response to Washington’s behavior. Obama can only blame himself.

Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin has responded to the growing threat of regional instability and the placing of NATO forces on Russia’s borders by strengthening alliances with countries on Russia’s perimeter and across the Middle East. At the same time, Putin and his colleagues in the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) countries have established an alternate banking system (BRICS Bank and AIIB) that will eventually challenge the dollar-dominated system that is the source of US global power. This is why Brzezinski has done a quick 180 and abandoned the plan for US hegemony; it is because he is concerned about the dangers of a non-dollar-based system arising among the developing and unaligned countries that would replace the western Central Bank oligopoly. If that happens, then the US will lose its stranglehold on the global economy and the extortionist system whereby fishwrap greenbacks are exchanged for valuable goods and services will come to an end.

Unfortunately, Brzezinski’s more cautious approach is not likely to be followed by presidential-favorite Hillary Clinton who is a firm believer in imperial expansion through force of arms. It was Clinton who first introduced “pivot” to the strategic lexicon in a speech she gave in 2010 titled “America’s Pacific Century”. Here’s an excerpt from the speech that appeared in Foreign Policy magazine:

“As the war in Iraq winds down and America begins to withdraw its forces from Afghanistan, the United States stands at a pivot point. Over the last 10 years, we have allocated immense resources to those two theaters. In the next 10 years, we need to be smart and systematic about where we invest time and energy, so that we put ourselves in the best position to sustain our leadership, secure our interests, and advance our values. One of the most important tasks of American statecraft over the next decade will therefore be to lock in a substantially increased investment — diplomatic, economic, strategic, and otherwise — in the Asia-Pacific region…


Harnessing Asia’s growth and dynamism is central to American economic and strategic interests and a key priority for President Obama. Open markets in Asia provide the United States with unprecedented opportunities for investment, trade, and access to cutting-edge technology…..American firms (need) to tap into the vast and growing consumer base of Asia…


The region already generates more than half of global output and nearly half of global trade. As we strive to meet President Obama’s goal of doubling exports by 2015, we are looking for opportunities to do even more business in Asia…and our investment opportunities in Asia’s dynamic markets.”

(“America’s Pacific Century”, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton”, Foreign Policy Magazine, 2011)

Compare Clinton’s speech to comments Brzezinski made in Chessboard 14 years earlier:

“For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia… (p.30)….. Eurasia is the globe’s largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world’s three most advanced and economically productive regions. ….About 75 per cent of the world’s people live in Eurasia, and most of the world’s physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60 per cent of the world’s GNP and about three-fourths of the world’s known energy resources.” (p.31)

The strategic objectives are identical, the only difference is that Brzezinski has made a course correction based on changing circumstances and the growing resistance to US bullying, domination and sanctions. We have not yet reached the tipping point for US primacy, but that day is fast approaching and Brzezinski knows it.

In contrast, Clinton is still fully-committed to expanding US hegemony across Asia. She doesn’t understand the risks this poses for the country or the world. She’s going to persist with the interventions until the US war-making juggernaut is stopped dead-in-its-tracks which, judging by her hyperbolic rhetoric, will probably happen some time in her first term.

Brzezinski presents a rational but self-serving plan to climb-down, minimize future conflicts, avoid a nuclear conflagration and preserve the global order. (aka–The “dollar system”) But will bloodthirsty Hillary follow his advice?

SHOCKING Email Trail Now Shows Connections Between THEM

Nwo Report

Soros Has Come Under The Spotlight Recently Due To His Over-The-Top Donations To Hillary

Soros Has Come Under The Spotlight Recently Due To His Emails To Hillary When She Was Secretary of State

It appears that there is someone else pulling the strings for the Democratic Party. It certainly isn’t Hillary Clinton. It seems that the real leader of the Democrats is someone who isn’t even a natural American.

Thanks to an email hack, the American people have discovered that George Soros is the true mastermind behind the Democratic Party. He has been donating quite a bit of money to the Democratic Party, which has led people to call Soros the Democrats “sugar daddy.” He is a Hungarian-American billionaire who has given a lot of money to all sorts of left wing causes.

The emails actually showed that while Clinton was acting as Secretary of State, she received orders from Soros on how to handle a specific incident in Albania. Now why is the Secretary…

View original post 892 woorden meer

Philippines President Threatens to Withdraw From UN

Philippines President Threatens to Withdraw From UN

After enraging globalists around the world recently with hisvow to ignore the “stupid” United Nations climate regime adopted in Paris, firebrand Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte (shown) is at it again. This time, responding to UN criticism of his controversial “war on drugs,” the recently elected leader of the Philippines is now threatening to leave the entire UN as well — and maybe even set up a rival organization.

The Filipino president, sometimes mischaracterized by establishment media outlets as Asia’s version of GOP presidential candidate “Donald Trump,” has developed a reputation for speaking his mind in highly undiplomatic ways. Last month, he ridiculed the UN and its “stupid” global-warming scheming, saying it was designed by oligarchs to “stifle” poorer nations. Over the weekend, Duterte again denounced the global outfit as useless and stupid, throwing out numerous expletives while defending his hardcore approach to illegal drugs and those who traffic them.

“Maybe we’ll just have to decide to separate from the United Nations,” fumed the president, expressing outrage over comments made by self-styled UN “experts” who attacked the Philippines and Duterte over hundreds of alleged drug dealers killed in recent months. “If you are that disrespectful, son of a whore, then I will just leave you. So take us out of your organization — you have done nothing, anyway.” The UN should also return contributions made to the outfit by the Philippines’ taxpayers, he said.

Duterte also attacked the UN for failing even in its ostensible mission of preventing war. “You know, United Nations, if you can say one bad thing about me, I can give you 10 [about the UN],” he continued. “I tell you, you are an inutile [useless], because if you are really true to your mandate, you could have stopped all these wars and killing.” He referred to Syria as the most recent example.

The Filipino leader, an ultra-“tough-on-crime” former mayor of the crime-ridden city of Davao, also suggested he might set up a new international organization to rival the UN. “I would invite everybody,” he said about his proposed new international organization. “I would invite maybe China, the African [governments].” The brutal communist dictatorship ruling China is unlikely to ditch the UN, especially considering the fact that its agents now run numerous important UN bureaucracies.

The Filipino president’s comments, made at a late night press conference, were a response to criticism and threats made by two UN “special rapporteurs,” as the dictator-dominated UN “Human Rights Council” refers to its “experts.” The first UN figure, Dainius Puras, lambasted Duterte for his response to dealing with illegal drugs, which included asking the public to help stop drug trafficking in what was widely perceived as a call to vigilantism.

An estimated 500 alleged drug dealers have ended up dead amid Duterte’s fierce crackdown on trafficking, with many of those reportedly dying in shootouts with police. Duterte stirred major controversy, though, when he urged armed citizens to help deal with crime bosses and what he said were corrupt police, judges, and military officials on their payrolls. Almost 5,000 drug dealers have been arrested so far. And in a phenomenon that has led to vastly overcrowded jails, media reports suggest some 600,000 people have surrendered to authorities to avoid being killed.

The other UN figure to criticize Duterte and his approach recently was Agnes Callamard, the UN’s “Special Rapporteur” on summary executions. “Claims to fight illicit drug trade do not absolve the Government from its international legal obligations and do not shield State actors or others from responsibility for illegal killings,” Callamard said in what was widely understood to be a threat against Duterte.

Despite its absurdity, the perceived threat of prosecution by the UN, often ridiculed by critics as the “dictators club,” appears to have particularly infuriated Duterte. “You can’t stop me and I’m not afraid even if you say that I can end up in jail,” he said, vowing to put his life and his presidency on the line to stop the scourge of drugs. “What is … repercussions? I don’t give a [expletive deleted] to them.”

Duterte said the UN “experts” should not just tally the number of dead alleged drug dealers, but also the number of innocent lives lost to drugs. While the UN cannot even fulfill its own mandate, it instead worries about “the bones of criminals piling up,” he said. “I will prove to the world that you are a very stupid expert.”

Instead of publicly condemning the Philippines, Duterte added, the UN should have sent its “experts” to talk to him. “You do not just go out and give a [expletive deleted] statement against a country,” Duterte said in the press conference, suggesting that “protocol” had been violated. He said the UN “experts” had not investigated the facts, but relied on biased media reports.

Duterte also took aim at the UN, suggesting it was beyond hypocritical. Pointing to dead Syrians, he said the UN should examine its own role in mass deaths. “Anybody in that stupid body complaining about the stench there of death?” Indeed, with the UN’s “peace” troops facing global criticism for murdering protesters and raping children with impunity around the world, there is plenty for Duterte to complain about when it comes to the UN’s flagrant abuses of human rights.

Aside from the UN, Duterte also lambasted the U.S. government and the Obama administration, pointing to alleged “human rights violations” and “killing the black people” in response to U.S. government criticism of his extreme drug war. Earlier in August, Duterte even attacked Obama’s ambassador to the Philippines as a homosexual and “son of a whore.” He then refused to apologize.

In any case, senior Filipino officials later “clarified” the president’s remarks. “He was basically stating the fact that the Philippines is a sovereign nation and should not be meddled with,” said presidential spokesman Ernesto Abella, noting that Duterte was tired at the time and did not really intend to dump the UN or set up a rival. Foreign Affairs Secretary Perfecto Yasay also said that the Philippines remains “committed” to the UN, even though Duterte was “extremely disappointed” with the UN “experts.”  Yasay, too, lambasted the UN officials as “highly irresponsible.”

It is not the first time an East Asian nation has threatened to ditch the UN. In fact, in 1965, Indonesian authorities sent a letter to the UN announcing their withdrawal. The UN refused to acknowledge the withdrawal, instead pretending like the Indonesian government was still a member. Eventually, new leadership re-joined the “dictators club,” and the spat faded into history.

Ironically, considering the recent brouhaha between Duterte and the UN, the global “war on drugs” is actually underpinned by a series of UN treaties purporting to criminalize certain plants and chemicals worldwide. Indeed, the UN has in recent years been attacking the United States on the issue, blasting for “violating international law” the growing number of American states nullifying federal statutes and UN treaties by ending prohibition of marijuana. The UN has also been attempting to impose its views on the death penalty on American states.

Unfortunately, while the UN has no business or authority to interfere in the internal affairs of member states, its criticism of the hardcore Filipino drug war might be viewed as otherwise justified in this case by proponents of the rule of law and due process. However, just as often, the UN and its hordes of bureaucrats use similar tactics to denounce the protection of actual human rights in the United States and around the world.

Most recently, the UN’s top human rights bureaucrat disgraced his office by demanding that the U.S. government defy the Constitution to impose “robust gun control” on Americans. That was in response to the jihadist terror attack in Orlando. Before that, the UN has repeatedly attacked the United States and other nations for everything from free speech and due process of law to low taxes and constitutional limits on government power.

The UN may be able to bully its smaller and less powerful member governments, such as Indonesia and the Philippines, and even try to refuse to let them exit upon demand. However, the same is not true for the United States, which pays far more than any other nation to keep the dictators club that is the UN up and running. Without the U.S. government as a member, the UN would promptly collapse.

If and when the American Sovereignty Restoration Act becomes law, the U.S. government would be legally obligated to sever all U.S. ties with the outfit, end all funding for it, stop American subservience to radical UN treaties and conventions, and even evict UN headquarters from U.S. soil donated by the globalist Rockefeller banking and oil dynasty. As the UN becomes increasingly radical and transparent in its efforts to impose its dangerous agenda on humanity, calls for an American exit from the UN — or an Amexit — will continue to grow louder. Perhaps Duterte, despite all his flaws, can lead the way.


Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, was at the UN climate summit in Paris. He can be reached Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU.

Related articles:

Philippines Rejects “Stupid” UN Climate Deal; Globalists Freak

United Nations Exploits Pseudo-“Human Rights” to Attack U.S.

UN Drug Czar Attacks U.S. States for Ending Cannabis Prohibition

Citing International “Law,” UN Demands U.S. End Death Penalty

UN Demands “Robust Gun Control” After Orlando Terror

UN Demands Bigger, Stronger UN “Police” Force

After Dallas Cop Killings, UN Touts “Black Lives Matter”

End “Failed” UN Drug War, Urges Panel of Global Experts

U.S. Government and Top Mexican Drug Cartel Exposed as Partners

The United Nations: On the Brink of Becoming a World Government

UN Panics Amid Growing Scandal on Child Rape by “Peace” Troops

Congressman Mike Rogers Introduces Bill to Get U.S. Out of UN

#Brexit to #Amexit: Keep the Momentum Going!

U.S. Independence Attacked as Never Before by UN Interdependence