Congress Is Powerless to Stop Donald Trump From Attacking North Korea

(ANTIMEDIA Op-ed) — In April of this year, Donald Trump launched a missile attack on a Syrian government airfield in response to a chemical weapons attack in Khan Sheikhoun. While members of the U.S. coalition in Iraq and Syria were notified before the U.S. strike — as was Syria’s staunchest backer, Russia — this was a direct attack on a sovereign nation […]

via Congress Is Powerless to Stop Donald Trump From Attacking North Korea — Nwo Report

Massive criminal conspiracy unravels: Hillary Clinton took $145M from Russians to sell out the U.S. uranium supply to America’s enemies (and the FBI knew all along)

Image: Massive criminal conspiracy unravels: Hillary Clinton took $145M from Russians to sell out the U.S. uranium supply to America’s enemies (and the FBI knew all along)

(Natural News) We have truly reached the point in American history where criminal indictments need to be immediately leveled against James Comey, Loretta Lynch, Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Robert Mueller and a dozen other high-ranking officials who are now known to have been complicit in one of the most treasonous criminal cover-ups in American history.

Although the entire left-wing media is running a campaign of complete silence on this story, the rest of the media is now widely reporting that, under President Obama, the FBI had documented an exhaustive trail of corruption, bribery and treason that involved Hillary Clinton, State Department corruption and Russia-linked mining companies that acquired rights to U.S. uranium supplies. This truth was described in great detail in the book Clinton Cash by Peter Schweizer, and now evidence is emerging that further confirms the depth of collusion, corruption, money laundering and treason that Hillary Clinton actively pursued to collect $145 million from Russia-linked sources.

According to The Hill:

Before the Obama administration approved a controversial deal in 2010 giving Moscow control of a large swath of American uranium, the FBI had gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business inside the United States, according to government documents and interviews.

They also obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill.

Former President Barack Obama oversaw this criminal racketeering scheme, according to multiple sources. “It turns out the Obama administration knew the Russians were engaged in bribery, kickbacks and extortion in order to gain control of US atomic resources — yet still OK’d that 2010 deal to give Moscow control of one-fifth of America’s uranium,” writes the New York Post. “Hillary Clinton, again, sat on a key government body that had to approve the deal — though she now claims she had no role in a deal with profound national security implications, and during the campaign called the payments a coincidence.”

“…[T]he State Department under Clinton and other agencies on the Committee on Foreign Investment approved unanimously the sale of Uranium One, a Canadian mining company, to Russia’s state nuclear company Rosatom, which gave Moscow control over 20 percent of U.S. strategic reserves,” reports NewsTarget.

Robert Mueller ran the FBI as this criminal racket was taking place

What’s even more astonishing about all this is that Robert Mueller, now running a partisan special counsel investigation into the fake conspiracy theory that falsely claims Trump colluded with the Russians to steal the election, was the head of the FBI while this Uranium One treason was taking place.

“Until September 2013, the FBI director was Robert Mueller — who’s now the special counsel probing Russian meddling in the 2016 election. It’s hard to see how he can be trusted in that job unless he explains what he knew about this Obama-era cover-up,” writes the NY Post.

“The connections to the current Russia case are many. The Mikerin probe began in 2009 when Robert Mueller, now the special counsel in charge of the Trump case, was still FBI director. And it ended in late 2015 under the direction of then-FBI Director James Comey, whom Trump fired earlier this year,” adds The Hill.

Mueller, who like James Comey appears to be a political lackey for the Clinton crime cartel, is just one of many shadowing players in this rapidly unraveling story of corruption and lies. Bill Clinton, wouldn’t you know it, is also implicated. As The Hill explains:

Peter Schweitzer and The New York Times documented how Bill Clinton collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in Russian speaking fees and his charitable foundation collected millions in donations from parties interested in the deal while Hillary Clinton presided on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.

U.S. Senate investigation launched to uncover the truth about this treason, corruption and collusion

As The Hill writes, this morning the Senate has launched an official probe into this astonishing criminal cartel that was operating right under the nose of Barack Obama:

The Senate Judiciary Committee has launched a probe into a Russian nuclear bribery case, demanding several federal agencies disclose whether they knew the FBI had uncovered the corruption before the Obama administration in 2010 approved a controversial uranium deal with Moscow.

…[T]he FBI had uncovered evidence showing Russian nuclear officials were engaged in a racketeering scheme involving bribes, kickbacks and money laundering designed to expand Russian President Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business on U.S. soil.

As Sean Hannity rightly explains:

HANNITY: “Tonight, with this new evidence, what we have discovered is that the evidence against the Clintons is overwhelming, it is incontrovertible. Hillary Clinton and her husband sold out America to the Russians while millions of dollars flowed to their family foundation. And in the process, Clinton created a massive national security risk for every man, woman, and child — giving Vladimir Putin control over American uranium.”

It’s time to start arresting, indicting and prosecuting top Obama officials

Had Hillary Clinton become president, her administration would have covered up all these crimes. That was the entire plan, of course: Fake the polls, run a fake news media blitz and steal the election by convincing people that Clinton’s victory was inevitable. From there, Obama would pass the baton to Clinton, where the criminal collusion of both of them would be forever buried under a web of complicit FBI directors and media lackeys who have abandoned real journalism.

But Trump’s victory threw the plan into disarray, and now the true depth of the collusion and corruption of the Obama-Clinton crime machine is finally coming to light. With this new evidence emerging that proves the Obama administration covered up Hillary Clinton’s pay-to-play corruption, President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions must pursue criminal prosecutions against all the top officials who were involved. This list includes Robert Mueller himself, as well as James Comey, Loretta Lynch, Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton and a long list of other complicit co-conspirators.

These people conspired to sell out America’s uranium supply — a strategic resource needed for national defense — to one of America’s most dangerous enemies, all in exchange for over $100 million that got funneled into the Clinton Foundation. The facts of what went down are, themselves, an indictment of Obama regime officials who were fully aware of what was happening but allowed it to take place anyway. “The Trump administration doesn’t need another special counsel,” writes the National Sentinel. “All that needs to happen is for Attorney General Jeff Sessions to use the evidence the FBI already has and start issuing arrest warrants. He can begin with the most corrupt, criminally investigated presidential contender in U.S. history: Hillary Clinton.”

Follow more news on this exploding scandal of corruption and treason at

America wasn’t a ‘gun-loving country’ until a $13.5 billion industry made it so


Historian Pamela Haag’s The Gunning of America refocuses the gun debate on the moguls who made America into the land of guns – and mass shootings.

SOURCE In These Times

After the latest mass shooting – by some statistical measures, the 273rd in the U.S. this year – Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) quickly assailed his colleagues for failing to act while such horrific incidents become normalized:

My colleagues in Congress are so afraid of the gun industry that they pretend there aren’t public policy responses to this epidemic. There are, and the thoughts and prayers of politicians are cruelly hollow if they are paired with continued legislative indifference. It’s time for Congress to get off its ass and do something.

Murphy’s calling out of the gun industry and of Congress’s cowardice is significant. With annual revenue of $13.5 billion, and a record 27 million guns sold in the U.S. last year, the firearm and ammunition industry would seem to command a central role and responsibility in the impossibly polarized debate over gun violence and gun rights. Studies show a correlation between America’s high rate of firearm ownership and gun-related homicides, including mass shootings. Yet the industry, the beneficiary of our country’s obsession, remains a powerful but mostly invisible presence, shielded from public scrutiny and protected by laws that thwart lawsuits from families of mass-shooting victims attempting to hold gun and ammo makers liable for crimes committed with their wares.

Author and historian Pamela Haag lifted the veil from the firearm industry in The Gunning of America (Basic Books, 2016). Neither a staunch pro-Second Amendment supporter nor a gun-control advocate, Haag wrote what is essentially a nonpolitical book about perhaps the most highly politicized issue ever, and she did so accidentally. Haag set out to write about the bizarre life of Sarah Winchester, the eccentric gun heiress who erected an Escherian, maze-like mansion where she lived in solitude, haunted by ghosts. Instead, Haag discovered the largely unexplored history of the American firearms business. Charting America’s relationship to guns through the rise of the firearms empires built by Oliver Winchester and his competitors, The Gunning of America shows convincingly that the firearms magnates built their industry not in the name of freedom or individualism or any political ideal, as we’re often told, but in pursuit of that most American of ideals: profit.

Haag spoke to In These Times by phone.

The idea that guns are part of America’s DNA is a powerful force our culture. But the gun industry apparently had no such notions when it began manufacturing on a mass scale.

If you read NationofChange, please help us continue our work through October – Learn more.

NationofChange is reader-funded progressive news and activism. Right now, we must raise $15,000 to continue normal operations through October.

If you appreciate the work we do, please support it. Click here to make a one-time donation or click here to create a monthly-recurring donation and help us reduce our dependence on monthly fundraisers.

That’s right. Oliver Winchester wasn’t selling guns by invoking nostalgia for the Revolutionary War or the Minutemen. Samuel Colt wasn’t harkening back to the colonial era to sell his newfangled revolver. They were much more practical and pragmatic even in how they viewed their product. Now, by the end of the 1800s and going into the 1900s, that … decisively begins to shift. And at that moment, the gun industry is facing a much more urban America, post-frontier world. The advertisements increasingly made reference to American history and talked about subconscious desires to have guns, and “shooting instinct” as the Winchester company called it. So they began to talk about guns as tied to masculinity and to desires that every “real boy” has. It [became] more an object of emotion that practical need.

It’s also interesting to find that the early gun industry didn’t wrap itself in the flag and the Second Amendment at all.

[One] of the glaring absences in most of the history of the gun industry is the Second Amendment. That wasn’t even really mentioned in any of the literature that I came across until maybe in the 1920s… It certainly wasn’t used as a marketing device. Today, it is: I know people who buy guns simply to express to political affinity. They don’t actually want to use them but they are fed up with liberal gun control regulations and buying a gun is a consumer political act, and it has everything to do with the Second Amendment. But it’s important to recognize that that heavy political symbolism is very much our invention; it’s something that is part of very recent history and, mind you, [not] going back to the founding days of the country. It certainly wasn’t something that the gun industry was exploiting or thinking about.

The rise of the firearms industry in the 1800s and early 1900s can be seen as a precursor to the military-industrial complex. After the Civil War, gun purchases by the government fell off and that’s when the manufacturers started developing large overseas markets.

Yeah, this is one of the things that was just so surprising to me when I delved into the gun industry archives. I found myself absorbed in the records and asking myself, “Why am I reading about contracts with the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire? Why is this story not about Buffalo Bill as much as it’s about Egypt or Czar Nicholas II of Russia?”

One of Oliver Winchester’s life-saving sales was in 1866 to the Juarez forces in Mexico. So from the start, guns were coming across from the U.S. into Mexico, arming what is today the Middle East, arming the Russian Empire, arming Sardinia, Japan, Chile. So that really kind of kept the industry alive in key years, when [the domestic market] was abysmal.

Today the mystique of the gun is very much about the rugged individual pioneer, but again, when we shift the perspective and we look at the industry, a very different story emerges where this began as an innovative industry to support the U.S. government, to be a weapon of war. And the civilian market was what these industrialists developed a bit later, when they had to, when it became clear that relying on kind of this boom and bust of war wasn’t necessarily the best business approach, and they put even more effort into cultivating that civilian domestic market. But the intimacy between the gun industry and the military far, far predates the Cold War. It was very clear in World War I, for example. Essentially, the U.S. was reliant on private arms manufacturers to meet wartime needs – this was where the innovation was, where the production capacity existed. It’s at this moment that the gun industry gets criticized as war profiteers. But really by this point, the gun industry preferred its civilian market. World War I was, for all but Colt, a very disastrous business moment. They spent so much to expand, to produce, to fill wartime needs. That was more an act of patriotism than of good business. After the war, Winchester and others were deeply in debt.

The civilian gun market exploded in the inter-war years, and this is also when the first hearings on regulation of guns were held.

One of the things I kept asking myself as I was doing research is, “When did the world that I would recognize today around guns really begin to emerge?” And I think that is in the inter-war years, in the 1920s and the early 1930s, and there were a few reasons for this. There were some Americans who were questioning the place of guns in this transformed country that was much more urban. But there were other Americans who were becoming more attached to guns as markers of masculinity and a valued commodity. So it was kind of moving in both directions at the same time. In the 1920s there was an explosion of bootlegging gangster violence in the cities, and that was mostly armed by submachine gun. So there was a lot of disgust with the bootlegging violence and there was still a great deal of dismay over the carnage of World War I. And at the same time, once FDR was in office there was a belief that the government can help solve these problems, which is very different from today. So that congealed into the first comprehensive attempt at firearms regulation at the federal level in 1934, with the National Firearms Act.

You write, “The Second Amendment did not design, invent, patent, mass produce, advertise, sell, market, and distribute guns. Yet the gun business, which did and does, is largely invisible in today’s gun politics.” That’s a big takeaway – the industry is the Wizard of Oz, powerful yet invisible.

Yeah. The gun industry has never sought publicity in the way that the NRA does. It shirks it.

I think as the NRA became more visible in the 1900s, the industry has become less visible and seems to be less relevant to the political conversation, because the political conversation has gotten very polarized around Second Amendment versus gun control, and individual rights versus collective safety. There are a bunch of polarities that have really crystallized in this debate, all hinged on individual gun owners versus non-gun owners, and the industry seems to have no rhetorical place in that debate at all – despite the fact that at the most basic level we are a gun culture because we have a gun industry that made guns and wanted to sell them, and that has never changed. It isn’t because the industry is diabolical; it was an ordinary, everyday business that sold its product. And that is such a simple and basic fact, but it doesn’t fit into the polarities of the modern gun control debate; they kind of slide under the radar.

The Gunning of America concludes with your recommendations for how gun violence might be addressed. You put the onus on the gun industry, but the solutions you’re recommending are voluntary, not legislative. Do you see any traction on this issue forthcoming?

There are places where change can happen just on the level of corporate accountability and reputation. I just don’t think they’ve tried that often. The gun industry has, at times, voluntarily done things to address gun violence. There are dealers who quietly stop selling a particular assault-style rifle that has been involved in a [mass] shooting, for example. Or Winchester stopped selling a particularly destructive ammunition that they had been manufacturing in the 1980s. But this happened because somehow it was brought … to the public attention. They were made vulnerable in ways that any corporation can be made vulnerable.

They’re actually not always in lockstep with the NRA. Smith & Wesson tried to devise this code of ethics for their dealers that was actually really ambitious in 1999, and the NRA urged their members to boycott them. So [examples] do exist where the industry has different interests than the NRA and are vulnerable in certain ways. The problem is that no one thing is going to entirely solve the issue or make a difference.

Ultimately I think most of this is simply is going to have to be a matter of voluntary decisions by people who are going to have to perhaps put public safety above their profits. Will that ever happen? I don’t know.

USA First or Israel First? Zionist Organization of America pushes Trump to War Against Lebanon AND Iran!

Dear President Trump:

We are writing to you as national security experts, many who worked in the nuclear weapons, arms control, and nonproliferation and intelligence fields, to express our strong opposition to the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA) and to ask that you withdraw the United States from this dangerous agreement as soon as possible.

We also call on your administration to declare to Congress next month that Iran has not been complying with this agreement and that it is not in the national security interests of the United States.

We strongly supported your statements during the 2016 presidential campaign that the JCPOA was one of the worst international agreements ever negotiated and as president that you would either withdraw from or renegotiate this deal. Your campaign statements accurately reflected that the JCPOA is a fraud since it allows Iran to continue its nuclear weapons program while the agreement is in effect by permitting it to enrich uranium, operate and develop advanced uranium centrifuges and operate a heavy-water reactor.

Such limited restrictions as the deal actually imposes on Iran’s enrichment program will expire in eight years. In addition, the JCPOA’s inspection provisions are wholly inadequate.

We also note that a joint July 11, 2017 letter to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson from Senators Cruz, Rubio, Cotton and Perdue outlined significant violations of the JCPOA by Iran, the most important of which is Iran’s refusal to permit IAEA inspections of military facilities.

In addition, although the JCPOA did not require Iran to halt its belligerent and destabilizing behavior, President Obama and Secretary Kerry repeatedly claimed it would lead to an improvement. This has not happened. To the contrary, after the JCPOA, Iran’s behavior has significantly worsened Tehran stepped up its ballistic missile program and missile launches. There was a 90% increase in Iran’s 2016-2017 military budget. Iran has increased its support to terrorist groups and sent troops into Syria. Harassment of shipping in the Persian Gulf and Red Sea also increased, including missiles fired at U.S. and Gulf state ships by the Houthi rebels, an Iranian proxy in Yemen.

Moreover, in light of major advances in North Korea’s nuclear program, we are very concerned that North Korea and Iran are actively sharing nuclear weapons technology and that Iran is providing funding for North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. CIA Director Mike Pompeo suggested this possibility during a September 11 Fox News interview.

We are unconvinced by doom-and-gloom predictions of the consequences of a U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA. The sky did not fall when you withdrew the United States from the Paris Climate Accord. Claims that Iran will step up its nuclear program or engage in more belligerent behavior must be considered against the backdrop of what Iran is allowed to do under the JCPOA and its actual conduct since this “political understanding” was announced.

Some Iran deal advocates argue that the United States should remain in the JCPOA and instead try to amend it to fix its flaws over several years. A few contend you could decertify the agreement to Congress, but remain in the deal and then try to amend it. Since Iran has made it clear it will not agree to changes to the JCPOA, we believe these proposals are unrealistic. Continuing to legitimate the agreement is not conducive to its renegotiation. The day will never come when the mullahs agree to amend the sweetheart deal they got in the JCPOA.

Ambassador John Bolton has drawn up a plan to implement a far more effective, comprehensive and multilateral approach to address the threat from Iran. This approach includes strict new sanctions to bar permanently the transfer of nuclear technology to Iran. He also calls for new sanctions in response to Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism and efforts to destabilize the Middle East, especially in Syria, Iraq and Yemen.

Unlike the JCPOA, which was negotiated with no input from America’s allies in the Middle East, Ambassador Bolton outlines a multilateral campaign to forge a new comprehensive approach to the threat from Iran that includes the Gulf States and Israel to assure that their security interests are taken into account.

We agree with Ambassador John Bolton that strong international sanctions, a tough negotiating strategy and a decisive American president who will not engage in appeasement is the best approach to rein in Iran’s belligerent behavior and induce it to joining negotiations on a better agreement.

As national security experts who understand the urgency of addressing the growing threat from Iran, we urge you to implement the Bolton plan, withdraw from the dangerous Iran nuclear deal and not certify Iranian compliance to Congress next month. It is time to move beyond President Obama’s appeasement of Iran and to begin work on a comprehensive new approach that fully addresses the menace that the Iranian regime increasingly poses to American and international security.
Daniel Pollak, Co-Director of Government Relations, Zionist Organization of America (ZOA)

Morton A. Klein, Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) National President

Winston Lewis Amselem, U.S. Foreign Service Officer, Minister-Counselor (Ret.)

Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, USA (Ret.), Former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence

Ambassador Henry F. Cooper, Former Chief U.S. Negotiator for Defense and Space and SDI Director

Stephen Coughlin, Former Joint Chiefs of Staff intelligence analyst

Jack David, Hudson Institute Senior Fellow and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction and Negotiations Policy

Paula A. DeSutter, Former Assistant Secretary of State for Verification and Compliance

Joseph E. diGenova, Former U.S. Attorney District of Columbia

Jessie Jane Duff, Gunnery Sergeant USMC (Ret.), Senior Fellow London Center for Policy Research

Dr. Manfred Eimer, Former Assistant Director for Verification and Intelligence, U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency

Fritz Ermarth, Retired CIA officer, Former chairman of the National Intelligence Council
Douglas J. Feith, Former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy

Frederick Fleitz, Former CIA analyst and Professional Staff Member, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

Kevin D. Freeman, National Security Investment Counsel Institute

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., Former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy (Acting)

Daniel J. Gallington, Former General Counsel, U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and Member, U.S. Delegation to the Nuclear & Space Talks

Scott George, Brigadier General, USAF (Ret.). President/CEO, IN-Cyber Vision, Inc.

Dr. William R. Graham, Former Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and Science Advisor to the President; NASA Administrator and Chairman of the General Advisory Committee (GAC) on Arms Control and Disarmament

Larry K. Grundhauser, Brigadier General, USAF Retired; Former Director of Intelligence, HQ Air Combat Command; Former Vice Director for Intelligence; Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Former Arms Control Policy Advisor US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency

Philip Haney, Department of Homeland Security founding staff member and former U.S. Customs and Border Protection Officer

George William Heiser II, Former Director for Arms Control, Reagan National Security Council Staff

Richard T. Higgins, Former Director for Strategic Planning, Trump National Security Council

Peter Huessy, President, GeoStrategic Analysis, Former Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Interior for International Energy Security

Ambassador Eric M. Javits, Former US Permanent Representative and Ambassador to the Conference on Disarmament and to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons

Ambassador Robert G. Joseph, Former Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security; Assistant to the President on Arms Control and Nonproliferation; and Chairman of the ABM Treaty Standing Consultative Commission

Dr. Charles M. Kupperman, Former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan; former Executive Director, General Advisory Committee to the President on Arms Control and Disarmament

Herbert I. London, President, London Center for Policy Research

Clare Lopez, Former CIA Officer

Robert L. Luaces, Foreign Service Officer (Ret.). Former Director, State Department Office of Multilateral Nuclear and Security Affairs

Admiral James A. Lyons, U.S. Navy (Ret.). Former Commander-in Chief, Pacific Fleet
Lt. Gen Thomas McInerney, US Air Force (Ret.), Assistant Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force and Director of the Defense Performance Review

Vice Admiral Robert R. Monroe, U.S Navy (Ret.). Former Director, Defense Nuclear Agency

Michael Pregent, Director of Veterans Against the Iran Deal

Dr. Peter Vincent Pry, Executive Director, Task Force on National and Homeland Security; Senior Staff on the Congressional EMP Commission, Congressional Strategic Posture Commission, the House Armed Services Committee, and the CIA
George Rasley, Editor of ConservativeHQ and consultant

Major General Edward M. Reeder, U.S. Army (Ret.)

Ambassador C. Paul Robinson, Former President and Director of Sandia National Laboratories. Head of the Nuclear Weapons and National Security programs at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Chief Negotiator and Head of the U.S. Delegation to the U.S./Soviet Union Nuclear Testing Talks.

Nina Rosenwald, Founder and President, Gatestone Institute

Mark Schneider,Senior analyst, National Institute for Public Policy. Former Senior Director for Forces Policy and Principal Director for Strategic Defense, Space and Verification Policy, Office of the Secretary of Defense. Former Senior Foreign Service Officer.

Tony Shaffer, LTC (ret), Vice President for Strategic Initiatives and Operations, London Center for Policy Research. Former CIA-trained senior intelligence operative

Sarah Stern, Founder and President, Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET)

Kenneth R. Timmerman, President and CEO, Foundation for Democracy in Iran

Victoria Toensing, Former Chief Counsel, Senate Intelligence Committee

Adam Turner, General Counsel and Legislative Affairs Director, Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET)

Michael Waller, Founding Editorial Board Member, NATO Defence Strategic Communications

David Wurmser, Former Senior Advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney