Saturday 23rd of October 2021

blame putin for JFK's assassination... why not?...

trumptrump

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I believe Michael R. Isikoff is a non-believer in conspiracy theories.

 

Well not in THE CONSPIRACY THEORIES which could upset his agenda and beliefs… If the conspiracies involve Putin doing harm to America, he is 100 per cent — what did I say, he is 1000 per cent — behind the conspiracy theory — and I mean theory because there was NO PROOF of Putin’s handiwork in the election of Trump in 2016. But as we well know, there was a lot of clever static coming from the Murdoch media — and there is still some, biting time, awaiting for the second coming... 

 

So where is Michael coming from?

 

Michael R. Isikoff (born May 12, 1952) is an American investigative journalist who is currently the Chief Investigative Correspondent at Yahoo! News. He is the co-author with David Corn of the book titled Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin's War on America and the Election of Donald Trump, published on March 13, 2018.[3]

From July 2010 to April 2014, Isikoff was the national investigative correspondent for NBC News.[4] He resigned from NBC, citing the network's move in a direction that left him with "fewer opportunities" for his work.[5] He had previously worked for Newsweek, which he joined as an investigative correspondent in June 1994, and wrote extensively on the U.S. government's War on Terror, the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abusecampaign finance and congressional ethics abuses, presidential politics and other national issues.

Isikoff had been prepared to break the Clinton–Lewinsky scandal, but several hours before going to print, the article was killed by top Newsweek executives. As a result, the story broke first on Matt Drudge's Drudge Report the following morning. Isikoff's book on the subject, Uncovering Clinton: A Reporter's Story, was named Best Non-Fiction Book of 1999 by the Book of the Month Club.

 

—————

Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin's War on America and the Election of Donald Trump Hardcover – March 13, 2018

 

by Michael Isikoff and David Corn

 

 

The incredible, harrowing account of how American democracy was hacked by Moscow as part of a covert operation to influence the U.S. election and help Donald Trump gain the presidency.

 

"Russian Roulette is...the most thorough and riveting account." -- The New York Times

 

Russian Roulette is a story of political skullduggery unprecedented in American history. It weaves together tales of international intrigue, cyber espionage, and superpower rivalry. After U.S.-Russia relations soured, as Vladimir Putin moved to reassert Russian strength on the global stage, Moscow trained its best hackers and trolls on U.S. political targets and exploited WikiLeaks to disseminate information that could affect the 2016 election.

 

The Russians were wildly successful and the great break-in of 2016 was no "third-rate burglary." It was far more sophisticated and sinister -- a brazen act of political espionage designed to interfere with American democracy. At the end of the day, Trump, the candidate who pursued business deals in Russia, won. And millions of Americans were left wondering, what the hell happened? This story of high-tech spying and multiple political feuds is told against the backdrop of Trump's strange relationship with Putin and the curious ties between members of his inner circle -- including Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn -- and Russia.

 

Russian Roulette chronicles and explores this bizarre scandal, explains the stakes, and answers one of the biggest questions in American politics: How and why did a foreign government infiltrate the country's political process and gain influence in Washington?

 

https://www.amazon.com/Russian-Roulette-Inside-America-Election/dp/15387...

 

———————————

 

This account is BULLSHIT. Brilliant  BULLSHIT...

 

Isikoff was born to a Jewish family… Say no more. Apologies. This is below the belt… But LET’S EXPLORE the Iraq War by Isikoff:

 

Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War (2006) is an account of the behind the scenes events and decisions by principal figures of the United States government, that lead to the invasion spearheading Gulf War II in spring 2003. Throughout, the book entertains, and provides evidences for, the notion that key administration officials were set on invading Iraq and that the proffered reasons for the invasion—such as national security threats like the presence of WMD in Iraq—were pretexts rather than actual motivations for going to war.

In February 2013, an MSNBC documentary of the same name that marks the 10th anniversary of Gulf War II and hosted by Rachel Maddow, was produced. David Corn reviewed the documentary and found it "presenting new scoops and showing that the complete story of the selling of that war has yet to be told".[1]

 

We, Gus Leonisky Enterprises, were onto this CONSPIRACY in 2002, BEFORE THE WAR, not on this site (exposed here since 2005 — see also: the trilogy (MORE THAN 18,800 READS) — selling the iraq war et al (https://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/865 — https://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/863 — BUYING THE IRAQ WAR — 

The selling of the war and other furphies — Porkie inc

 

AND MANY MORE... (a bit messy all around, but the info was there)

 

(note: some of the cartoons and comments vanished when the site was transferred to a new platform). Our 2002 submissions were in various formats, pdfs, Powerpoint, including cartoons submitted to the MSM and CDs sold to various entities in France and Germany, as well as in Australia — ALL BEFORE THE WAR. Some people thought I was crazy. I was not. I knew the drill. Enough of blowing one’s own dumb trumpet.

 

Let’s carry on with Michael R. Isikoff 

 

WHY THE BEEF?

 

Well in 1991, Isikoff wrote a scathing review ( OR WAS IT NOT?) of Oliver Stone’s Kennedy movie… He ends with:

 

To the true conspiratorialists, such findings illustrate the real size of the enemy; even today, they conclude, the vice-like grip of the conspirators maintains its hold on the American people. But perhaps there is hope. Next spring, the veteran "Tonight Show" host is scheduled to retire, to be replaced by Jay Leno.

 

At long last, will America finally learn the truth?

 

Is sarcasm oozing out of this spray or am I biased?

 

let’s have a look: 

 

 

H-E-E-E-E-R-E'S CONSPIRACY!

 

FOR ALL the hoopla surrounding Oliver Stone's "JFK," it is remarkable that nobody has mentioned what must surely be its most glaring omission -- the role in the Kennedy assassination cover-up allegedly played by Johnny Carson.

Compared to, say, the mysterious disappearance of President Kennedy's brain or the three "tramps" behind the grassy knoll, the evidence implicating America's most popular late-night talk show host is not well known even to close students of the assassination. But it ought to be familiar to Stone. Carson's suspicious behavior on matters relating to Kennedy's murder is spelled out in one of the many overlooked passages in "On the Trail of the Assassins," the 1988 book by Jim Garrison, the former New Orleans district attorney. Garrison's book, of course, forms much of the basis for Stone's three-hour blockbuster.

As thousands of moviegoers are now aware, Garrison, portrayed by superstar Kevin Costner, is the hero of Stone's film -- the one public official with the courage to expose the true dimensions of the JFK assassination plot. In the movie's view, this is a conspiracy of gargantuan proportions, including, among other participants, the CIA, anti-Castro Cubans, Pentagon covert-operations specialists, Navy doctors, military contractors (Bell Helicopter and General Dynamics Corp. are specifically mentioned), the Mafia and the Dallas police force. Not to mention FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and Lyndon B. Johnson, who the Garrison-Costner figure says, in a stirring jury peroration, "I consider accomplices after the fact."

So why does Stone flinch when it comes to Carson? Why does he fail to include the one figure in Garrison's grand conspiracy theory who is still very much on the scene -- the seemingly genial talk-show host who appears most weekday nights in the bedrooms of millions of Americans? Indeed, what I call "the Carson connection" leaps out at anybody who reads through Garrison's field guide to the assassination, specifically Chapter 16, entitled "Escape of the Assassins." It is only there that one finally discovers the truly sinister reach of the plotters. The time is early 1968 and Garrison has spent more than a year pursuing would-be conspirators in the New Orleans netherworld. Through this pursuit, he has just obtained what he believes to be one of his strongest pieces of "evidence" to date -- unpublished Dallas newspaper photographs of the now-famous "three tramps" arrested in a boxcar in the railroad yards near Dealey Plaza.

In conspiracy lore, the tramps have long been key to unlocking the mystery of who killed Kennedy. Some theorists have speculated that one of the tramps bears a striking resemblance to E. Howard Hunt, the Watergate conspirator and ex-CIA agent. Others believe another looks like Charles V. Harrelson, a professional hit-man and father of actor Woody Harrelson (the bartender in "Cheers"), convicted in the 1982 murder of federal judge John Wood. Garrison calls them "among the most important photographs ever taken."

At about this time, one of Garrison's volunteer investigators, comedian Mort Sahl, appears on the Carson show and talks about the assassination. When he asks the audience if they would like to hear from Garrsion [sic] directly, "The response was so demonstrably affirmative that it left Carson and the network with no alternative," writes Garrison. A telegram requesting his appearance arrived a few days later and Garrison promptly accepted.

 

But when Garrison showed up at the NBC studio the afternoon of his scheduled appearance (Jan. 31, 1968), strange things began to happen. "Three or four well-dressed men," apparently NBC lawyers, entered the room and started grilling him for several hours. Carson himself, "stiff and ill at ease," popped in for some small chat and then just as quickly disappeared.

A few hours later, Garrison was back for the taping. Carson's "small humorless eyes, like a pair of tiny dark marbles, were fixed on me," writes Garrison. The talk show host fired off questions from a list prepared for him by the NBC lawyers. Garrison refused to play along with the pre-arranged script. Carson out of frustration finally asked why the government would still be concealing evidence.

Garrison now decides his moment had arrived -- to show for the first time on national television the pictures of the tramps. "'Don't ask me, John,' I said, opening my briefcase," he writes. "'Ask Lyndon Johnson. You know he has to have the answer.'" For true conspiracy buffs, what happened in the next few seconds is hair-raising indeed. As Garrison starts holding the pictures in front of the camera, he writes, Carson "lunged at my arm like a cobra, pulling it down violently so that the pictures were out of the camera's view. 'Photographs like this don't show up on television,' he said sharply."

 

Garrison is undeterred. "'Sure they do,' I replied. 'The camera can pick this up.'"

"This time he {Carson} yanked my arm down ever harder. 'No it can't,' he snapped."

Nevertheless, Garrison for a third time swings the pictures up in front of the cameras. "This time, I however, I saw the red light blink off and realized that the director of the show had cut the camera off . . . . Then before anyone could change the subject, I said loudly, 'Those arrested men you just saw were never seen again. They all got away.' 

 

What precisely is the meaning of this unsettling incident? As he flies back to New Orleans, Garrison speculates. Why had Carson pulled his arm away? And "why had the director and control room switched off the cameras so that the photophraphs [sic] could not have been seen?"

Skeptics might suggest that Carson and his producers were worried about the potential libel of accusing some strangers in a photograph of having killed the president. Or perhaps they concluded that most TV viewers wouldn't have been able to make any sense of the tramp pictures.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1991/12/29/h-e-e-e-e-r-es-conspiracy/c6adf6d1-4a4d-4cf8-a588-b5f4a837ccb7/

 

 

So why did Oliver Stone let this "Carson incident" pass? Who knows. Was Carson “working for the CIA-media” or was he afraid of the CIA goons? I suspect that Mr Stone thought that this Carson episode was irrelevant and that Garrison’s was clinching at straws with “this particular picture” of tramps. 

 

A lot of water has gone under the bridge and we’ve explored in Uncle George the most likely "theory" about the event. We definitely know that the bullet that blew JFK’s brain DID NOT COME from Lee Harvey Oswald’s gun. This is centrepiece of the evidence still hidden from view for another 75 years or whatever. Most likely Oliver Stone thought that the “three Tramps” had nothing to do with the event and if they had, THEY could not be THE ONES WHO FIRED THE SHOT of the AK15 (now M16) riffle. Could they have been secret service observers waiting to make sure the deed had been done? who knows... 

 

THERE WAS A CONSPIRACY TO KILL THE PRESIDENT. Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone. And he was soon killed as not to spill the beans... But unlike loony conspiracy theories, one can never find the intrigues and the cover-ups documentation of real conspiracies — often because there is no record of the conspiratorial intent. 

 

In regard to Trump, Putin would have had to know the character was volatile and unhinged… Impose a loony on the US presidency? That would be devious. Impose a Peace-monger instead of the Warmongress? Putin could have hoped, we all can guess, BUT HE DID NOT HELP ELECT TRUMP. The world may have been better for it, despite Trump’s lunacy. But as mentioned at top, Putin had nothing to do with the elections. BLAMING Putin is to manufacture a fake reason for the failure of Hillary.

 

The culprit who played the Trump card to the hilt was RUPERT MURDOCH. He sauced the evangelicals and the deplorables. Biden only passed the post in 2020, because the democrats had a massive campaign to make sure more people than ever voted to STOP TRUMP. Despite his loss, Trump still got more people voting for him this time around in 2020 than in 2016… Putin did not intervene in 2016 nor in 2020 and "Rupert let it pass” in 2020…

 

Read more on this site everywhere….

 

See also: 

the god of the piggies...

 

fake news of the day...

 

grooming trumpoo...

 

free assange today, mr biden...

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE TODAY !!!!!!!!!!!

the democracy we don't have...

 

 

Joe Biden’s fight for «Democracy»

 

by Thierry Meyssan  

President Biden has announced the forthcoming creation of an international organisation of democracies in the face of the rise of authoritarian Russian and Chinese regimes. Contrary to the official rhetoric, this is not about defending democracies, but about promoting US imperialism. This fight is futile because it has chosen the wrong opponent.

 

The President of the United States, Joe Biden, has announced that he is convening a virtual summit on December 9 and 10, 2021 to defend "Democracy". Three main themes will be discussed: "defending against authoritarianism, fighting corruption and promoting respect for human rights". During the meeting, the leaders present will commit themselves "to improving the lives of their own people and to addressing the greatest challenges facing the world". This will be followed by a second summit in 2022, at which leaders will report on progress made relative to their commitments.

These meetings were announced by Joe Biden during his election campaign. At the time, he said that the aim was to defeat Russia and China. The real objective is therefore to define a criterion that distinguishes the two blocks in formation, as in the past a capitalist world was distinguished from a communist world.

DEMOCRACY AS A POLITICAL REGIME

If in the 19th century, the United States was perceived as a new democratic model - see in particular Alexis de Tocqueville’s work, De la démocratie en Amérique -, today it is nothing more than an oligarchy: effective power is held by a tiny group of hyper-billionnaires outside public institutions, while the political personnel is reduced to the role of extra.

In practice, the United States has never recognised popular sovereignty, and therefore democracy. Instead, its constitution is based on the sovereignty of governors, although an electoral system has gradually been put in place. In the 2000 presidential election, there was a dispute between two candidates, George W. Bush and Albert Gore, over the recount in Florida. The Federal Supreme Court concluded that constitutionally it did not need to know the election results in Florida, but only the opinion of the local governor, Jeb Bush (the candidate’s brother). As a result, George W. Bush was declared the winner, while the Florida recount gave Al Gore as President.

Today, democracy as a political system is challenged by the Woke ideology that President Biden claims. Equity between ethnic groups, which he has made his pet subject, is opposed to equality between all [1]. The democratic institutions of the United States are being challenged in practice by the secret counting of ballots, which has given rise to the legitimate assumption of massive electoral fraud. Finally, the mob assault on the Capitol attests to the fact that democratic institutions have lost their sanctity.

ALL POLITICAL REGIMES COME AND GO

In the eighteenth century, Western monarchies had run out of steam. They no longer had any recognised legitimacy. They still claimed to be of "divine right", but their subjects no longer believed in them. Regimes based on "popular sovereignty", democracies, emerged. The remaining monarchies adapted, not by renouncing their ’divine right’, but by combining it with ’popular sovereignty’.

In the 20th century, when the economic crisis of 1929 hit, the Western press claimed that capitalism was dead and that a new political system had to be invented. First it was communism, then fascism. It should be remembered that Benito Mussolini had been Lenin’s representative in Italy before he came up with fascism. Capitalism was thoroughly reformed by Franklin Roosevelt, fascism was militarily defeated, communism collapsed with the USSR, and democracy survived.

In the 21st century, and more particularly since the Covid epidemic, we have witnessed the sudden emergence of some fifteen very large IT groups, around the GAFAMs (Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon and Microsoft). Their power is now greater than that of most states. They do not hesitate to censor the ideas they want and the people they want. This includes information from states about Covid’s medical treatments, and even messages from heads of state and government themselves, right up to the sitting US president. No political leader keeps Bill Gates (Microsoft) or Jeff Bezos (Amazon) waiting if one of them phones him, but he can delay or even refuse a communication from the US President. They are imposing their agenda, transhumanism, which should turn us into computerised animals and their leaders into superior beings who go out to conquer space.

Under these conditions, all democracy has become impossible. Western voters are going to the polls less and less because they have understood this. Only a third of those registered to vote in the last French elections did so. The institutions are still democratic, but democracy is a practice and the French have become detached from it.

This situation is absolutely new. It is true that the disappearance of the Western middle classes began with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and the transformation of the European Common Market into a supra-national structure dates from the same period. But nothing, absolutely nothing, foretold what is happening to us.

Democracy is, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, "Government of the People, by the People and for the People". Today, nowhere does the People govern themselves. Even if some states are resisting, such as Iceland or Switzerland, the fact is that the democratic ideal has become impossible to implement in the face of GAFAM. In the absence of democracy, i.e. the participation of the People in political life, the most important thing is to ensure that the decisions taken are in the general interest, which is what we call the Republic.

This situation is changing month by month. We have to fear terrible developments for our freedoms and for our means of living. In any case, the current facts are already unacceptable.

We cling to our formerly democratic regimes because we do not know what to replace them with. But we increase our problem by denying the obvious. So, just as we have kept monarchies alive beyond the end of "divine right", we keep our democracies alive beyond the failure of "popular sovereignty". However, the situations are not identical: no one believes in divine right power any more, but we have all experienced the validity of the principle of popular sovereignty. It is not a question of making a revolution against the GAFAMs, but of waging a war to make them give back the Power they have stolen from us. It is not a question of imagining a new type of political regime, but of defining rules that make democracy possible again.

 

DEMOCRACY AS A POLITICAL WEAPON

Just after the dissolution of the USSR, US President Bill Clinton asked himself the same question as his successor Joe Biden: how to distinguish the Western bloc from the others? He devised a ’Global Democracy Strategy’ and set up a secret group in the White House to implement it.

We do not know who constituted this group, but we have identified its evolution during George W. Bush’s term. It was led by Liz Cheney (daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney) and Elliott Abrams (who organised the parliamentary overthrow of Hugo Chavez at the end of Bush Jr’s term [2] ). This group oversaw several overthrows at the National Security Council, such as that of the constitutional president of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya. It did not practice the military methods of the CIA, nor the pseudo-revolutionary methods of the NED, but invented a model for parliamentary coups. What followed was an epidemic of parliamentary overthrow of governments in Latin America.

Experience shows that democracy is now only a form, not a reality. One can trample on the Constitution and overthrow a government ’democratically’ as long as one puts a parliamentarian in charge.

We have no doubt that this office in charge of the Global Democracy Strategy still exists and will soon be in the news.

Already, this Strategy again rekindles the project of an "Alliance of Democracies" promoted by the essayist Francis Fukuyama, which the Bush Administration had imagined replacing the United Nations. The former Secretary General of NATO, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, created in 2017 a Foundation for the Alliance of Democracies.

 

OUR POLITICAL FUTURE

We need to admit that Russia and China are not worse than us, but rather face the same problem with a different culture. We need their help just as they need ours.

Together or separately, we will not find the solution immediately. We have to start fighting without knowing what form our victory will take, but we already know the basis. We must therefore specify the principle on which we want to build new democracies for ourselves or our children: the Republic.

Summary 


 States are being overtaken by new giant corporations, the GAFAMs. As a result, governments, whoever they may be, can no longer meet our expectations. It is wrong to speak of a "crisis of democracy" when it is a crisis of all political systems. 


 President Biden’s efforts to defend democracy are doomed to failure because they no longer correspond to the problems of the contemporary world. At most he can continue under this false banner to promote his country’s imperialism. 
 We can refuse the illegitimate power of GAFAM and defend ourselves by promoting not a political regime, but a decision-making criterion: the Republic.

 

Thierry Meyssan

 

Translation 
Roger Lagassé

 

Read more: https://www.voltairenet.org/article213771.html

 

 

Read from top.

 

See also: 

are we becoming more controlled?...

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW.................................