Connect with us

Latest

‘US withdraws from the world’ is Trump making it great or irrelevant again?

The US is becoming increasingly isolated from the world

Published

on

1,056 Views

Donald Trump promised Americans he would make the US great again, a center of a world that is becoming increasingly multipolar, yet the US appears to be withdrawing from the world at an alarming rate.

The US has found itself increasingly alienated from its traditional allies (and some would say vassals) in the EU.

Vassals no longer: Merkel, Macron advocate European sovereignty

This was likely in no small part due not only to Trump’s unpredictable nature, but to the dangerous US Nationalism and Exceptionalism displayed by administration officials.

American Exceptionalism: Mike Pompeo says Americans must believe in the “essential rightness” of the USA

The US has withdrawn from the internationally lauded Iran deal, gotten into trade wars with even “close allies” such as Canada, and is generally making radical changes, including withdrawals from international bodies.

Some think the way the US withdraws from treaties is a sign of strength, but many, including Philip Giraldi at the Journal of Strategic Culture, and The Duran’s Frank Sellers feel it is a sign of weakness.

Giraldi in particular, used the example of Trump’s withdrawal from the United Nations 47-member Human Rights Council (UNHRC), as well as the UN cultural body UNESCO, as an example of the US weakening its own influence in the world.

U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley cited the reasons for the withdrawal from the Human Rights Council which were that the U.S. felt the council has “unfairly and critically focused on Israel”. In the same light, Giraldi writes that the US withdrew from UNESCO:

Last October…when the organization named the city of Hebron on the West Bank a Palestinian World Heritage site, which Israel declared to be unacceptable.

There are, in fact, two important things to note here. First of all, the Administration is so clearly following the will of Israel in these two examples, like a slave, rather than an independent state.

I understand, if some would argue, that Israel has long had influence over US policy, this is totally true, the difference is the open, and some would say tactless, way that Trump does not even bother to hide his Israel apologetics.

President Obama, for example, at least attempted to create the illusion of protocol, and US Humanitarianism – even if anyone paying attention realized that Obama was just as much carrying out the Zionist mandate in Syria and the Middle East, as did Bush.

The difference is, Trump is so brazen in this, that he is almost proudly signaling that the real power is in Tel-Aviv, and he is happy to obey Netanyahu’s orders. Perhaps he does not see it this way, but, from an outsider’s perspective, Trump seems to be withdrawing from international bodies – mainly for the sake of Israel’s interests.

And withdrawal from the UN Human Rights Council happened along the same lines. To be clear, I find it very odd that a “Human Rights Council” allows Saudi Arabia, where women can be executed for “Witchcraft”, to be a member.

I am not a “hater” of President Trump, nor a lover of globalism, or a person obsessed with the UN. The fact still remains, nations, including Russia, participate with international bodies, first and foremost, because it is the civilized thing to do. That is what the majority of the earth’s states do.

There are some things, for example, wearing a suit and tie to formal events, that politicians simply do, because it is expected, and in line with universal tradition. Indeed, powerful trendsetting Empires can build their own rules and tradition, but only when proper leverage exists.

When the US withdraws from an organization, and everyone else remains a part of it, it does not appear like the US is strong, it appears that the adults are conducting diplomacy, while someone is crying in the corner that people don’t respect their authority.

United States alone against the world?

Another reason it would be in the interest of the US, to participate with the world, is that it would grant the US a platform to spread its voice. This is not something that matters to me, I have heard enough war-mongering, but for the US, and any person really, it is important to have your voice heard.

Instead, the US withdraws because they feel Israel isn’t being respected – which should have no bearing on the US. From a political perspective, the only reason to leave an important organization only because an ally leaves, is if that ally is actually your overlord, and you are their vassal.

As the US withdraws from the world, Ron Paul feels US influence is waning.

Former Congressman Ron Paul remarks on declining American global influence

When someone looks at the map of UNESCO members, and sees those in green, who are members, and those in orange, who are not, they don’t say: “Wow…those countries who left are brave trendsetters!” they would instead say “Wow, those countries are really isolated from the rest of the world.”

It is somewhat like failing to embrace the far superior and scientific Metric System, which the entirety of the civilized world uses, and instead, using a primitive and backward measurement system that the rest of the world can’t be bothered to learn. What would prompt people to do that?

It is almost juvenile.

Speaking of juvenile actions, look at how Niki Haley responded to this question, as to whether or not the US is simply blocking Palestinian appointments simply because they are Palestinian.

“Is it this administration’s position that support for Israel and support for the appointment of a well-qualified individual of Palestinian nationality to an appointment at the U.N. are mutually exclusive?” A journalist asked. Haley responded yes, that the administration is “supporting Israel” by blocking every Palestinian.

Blocking members of a certain race from joining an international body is meant to promote peace, because you support a group which is bombing and killing them. How very racist.

Giraldi at the Journal of Strategic Culture writes:

Complete withdrawal from the United Nations is not unthinkable in the current climate, though the Democrats and some moderate Republicans would no doubt strongly resist such a move. In my opinion, the United Nations is a dystopian mess but it is better to have it than not as it provides a forum where nations that otherwise cannot meet are able too do so and discuss transnational issues. And it should be conceded that the U.N.’s inability to actually function is largely both structural and bureaucratic due to the veto power given to the Security Council’s five permanent members, a function that Nikki Haley has repeatedly used to stop resolutions that might be offensive to the United States or Israel…

Beyond that, Haley’s constant citation of concern for Israel gives strength to the suggestion that there is something unnatural about its bilateral “special” relationship with the United States. In the Middle East in particular, Israel would seem to be driving U.S. policy, particularly vis-à-vis Syria, Lebanon and Iran.

Israel is intent on continuing political chaos in Syria lest there be a threat to its continued occupation of the Golan Heights and has warned about possible preemptive action in Lebanon to punish Hezbollah. It also wants the United States to deal decisively with Iran. By all accounts, those agendas are proceeding very well as Washington has been regularly threatening Iran and last week vowed to take military action if Damascus seeks to recover territory in the Syrian southwest that until recently was held by terrorists.

It is difficult to discern what the joint United States-Israeli strategy might be towards the United Nations and other international bodies. Neither has recognized the authority of the International Criminal Court in The Hague for fear that its own senior officials might be arrested and tried for war crimes.

To be sure, both countries are protected against any serious challenges in the U.N. itself by the American veto power over the Security Council, which alone has the authority to mandate sanctions or peacekeeping operations.

But the U.S. withdrawal from U.N. agencies is, if anything, a sign of weakness rather than strength. If Washington were indeed confident in its own brand of international leadership it would welcome the opportunity to sit on panels and help shape the views of other countries with which it has a politically neutral or adversarial relationships. That it does not choose to do so suggests that there is an understanding that what Washington is selling no one is buying.

The complete isolation of the United States at the United Nations and also elsewhere, to include G-7, was exhibited recently during June 1st votes at the U.N. Security Council. A resolution sponsored by Kuwait seeking an inquiry into the Israeli killing of unarmed demonstrators in Gaza and a motion by Haley seeking to blame Hamas for the deaths both were voted on.

Haley’s was the only vote against the former and the only vote in favor of the latter. She predictably commented afterwards that “Further proof was not needed, but it is now completely clear that the U.N. is hopelessly biased against Israel.”

In conclusion, Trump said he would make America great again, but it seems many of his policies are making the nation more isolated. This is emphasized in the way Trump seems to prefer bilateral agreements, over international treaties.

He is the legendary “deal maker”, he thinks everything is negotiable, there is always a deal to be cut. This is a product of capitalism, where everything, including culture, values, and morals, is for sale, for the right price.

Trump and his supporters often feel the way he summarily and unilaterally withdraws from treaties, cancels meetings, and handles bilateral negotiations are a sign of strength. They say he is showing his strength when he cancels his North Korean meetings, or Iran deals, and in the short term, this is true. It is a good tactic, especially as the CEO of a company, but a terrible strategy for a statesman.

Indeed, Trump is displaying strength on a bilateral level, but when he makes these “tough decisions” and breaks agreements, he seems like an unreliable partner and an unstable player. World leaders say “We can’t deal with this!”

Trump’s strategies worked well in business, no one doubts his business skills, but one thing fiscal conservatives always fail to realize is, being a good businessman, and good at running a company, does not guarantee you can run an economy, much less a country.

In order to run a nation, you must be a strong leader with a great will, prepared to guide the masses to greatness and defend the interests of the state. You must also be compassionate, reliable, and responsible, like Putin. Everyone knows when Putin says something, he means it.

While Trump closes doors, Putin opens them, Pt 2

To run a nation, you must care about your fellow people, and to conduct international diplomacy, you must care about the world.

In business, to be a truly powerful business person, you don’t care about others. The capitalistic mindset does not teach one to be concerned for the well being of humanity, but rather to use and manipulate everything around you to achieve your own wealth, your own power, your own success. It is all about the individual.

Diplomacy, is, however, all about the collective.

Trump may win battles via his deals, as he is a skilled business person and negotiator, but you can’t conduct international diplomacy with the mentality of bilateral deals.

You may appear tough, and that toughness may grant you a win dealing with one individual, but if the international community sees how you act, and considers you unreliable or unpredictable, they may choose to make deals with or without you, or with your enemies.

‘With friends like Trump, who needs enemies?’, says EU Council President

This is a man who once joked that he could shoot a person and still win an election. Of course, he was joking! But those kinds of immature jokes, as well as his misogynistic and immoral remarks demeaning women do not distinguish a statesmen.

 

Likewise, after meeting Kim Jong Un, he casually said he trusts him, and if things go wrong? Look at how he addressed this possibility, when he said:

“I may be wrong, I mean I may stand before you in six months and say, ‘Hey I was wrong.’

That was not the worst part, the part that was so ridiculous. That was when he casually paused and with a joking tone, said immediately after:

“I don’t know that I’ll ever admit that, but I’ll find some kind of an excuse.”

I will admit, when I heard that, I laughed hysterically. It’s so Trump. That is the kind of joke that a friend can make, and would cause a person to laugh. But that is not how a leader should talk. He is openly parodying the fact, that he won’t take responsibility for his actions.

I am a simple Russian Orthodox Christian, not a brilliant political analyst, so perhaps I do not understand the complexity of 4D Chess, as some call it, but to the eyes of a simple person, the ability to take responsibility for your actions and not make excuses are an important trait that children must learn, let alone someone who commands several thousand nuclear warheads.

Even if it’s a joke, it is a joke that is totally irresponsible and unpresidential, hilarious, yes, but not the way of a statesman.

I wish to stress that I do not wish to hate on President Trump, he is WORLDS better than insane war-mongering Hillary, who has not found a war she does not support. I am only disappointed, when I feel his behavior reminds me of the globalists many believed he would resist. When he bombs countries like Syria, who did nothing wrong, and blatantly supports Zionism, which kills innocent people.

I simply want to live in a world, where all nations, Russia, the Middle Eastern nations, the USA, the EU states, China and the Far East can finally live in peace. I fear that Trump, however intentional or unintentional, does not inspire in world leaders or people that he will reasonably achieve this.

This is what Trump does not seem to understand. He is a powerful dealmaker, tough in a one on one situation, but his aforementioned style also scares away foreign leaders on the international level. It isolates the US, while driving division among the nations of the earth.

People are beginning to wonder, is Trump making the US great, or simply irrelevant, again?

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
10 Comments

10
Leave a Reply

avatar
10 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
10 Comment authors
HappyCynicAndré De KoningSPQRNightcrawler136Vera Gottlieb Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
HappyCynic
Guest
HappyCynic

And yet the US economy is 5 times the size of Germany and 6 times the size of France and the UK, and the GDP growth rate of the US is bigger than any other of the top 10 GDP countries. Economics is more important than the virtue signalling practiced by other countries. It’s not Trump’s job to make the US “relevant” in the world – it’s his job to improve the living standards of Americans. If he has to annoy unimportant little countries like Canada and Germany to do this, so be it – that’s his job. Clearly the… Read more »

André De Koning
Guest
André De Koning

De-dollariization is the main justice as the US has been profiting form this for decades and this will come to an end. Trump does a good job to return nation to their sovereignty and remove themselves from the US reserve currency (as it is not a reserve at all).

SPQR
Guest
SPQR

A great America is also an irrelevant America. The less influence this nation of psychotic gunslingers has on the world the better off we, including Americans, will all be. May Trump be to the US what Gorbachev was to the Soviet Union.

Nightcrawler136
Guest
Nightcrawler136

The author seems to have missed the point, Trump is the wrecking ball that the US will never recover from!

Vera Gottlieb
Guest
Vera Gottlieb

And even without the US, planet Earth will keep revolving around the sun…The US has caused enough destruction and misery all over the planet. Enough!

Guy
Guest
Guy

This is such a good article and exactly how I feel about it also.This quote also says a lot about Trump.
“‘Europe should be grateful by President Trump, because thanks to him we have got rid of old illusions’” .Illusions about the indispensable nation.

Vince Dhimos
Guest
Vince Dhimos

“If Washington were indeed confident in its own brand of international leadership it would welcome the opportunity to sit on panels and help shape the views of other countries with which it has a politically neutral or adversarial relationships.” You have come closer to the truth about Trump than any commentor I have read so far. If you substitute “confident in” with “articulate about” you reflect my sentiment, because it is not a lack of confidence that he displays. It is much worse. Trump not only is NOT in any way articulate but even if he were, he would have… Read more »

my2Cents
Guest
my2Cents

Never mind our antiquated measuring system rather than the metric one. How about our Colonial, very political Justice system that every former colony still uses with the exception of Quebec. Common Law with uncodified law vs Civil Law with Codified laws. Try and get a hold of your State’s Statute Book and read these incredibly stupid laws written by 9-year olds, all of which mean nothing until a “judge” (a lawyer politically appointed to judge) reads it, interprets it…either throws it out or “translates it into legalese. That then becomes case law on which various and sundry are judged for… Read more »

Bill Spence
Guest
Bill Spence

Talking about US leadership makes no sense because of its reliance on military threats and bribery. The reliance on blackmail and bribery imply weakness.

John R. Nolan
Guest
John R. Nolan

“I wish to stress that I do not wish to hate on President Trump, he is WORLDS better than insane war-mongering Hillary, who has not found a war she does not support.” Remember, Killery is a rampant, raging satanist, a power crazed being motivated only by greed, medicated insanity, who still lusts after destruction of all decency, sanity, freedom, of the populace, just like Chump, and it is Amazia who is, and has been for many years, the greatest threat to humanity. Rest assured, it will be Amazia who brings about the final global carnage, and it will be Russian… Read more »

Latest

New York Times hit piece on Trump and NATO exposes alliance as outdated and obsolete (Video)

The Duran Quick Take: Episode 61.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

RT CrossTalk host Peter Lavelle and The Duran’s Alex Christoforou take a quick look at the New York Times hit piece citing anonymous sources, with information that the U.S. President dared to question NATO’s viability.

Propaganda rag, the NYT, launched its latest presidential smear aimed at discrediting Trump and provoking the establishment, warmonger left into more impeachment – Twenty-fifth Amendment talking points.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Via The American Conservative


The New York Times scored a serious scoop when it revealed on Monday that President Trump had questioned in governmental conversations—on more than one occasion, apparently—America’s membership in NATO. Unfortunately the paper then slipped into its typical mode of nostrum journalism. My Webster’s New World Dictionary defines “nostrum” as “quack medicine” entailing “exaggerated claims.” Here we had quack journalism executed in behalf of quack diplomacy.

The central exaggerated claim is contained in the first sentence, in which it is averred that NATO had “deterred Soviet and Russian aggression for 70 years.” This is wrong, as can be seen through just a spare amount of history.

True, NATO saved Europe from the menace of Russian Bolshevism. But it did so not over 70 years but over 40 years—from 1949 to 1989. That’s when the Soviet Union had 1.3 million Soviet and client-state troops poised on Western Europe’s doorstep, positioned for an invasion of Europe through the lowlands of Germany’s Fulda Gap.

How was this possible? It was possible because Joseph Stalin had pushed his armies farther and farther into the West as the German Wehrmacht collapsed at the end of World War II. In doing so, and in the process capturing nearly all of Eastern Europe, he ensured that the Soviets had no Western enemies within a thousand miles of Leningrad or within 1,200 miles of Moscow. This vast territory represented not only security for the Russian motherland (which enjoys no natural geographical barriers to deter invasion from the West) but also a potent staging area for an invasion of Western Europe.

The first deterrent against such an invasion, which Stalin would have promulgated had he thought he could get away with it, was America’s nuclear monopoly. By the time that was lost, NATO had emerged as a powerful and very necessary deterrent. The Soviets, concluding that the cost of an invasion was too high, defaulted to a strategy of undermining Western interests anywhere around the world where that was possible. The result was global tensions stirred up at various global trouble spots, most notably Korea and Vietnam.

But Europe was saved, and NATO was the key. It deserves our respect and even reverence for its profound success as a military alliance during a time of serious threat to the West.

But then the threat went away. Gone were the 1.3 million Soviet and client-state troops. Gone was Soviet domination of Eastern Europe. Indeed, gone, by 1991, was the Soviet Union itself, an artificial regime of brutal ideology superimposed upon the cultural entity of Mother Russia. It was a time for celebration.

But it was also a time to contemplate the precise nature of the change that had washed over the world and to ponder what that might mean for old institutions—including NATO, a defensive military alliance created to deter aggression from a menacing enemy to the east. Here’s where Western thinking went awry. Rather than accepting as a great benefit the favorable developments enhancing Western security—the Soviet military retreat, the territorial reversal, the Soviet demise—the West turned NATO into a territorial aggressor of its own, absorbing nations that had been part of the Soviet sphere of control and pushing right up to the Russian border. Now Leningrad (renamed St. Petersburg after the obliteration of the menace of Soviet communism) resides within a hundred miles of NATO military forces, while Moscow is merely 200 miles from Western troops.

Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has absorbed 13 nations, some on the Russian border, others bordering lands that had been part of Russia’s sphere of interest for centuries. This constitutes a policy of encirclement, which no nation can accept without protest or pushback. And if NATO were to absorb those lands of traditional Russian influence—particularly Ukraine and Georgia—that would constitute a major threat to Russian security, as Russian President Vladimir Putin has sought to emphasize to Western leaders for years.

So, no, NATO has not deterred Russian aggression for 70 years. It did so for 40 and has maintained a destabilizing posture toward Russia ever since. The problem here is the West’s inability to perceive how changed geopolitical circumstances might require a changed geopolitical strategy. The encirclement strategy has had plenty of critics—George Kennan before he died; academics John Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt, and Robert David English; former diplomat Jack Matlock; the editors of The Nation. But their voices have tended to get drowned out by the nostrum diplomacy and the nostrum journalism that supports it at every turn.

You can’t drown out Donald Trump because he’s president of the United States. And so he has to be traduced, ridiculed, dismissed, and marginalized. That’s what the Times story, by Julian Barnes and Helene Cooper, sought to do. Consider the lead, designed to emphasize just how outlandish Trump’s musings are before the reader even has a chance to absorb what he may have been thinking: “There are few things that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia desires more than the weakening of NATO, the military alliance among the United States, Europe and Canada that has deterred Soviet and Russian aggression for 70 years.” Translation: “Take that, Mr. President! You’re an idiot.”

Henry Kissinger had something interesting to say about Trump in a recent interview with the Financial Times. “I think Trump may be one of those figures in history,” said the former secretary of state, “who appears from time to time to mark the end of an era and to force it to give up its old pretenses.” One Western pretense about Russia, so ardently enforced by the likes of Julian Barnes and Helene Cooper (who, it may be safe to say, know less about world affairs and their history than Henry Kissinger), is that nothing really changed with the Soviet collapse and NATO had to turn aggressive in order to keep that menacing nation in its place.

Trump clearly doesn’t buy that pretense. He said during the campaign that NATO was obsolete. Then he backtracked, saying he only wanted other NATO members to pay their fair share of the cost of deterrence. He even confessed, after Hillary Clinton identified NATO as “the strongest military alliance in the history of the world,” that he only said NATO was obsolete because he didn’t know much about it. But he was learning—enough, it appears, to support as president Montenegro’s entry into NATO in 2017. Is Montenegro, with 5,332 square miles and some 620,000 citizens, really a crucial element in Europe’s desperate project to protect itself against Putin’s Russia?

We all know that Trump is a crude figure—not just in his disgusting discourse but in his fumbling efforts to execute political decisions. As a politician, he often seems like a doctor attempting to perform open-heart surgery while wearing mittens. His idle musings about leaving NATO are a case in point—an example of a politician who lacks the skill and finesse to nudge the country in necessary new directions.

But Kissinger has a point about the man. America and the world have changed, while the old ways of thinking have not kept pace. The pretenses of the old have blinded the status quo defenders into thinking nothing has changed. Trump, almost alone among contemporary American politicians, is asking questions to which the world needs new answers. NATO, in its current configuration and outlook, is a danger to peace, not a guarantor of it.


Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington journalist and publishing executive, is the author most recently of President McKinley: Architect of the American Century

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Nigel Farage To Back Another “Vote Leave” Campaign If UK Holds Second Brexit Referendum

Nigel Farage said Friday that he would be willing to wage another “Vote Leave” campaign, even if he needed to use another party as the “vehicle” for his opposition.

Published

on

Via Zerohedge


Pro-European MPs from various political parties are pushing back against claims made by Prime Minister Theresa May’s government that a second Brexit referendum – which supporters have branded as a “People’s Vote” on May’s deal – would take roughly 14 months to organize, according to RT.

But while support for a second vote grows, one of the most notorious proponents of the original “Vote Leave” campaign is hinting at a possible return to politics to try and fight the effort.

After abandoning UKIP, the party he helped create, late last year, Nigel Farage said Friday that he would be willing to wage another “Vote Leave” campaign, even if he needed to use another party as the “vehicle” for his opposition. Farage also pointed out that a delay of Brexit Day would likely put it after the European Parliament elections in May.

“I think, I fear that the House of Commons is going to effectively overturn that Brexit. To me, the most likely outcome of all of this is an extension of Article 50. There could be another referendum,” he told Sky News.

According to official government guidance shown to lawmakers on Wednesday, which was subsequently leaked to the Telegraph, as May tries to head off a push by ministers who see a second referendum as the best viable alternative to May’s deal – a position that’s becoming increasingly popular with Labour Party MPs.

“In order to inform the discussions, a very short paper set out in factual detail the number of months that would be required, this was illustrative only and our position of course is that there will be no second referendum,,” May said. The statement comes as May has been meeting with ministers and leaders from all parties to try to find a consensus deal that could potentially pass in the House of Commons.

The 14 month estimate is how long May and her government expect it would take to pass the primary legislation calling for the referendum (seven months), conduct the question testing with the election committee (12 weeks), pass secondary legislation (six weeks) and conduct the campaigns (16 weeks).

May has repeatedly insisted that a second referendum wouldn’t be feasible because it would require a lengthy delay of Brexit Day, and because it would set a dangerous precedent that wouldn’t offer any more clarity (if some MPs are unhappy with the outcome, couldn’t they just push for a third referendum?). A spokesperson for No. 10 Downing Street said the guidance was produced purely for the purpose of “illustrative discussion” and that the government continued to oppose another vote.

Meanwhile, a vote on May’s “Plan B”, expected to include a few minor alterations from the deal’s previous iteration, has been called for Jan. 29, prompting some MPs to accuse May of trying to run out the clock. May is expected to present the new deal on Monday.

Former Tory Attorney General and pro-remainer MP Dominic Grieve blasted May’s timetable as wrong and said that the government “must be aware of it themselves,” while former Justice Minister Dr Phillip Lee, who resigned his cabinet seat in June over May’s Brexit policy, denounced her warning as “nonsense.”

As May pieces together her revised deal, more MPs are urging her to drop her infamous “red lines” (Labour in particular would like to see the UK remain part of the Customs Union), but with no clear alternative to May’s plan emerging, a delay of Brexit Day is looking like a virtual certainty.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

The National Security Agency Is A Criminal Organization

The National Security Agency values being able to blackmail citizens and members of government at home and abroad more than preventing terrorist attacks.

Paul Craig Roberts

Published

on

Via Paul Craig Roberts…


Years before Edward Snowden provided documented proof that the National Security Agency was really a national insecurity agency as it was violating law and the US Constitution and spying indiscriminately on American citizens, William Binney, who designed and developed the NSA spy program revealed the illegal and unconstitutional spying. Binney turned whistleblower, because NSA was using the program to spy on Americans. As Binney was well known to the US Congress, he did not think he needed any NSA document to make his case. But what he found out was “Congress would never hear me because then they’d lose plausible deniability. That was really their key. They needed to have plausible deniability so they can continue this massive spying program because it gave them power over everybody in the world. Even the members of Congress had power against others [in Congress]; they had power on judges on the Supreme Court, the federal judges, all of them. That’s why they’re so afraid. Everybody’s afraid because all this data that’s about them, the central agencies — the intelligence agencies — they have it. And that’s why Senator Schumer warned President Trump earlier, a few months ago, that he shouldn’t attack the intelligence community because they’ve got six ways to Sunday to come at you. That’s because it’s like J. Edgar Hoover on super steroids. . . . it’s leverage against every member of parliament and every government in the world.”

To prevent whistle-blowing, NSA has “a program now called ‘see something, say something’ about your fellow workers. That’s what the Stasi did. That’s why I call [NSA] the new New Stasi Agency. They’re picking up all the techniques from the Stasi and the KGB and the Gestapo and the SS. They just aren’t getting violent yet that we know of — internally in the US, outside is another story.”

As Binney had no documents to give to the media, blowing the whistle had no consequence for NSA. This is the reason that Snowden released the documents that proved NSA to be violating both law and the Constitution, but the corrupt US media focused blame on Snowden as a “traitor” and not on NSA for its violations.

Whistleblowers are protected by federal law. Regardless, the corrupt US government tried to prosecute Binney for speaking out, but as he had taken no classified document, a case could not be fabricated against him.

Binney blames the NSA’s law-breaking on Dick “Darth” Cheney. He says NSA’s violations of law and Constitution are so extreme that they would have to have been cleared at the top of the government.

Binney describes the spy network, explains that it was supposed to operate only against foreign enemies, and that using it for universal spying so overloads the system with data that the system fails to discover many terrorist activities. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/50932.htm

Apparently, the National Security Agency values being able to blackmail citizens and members of government at home and abroad more than preventing terrorist attacks.

Unfortunately for Americans, there are many Americans who blindly trust the government and provide the means, the misuse of which is used to enslave us. A large percentage of the work in science and technology serves not to free people but to enslave them. By now there is no excuse for scientists and engineers not to know this. Yet they persist in their construction of the means to destroy liberty.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending