Venezuelans Face Rising Threat Of War.

by Jerry Alatalo

omeone famously (and accurately) described the February 2014 U.S.-planned coup in Ukraine, – which overthrew the democratically elected government of Victor Yanukovich and led to civil war – as the most obvious, blatant coup in world history.

People might remember the January 2019 U.S.-planned coup attempt in Venezuela as even more obvious.

In 2014 and Ukraine, the Obama/Clinton State Department and Victoria Nuland appointed the new president “Yats”, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who shortly afterwards resigned and was replaced by Petro Poroshenko. Ms. Nuland, infamous for her “F@%k the EU!” and “Yats is the guy” unforgettable assertions – caught on an intercepted phone call which quickly went viral on the internet, spoke in front of a group of corporate energy bigs and noted the expenditure of $5,000,000,000 in U.S. taxpayer monies for Ukraine.

In 2019, U.S. Vice President Mike Pence named Juan Guaido the new president of Venezuela, Guaido swearing himself into office, and thus sharing with “Yats” the distinct achievement of appointment as leader of a government overthrown via illegal coup by the big boys from Washington, D.C.. Ukraine is, as the phrase goes, a “done deal”; Venezuelans can hopefully avoid repeating what happened in Ukraine: deadly, unnecessary civil war.

As yet, no Trump administration official has, like Ms. Nuland had done, shared the number of billions in taxpayers’ dollars spent on the effort to overthrow democratically elected President Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela, – however, one might estimate much more than $5 billion, given Venezuela possesses the largest oil reserves on planet Earth.

Whatever the number of $billions, John Bolton seems confident in the investment. He went on Fox News business media casually talking about U.S. oil corporations taking over Venezuela’s oil production, as if it were already a “done deal”.

Similarly, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is referring to Venezuela’s elected top politician as “former President Maduro”, as if the over six million people who voted for him and lifted him into the highest office (for the second time) no longer exist.

That Venezuela has stopped taking $ as payment and has influence in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), and considering the possibility that OPEC nations could accelerate the trend of decreased use of U.S. dollars for oil purchases, people might get a better sense of why Donald Trump and his administration are so anxious to place Juan Guaido in the Venezuela big chair.

OPEC consists of Algeria, Angola, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Republic of the Congo, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Venezuela. Unfortunately for Americans, their governments have, – especially since the false flag of September 11, 2001 and intended over-17-year fraudulent “war of terror” – alienated much of the rest of the world, and severely tarnished America’s reputation, through implementing massively deadly war as the means of increasing business markets share and profits.

Like the alcohol-addicted men in small towns whose propensity for needlessly beating up others leads to their having to relocate … with reputation burnt up in the Middle East-North Africa region, Venezuela became the easily-predicted obvious next target for the Trump administration.

The people of Venezuela face the very real possibility of experiencing what the people of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine and Yemen have become forced to endure since 9/11: the completely unnecessary nightmare of horrific war, violence, displacement, injury and destruction.

The sad part of the story is that 9/11 and all the human-tragedy, bogus “terrorist” wars of choice never needed to happen. Nations and corporations doing fair trade for reasonable profits while willing to follow international law and embracing non-intervention philosophy? …

Perhaps the United States of America can begin repairing with sincerity the self-inflicted damage to its global reputation. Perhaps not, but one thing is for certain.

The good people of Venezuela would greatly appreciate such a path in these days and nights of their overwhelming worry.

Peace.

(Thank you to The Real News Network at YouTube)

Advertisements

Bill Browder Challenged In European Parliament.

by Jerry Alatalo

William Browder’s 7-hour deposition on April 15, 2015 uncovered many disturbing facts about his narrative of events as they relate to the death of Sergei Magnitsky, for whom the Magnitsky Act was named.

he long-lasting, seemingly impenetrable, indestructible scandal of hedge fund tax cheat Bill Browder – and Magnitsky Act economic warfare legislation he’s spearheading globally – may have suffered a fatal wound. Appearing before a European Union (EU) committee in recent days, Bill Browder was one of the panelists chosen to speak to the politicians about potential Magnitsky laws becoming written and implemented for the entire European Union.

An EU parliament member from France, Nicolas Bay, pushed Browder on documentary filmmaker and director Andrei Nekrasov’s “Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes”, which portrays the director’s journey from first believing Browder’s story of what happened to Browder’s “lawyer” (actually, his accountant) Sergei Magnitsky – to understanding Browder is a historic-magnitude fraud.

Mr. Bay suggested there is an unresolved controversy with regard to Browder’s narrative powerfully raised in Nekrasov’s highly-censored/blacklisted documentary, and pushed Browder for an explanation of why he seems intentionally avoiding a debate with Nekrasov. Tellingly Browder, – in what is likely a preconceived or prepared, well-thought-out response anticipated before the EU discussion should “Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes” and/or Nekrasov have become brought up – answers Mr. Bay with allegations of Bay’s “Russian involvement” and claims that Nekrasov put out a slander film on Browder for money.

Here are comments on the video of the EU discussion, the portion featuring Browder’s rare public confrontation engagement with May, posted on YouTube at ‘Nicholas Wilson’ channel:

“Guy acts like he’s above it all, right after admitting he went out of his way to prevent another man’s film being shown anywhere in the world. “Putin” and “Russia” are only a smear among those in power. Majority of the public don’t care. The Skripal story is a joke. The dead Russian journalist turned out to be a Ukrainian lie. Russia accused of influencing US election turned out to be an insignificant number of memes.

“Meanwhile, US declares its own un-elected puppet leader of Venezuela. France encourages protests in Venezuela while shooting, gassing and finding ways to prevent its own. And the U.K. demands an immediate election while denying one to its own people despite disaster after disaster. These, bankers, liars and hypocrites need to be exposed and never forgotten until they’re in prison for their crimes which have killed people.”

(Reply) “Amen.”

*

“Thanks for posting this. Con-man Bill Browder’s engaged in scams since, at least, the 1990s when under the wing of Edmond Safra. Safra’s Republic National Bank of New York (RNBoNY) and Beny Steinmetz bankrolled Hermitage in Moscow – with Browder up-front – in 1996. Following Safra’s death in Monaco in 1999, RNBoNY’s absorbed by HSBC. The Magnitsky hoax is a geopolitical scam – undone by the source documents (corporate, court, police+ filings). “The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes”, the documentary of Andrei Nekrasov and Norway’s Oscar-nominated Piraya Film AS is a brilliant expose of Browder and reveals how this scam has been furthered by politicians, bureaucrats, press+ in Europe and America. Great to see Browder, and his hoax, is unraveling.”

*

“Thanks for the Browder background J’accuse. It really is a scam of MONUMENTAL proportions; the fact that the mainstream is studiously ignoring it just showcases how bankrupt the system is.”

(Reply) “This truly is a failure of the press. Con-men do what they do. Lying comes naturally to Browder and co. What’s missing is a functioning media to act as check-and-balance. I’ve been investigating white collar / organized crime since the 1980s (see https://jaccuse.news ). The networks being used in this current hoax pre-date con-man Browder – and they’ll post-date him. I’m hopeful this year we’ll see the truth exposed to enough of a global audience that Browder himself will lose his value to the criminal and political networks for which he’s fronting at present. With even more exposure, the corrupt enterprise itself may suffer greater structural dismantling. The world will be a better, safer, place with each step to shut down this operation.’

*

“Thanks for putting this on line, so everyone can hear his vile accusations with zero evidence.”

*

“Creepy Bill Browder is starting to come unhinged. In the last few days, he told Danske bank that the French had reopened an investigation, when they had not. Danske postponed a bond sale and the markets were sent into a spin. Then, just to make himself more popular, he accused members of the British House of Lords of money laundering, which while probably true, the fact that his bank of choice HSBC, settled a tax debt from one of Browder’s companies for tens of millions of dollars. Now this rant, its possible he is going to crash and burn, in which case it won’t be Putin who pays him a visit, but he might get Novichoked, and serve a purpose if Brexit falls apart.”

*

“Who is asking Browder the question? N Bey???? Trying to find his name…”

(Reply) “French Parliamentarian Monsieur Nicolas Bay, Député européen | Co-président du @GroupeENL | Président du groupe Rassemblement National au Conseil régional de Normandie.”

*

“Great to have a European Parliament member ask this crook a question. You can see that he is unable and unwilling to ‘engage’ – anyone who has seen the film sees very clearly how Nekrasov at first thought Browder was speaking the truth, and he slowly uncovers, to his own dismay, how Browder is a liar, misrepresents facts, and organized a major heist against the Russian state. Browder was supported here by Guy Verhofstadt, a guy who in this way showed his colors fully as well as totally owned by money-laundering banks such as HSBC.”

*

To watch the shocking, extraordinary film “Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes” by Andrei Nekrasov, people can purchase and download at MagnitskyAct.com.

How much longer can the enormously important, global-consequence Bill Browder-Magnitsky Act scandal remain concealed and survive?

(Thank you to Nicholas Wilson at YouTube)

 

#Free Marzieh Hashemi.

(Cross-posted from American Herald Tribune)

*

Detention Of Marzieh Hashemi Pursuant To Material Witness Order Borders On Political Kidnapping

ny discussion of the detention of journalist Marzieh Hashemi must begin in the historical context that all presidents have used the Department of Justice for constitutionally prohibited personal ends. The calculated seizure and political intimidation of Mrs. Hashemi and her family in the United States is but the most recent flagrant instance.

Whether it’s the deportation of political enemies during the Palmer Raids of the early 1900’s, or the COINTELPRO attacks a half a century later upon dissidents of color through assassination, mock show trials and indefinite detention of political prisoners, or the post 9-11 hysteria that drove hundreds of thousands of Muslims from the United States, or the targeted attack on whistle blowers and construct of the surveillance state by the last president, all have seen their executive power as essentially boundless, and their thirst to use it . . .  largely unrestrained.

Yet none before has been so public, indeed brazen, as is the current one in his utter contempt for the settled rule of law and procedure. Indeed in Trump’s view the Department of Justice exists as but a mere extension of his own political thirst and agenda and may be employed as a tool to implement personal and political reprisal. In this light, the lawless seizure of Marzieh Hashemi was as predictable as it is ominous in both process and substance.

The history of the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) has largely lain dormant with few prosecutions, if any, for violations and none before that have triggered the seizure of an American journalist pursuant to the subterfuge of a material witness order, here employed as little more than political handcuffs.

As of now there has been no official comment by the Department of Justice as to the nature of the grand jury dodge that served for the illegal and unnecessary seizure of Mrs. Hashemi when she recently de-boarded a flight in St. Louis, Missouri.

nitial grounds for the unprecedented seizure of the highly respected anchor for Press TV swung wildly, ranging from leverage to obtain the release of other Americans “held” in Iran to a US investigation into possible violations of the recently re-imposed political sanctions against Iran to OFAC violations (Office of Financial Assets Control) arising from her unlicensed work for a designated foreign state.

If, as it turns out, the seizure of Mrs. Hashemi finds its genesis in an unprecedented criminal investigation of a news outlet pursuant to FARA, to understand just how calculated and arbitrary a step it is, one need only look at its very different application against the Russian state-owned media outlets Sputnik and RT.

Cast in the light of the hysteria over alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election, Congress and various government agencies turned their attention to both outlets. Claiming the need to provide listeners with notice as to their partisan bent, in point of fact FARA was used against Sputnik and RT as so much a legislative bully-pulpit in a readily transparent effort to “purify” if not control the message of these two foreign-owned outlets.

Yet, if FARA triggered the stunning seizure of Marzieh Hashemi, that precipitous step bears no likeliness whatsoever to the procedural and substantive approach employed by the US government with regard to like violations by Sputnik and RT.

In neither case were journalists of the networks seized by the government for possible violation of FARA. In neither case were the networks targeted for grand jury investigation.  In fact, unlike here, both media outlets were given ample opportunity to raise objections to the applicability of FARA to their activity and when their arguments proved unavailing a chance to either register with it or to cease operations within the United States. Failing this, the government threatened but did not, at any time, undertake criminal prosecutions or arrests of employees, let alone journalists, who worked for the outlets.

hat is not what has apparently happened here with Press TV. In this regard, there is no evidence that Press TV was put on notice that it’s “presence” within the United States or acquiring and using information it received in and about controversial US issues for airing in Iran, and elsewhere, triggered FARA oversight let alone a criminal violation of its reach. Nor, does it appear, Press TV was given an opportunity to challenge a claim that its activity fell within the rubric of FARA. Finally, there is no evidence Press TV was given an option to either register with FARA or to cease its operation or a warning that failure to do so could result in the prosecution of the network or the arrest of its journalists.

In this light, it is palpably clear that the Department of Justice has employed a double standard between its approach to the application of FARA to Sputnik and RT and to that applied as against Press TV.

Given a grand jury investigation into Press TV for an alleged criminal violation of FARA and the arrest of one of its most respected journalists, it is beyond cavil that the US government has chosen to selectively enforce and punish it for political reasons driven, no doubt, by an Oval Office agenda.

Continue reading “#Free Marzieh Hashemi.”

Captain Brittany Ramos-DeBarros: “They Want Us To Believe The Lie…”

by Jerry Alatalo

nited States Army Reserve Captain Brittany Ramos-DeBarros, veteran of the war in Afghanistan, faces retribution from her military superiors. She speaks out about her experience in Afghanistan and what she has learned with respect to the truth of why America initiates wars, which, from the military’s harsh reactions, suggests a continuing emphasis on secrecy, silence or non-transparency fueling the U.S. soldier/war organizational culture.

During a public event speech which put her in legal jeopardy, Captain DeBarros told the crowd gathered:

“They want us to believe the lies that the precious lives of our soldiers are being spent for the protection of our freedoms. But I spent a year witnessing the bravery and beauty of the Afghan people – men and women, fathers and mothers, risking their lives and their families to overcome oppressive organizations that we funded and enabled.”

While appearing for a new documentary promoted by Veterans for Peace, Brittany DeBarros describes the essential experience of contrariness as someone both in the U.S. military and speaking out against American involvement in war:

“It feels like a moment where your life feels like … the sum of your life means, could be made explicit in that moment. And you have to make a decision about what matters enough to you to put yourself at risk, and what risk you’re willing to take in order to defend that.”

Her and a growing number of American veterans of war are frustrated in the near absence of awareness in the people of the United States with regard to current levels of military engagement now occurring by their armed forces:

“People don’t realize that we’re at … almost at the height of what our bombing campaigns have been, – that we’re dropping a bomb every 12 minutes when you average out the numbers.”

“What is driving a lot of our actions is very likely not what we think, which is freedom and, you know, protecting our country and bringing democracy to the world, and liberating oppressed peoples, as it’s been sold to the American people.”

Captain Brittany DeBarros and her fellow veterans opposed to war feel,  – after learning about the lies they and their fellow Americans have been told regarding military operations in Afghanistan, Syria and elsewhere around the Earth – that their voices are just as important to become heard as the generals, admirals, Secretaries of Defense, Presidents … and so on.

“I believe what I heard someone else say, which was: ‘If someone can stand in uniform as an officer and as a leader, and speak about why we should be in war, – why shouldn’t I as a leader be able to stand in my uniform and say that we shouldn’t be at war?'”

She also expresses her shocked amazement and frustration in knowing that, not taking into account the nation’s civilian population of 330 million-plus being unaware, even her own fellow soldiers are often-times “out of the loop” on the true levels or magnitude of military operations being carried out by United States armed forces around the world.

“When there’s that little awareness … awareness-raising is ground zero.”

***

For more information, please visit AboutFaceVeterans.org 

(Thank you to The Peace Report at YouTube)