New details on US-Saudi deal suggest Washington supporting terrorist regime

New details of US-Saudi deal suggest Washington supports terror


by Don Hank

Bloomberg recently exposed the storykept under wraps for over 40 yearsof the US-Saudi petrodollar agreement under which the US agreed to use its military to protect the Saudi family in exchange for the Saudis’ demanding US dollars as payment for oil and buying US Treasuries. The US officials who disclosed this story said that King Faisal insisted the deal should be kept secret because anti-US sentiment in the Middle East was running high due to US support for the Yom Kippur War.

The fact that the Saudis insisted on secrecy in this petrodollar deal suggests that there may well still be secrets yet to be revealed.

Considering that all US involvement in wars and US support for government coups outside the Western Hemisphere since 1974 greatly benefitted the Saudis and harmed the US people (Saudi support for terror, trillions of dollars spent on wars all supporting Sunni Islamization), it is highly likely that part of this agreement – certainly an unwritten part – called for the US indirectly to help spread Wahhabism everywhere. Because this is exactly what the US government did in its foreign and military policy for over 40 years. Don’t tell me it was all a coincidence!


GW Bush covered up Saudi complicity in the 2001 terror attacks on the Twin Towers, as reported here.


Case agents I’ve interviewed at the Joint Terrorism Task Forces in Washington and San Diego, the forward operating base for some of the Saudi hijackers, as well as detectives at the Fairfax County (Va.) Police Department who also investigated several 9/11 leads, say virtually every road led back to the Saudi Embassy in Washington, as well as the Saudi Consulate in Los Angeles.

Yet time and time again, they were called off from pursuing leads. A common excuse was “diplomatic immunity.”

Bush’s Iraqi war ended up with the Assyrian Christians leaving the country in droves. They had survived 2000 years of persecution but finally succumbed to the US-Saudi-led war that installed their enemies in power. The Saudis aim to eliminate Christianity from all predominantly Muslim regions. Hence, it was a Saudi win, but, like all US military engagements outside the Western hemisphere, it was at the same time a devastating loss – in terms of money, morale and security – for the once-Christian US.

The US-led war in Kosovo converted this cradle of Serbian Christianity into an exclusively Muslim domain, where the last Christian residents, who had spent their lives there since infancy, were mercilessly persecuted and almost all Christian monuments, such as cemeteries and churches, were, and are still being, destroyed and desecrated ( Again, this debacle was a clear-cut loss for the US people but a resounding victory in terms of Saudi goals. Indeed, Saudi money was reported to have “flooded Kosovo” after the war.

US Support for the Egyptian spring was apparently motivated by a desire to establish the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood in that country in compliance with Saudi wishes. I say that because there is no way that US officials could have expected democracy to bloom in that hotbed of  Islamic fanaticism. It succeeded under Mursi until he was ousted by Al Sisi. During Mursi’s reign, Christians were persecuted. A Christian Egyptian lady I know told me her husband had traveled back to Egypt during the Mursi regime and when they asked him where he intended to visit, and he mentioned the name of a predominantly Christain town, he was unceremoniously put on the next flight back to the US. At the time of this telling, they had never learned the fate of his family. As stated above, the Saudis aim to eliminate Christianity from all predominantly Muslim regions. A major US loss, a resounding victory in terms of Saudi goals – until the Egyptian military stepped in.

Libya was run by a secular Muslim leader who established stability and relative peace among all factions including Christians. The Saudis also aim to eliminate all secular leaders, mostly because they promote tolerance of Christians and Shia. Within a year after the criminal murder of Ghadaffi, aided by US-NATO forces, Libya fell into the hands of warring factions, predominantly ISIS, which adheres to Saudi Wahhabism and is a US-Saudi brainchild. Another Saudi victory, another loss – and humiliation for We the People.

The US supports the ouster of Bashar Al-Assad, a non-Sunni (Saudi Wahhabism is a Sunni sect), who also protects the Christians in his country.  Assad is also an ally of Christian Russia, making him doubly a target of the Saudis. The US motivation is pure and simple: Keep the Saudis happy by trumping up mostly unproven charges against Assad and training terror groups to defeat him. The US slyly calls these groups “rebels” but all of them are Islamists who will introduce Shariah law and persecute Christians. Many are linked to Al-Qaeda and have also passed on US-donated arms to Al-Qaeda and ISIS.

The dogged Neocon press insists that Iran is the biggest supporter of terror, despite the fact that this largely Shiite country has never supported any of the terror groups that oppose the West, such as the Taliban, Al-Qaeda and ISIS, all US-Saudi protégées. Arch-Neocon John McCain joked that he would like to bomb Iran. The US legislature was close to supporting an Israeli bombing raid on Tehran. This would have been another black eye for the US but a resounding victory for the Saudis, who aim to eliminate the Shiite religion everywhere in the world.

US antagonism for Russia can also be seen as part of this pattern of behavior intended to keep the Saudis happy.

The above recap of US foreign and military policy is ample circumstantial evidence that the most important elements of the secretive 40 year old petrodollar agreement are not known and may never come to light.

Nonetheless, this commentary is intended to encourage research in this area to see what might still be found, for examples, in records of classified phone, mail or email exchanges between the Washington government and the Saudis, and in the memories of officials involved in past US-Saudi transactions.

After all, confirmation that the government of the largest nominally Christian country in the world has been engaged for over 40 years in aiding and abetting the most intolerant and violent anti-Christian sect in the world – ie, Wahhabism – in its quest to eliminate Christianity everywhere might be a story of some interest.

Trump the most likely to keep the peace?

A world without war is possible (but you won’t see it)


Don Hank

One of my correspondents sent me an email containing a pasted article entitled “A World Without Nuclear Weapons — Ours.”

The gist of it was that the Obama government was paring back our nuclear arsenal while Russia was beefing up theirs and that they would survive a nuclear conflict while we would not. Because they have more nukes. Hey, good thinking! All we have to do is stay a step ahead in the construction of nuclear weapons and we’ll all be safe even if they launch a strike, but they’ll be toast if they do. Right?

I decided to do a little research and find out the sizes of our respective nuclear arsenals and, of course, answer the really meaty question: how many nukes would it take to make the earth uninhabitable? In other words, despite the difference in size of our respective arsenals, would Russia – or anyone – survive an all-out nuclear conflict given the combined size of our arsenals (and this is not even counting the Chinese arsenal also arrayed against us)?

I discovered here that the difference in the numbers of nukes held by the Russians and those held by the US is a few hundred, with each country bristling with over 7000, or a difference of only a few percentage points.

But scientists reckon that even a small nuclear exchange of about 200 nuke explosions between countries like India and Pakistan, which could have about that many such weapons between them, would make the earth uninhabitable for up to 25 years by kicking up black dust that would quickly spread throughout the earth’s atmosphere and block the sunlight. The first year, the scant sunlight peeping through the bleak atmosphere would allow farming for only a month a year.

So apparently the person who wrote this article thinks we really ought to have enough nukes to destroy the earth, say, 74 times over (counting the Russian retaliatory strikes during a nuclear exchange involving an equal number of nukes on either side) because Russia has enough to destroy it almost 80 times over (counting the US input in such an exchange).

So, taking our cue from that writer, how about this for a military plan?

Make at least 1000 more nukes than Russia and then strike Russia with about 250 at first and kill off most of them. Of course, they would retaliate with their subs and hypersonic ICBMs which cannot be detected by any known means, and with their space-launched MIRVs, each of which would shower us with too many bombs for any anti-missile shield to deal with at once. Most would get through and do their job.

That would kill almost all of us but a few who happened to be out of the country at the time.

Then, according to this exquisitely thought out plan, we could hit them 25 years later – after the world became habitable again – with another 250 to kill all the survivors.  We might reasonably anticipate that they would do likewise with the remaining sub-borne missiles in their stockpile, but never mind.  Just 25 short years after this second all-out strike, if the world became habitable again, we could resume this process and continue it for just 800 years until they were completely out of nukes and then the good old exceptional USA would emerge triumphant at last. No sweat.  I bet the Pentagon would like clever this plan.

Of course, these calculations are based on the assumption that no one would be developing any further nukes during the 25 interbellum years after each all-out exchange.

It also is based on the assumption that neither side would launch more than the number needed to make the world temporarily uninhabitable during any given strike. That is, that the 2 antagonists would not make the world uninhabitable indefinitely during one of the first few exchanges. It could happen, but why sweat something so trivial as the demise of the planet?

Of course, knowing human beings and their desire to be winners against all odds, it is possible that the first strike would be followed by a several-fold retaliatory strike by the other side and then a similar one by the first striker until the entire combined arsenal was gone in one spectacular fireworks display. If it only takes a few hundred strikes to make the earth uninhabitable for 25 years, then, assuming a simple mathematical relationship were possible (though it probably is not), we can imagine that after depletion of our combined arsenals of over 15,000 nukes, the world might become uninhabitable for a total of say, 800 years..

But cheer up. After that, it would probably be all over and that no-nuke world that many have dreamed of would finally have arrived. Hooorah for the USA!

Most likely, however, the first nuclear exchange would wind up killing off all but the cockroaches.

A pity neither fish nor fowl nor four footed creatures, including the one with the best-developed brain that made it all possible, would be around to enjoy such perfect peace.

As the author of the above-mentioned article makes clear, we have more important things to worry about than the survival of earth. One of the opponents in this great conflict must focus on saving the earth from global warming and keeping its dominance of the planet at all costs, and on maintaining its pace in the initiation of color revolutions and wars that reduce nations to chaos, as it did in Libya, Kosovo, Ukraine, Syria and elsewhere — lest it surrender its hegemony. Meanwhile, the other needs to consider the proposition: live free or die.

So is there an alternative to what is increasingly looking like a showdown with Russia?

There is no telling what any candidate will do once elected. However, while almost all of the GOP candidates have “talked tough” on Russia, and some have explicitly stated that, if elected, they would start shooting down Russian planes in Syria (apparently they had never heard of the S-400s strategically placed all around the country), and while Hillary has shown as secretary of state, her warhawk Neocon bona fides, one candidate stood out with statements like “I think I could get along with Putin,” and “what are we nuts? Why not let the Russians take on ISIS?” This more respectful and reasonable attitude toward Russia as a potential partner rather than an adversary is an alternative to the reckless statements of the Neocons on the campaign trail. Trump is at least aware that US military adventures have done nothing but destroy the infrastructure and political stability of nations or regions like Iraq, Libya, Kosovo, Ukraine, Syria, and have jeopardized others like Egypt. And while he has been falsely accused by Establishment figures — particularly the Neocons — of threatening world peace because of a supposedly irascible temperament, he has in fact stood out against the others as a man who wants to stop taunting the bear. From the standpoint of a stable and peaceful world, he is, ironically, the only option.



Saudi press claims US behind 911 attacks

Saudis now claim US behind 911 attacks


by Don Hank
The Saudi press, seething over the possibility that Congress will allow the families of 911 victims to sue Saudi Arabia, is now claiming the US is 100% behind the 911 attacks.

While  am not buying the Saudi narrative that the attacks were made in the USA, it is clear that Bush covered for the Saudis, who, after all, did create Al-Qaeda (in a joint venture with the US).

The Saudis were definitely the main actors but American officials covered for them — whether or not they were in on the plot.

Add to this the fact that Russia and China are settling all oil trades in RMB and April was a record month for these trades, with China buying more oil – and in its own currency –  than it did from the Saudis. That puts pressure on the Saudis to walk away from its now threadbare petrodollar agreement – the only thing holding up the USD. I would be surprised if this agreement survived beyond 2016.

Consider this:

The petrodollar would seem by any measure to be losing its fight for existence. And since it is the basis of our war machine, the Asians could in fact bring down Washington’s military ambitions with their oil trade. We could hardly blame them after imposing senseless sanctions on Russia for all this time. The sanctions could be considered the trigger for the demise of the dollar.

We may soon see a world in which the US would be powerless to effect regime change of the kind that destroyed Libya and Ukraine, made Kosovo a no-go zone for its own indigenous Christian population, nearly destroyed Syria and sent millions of refugees, terrorists and hoodlums to flood Europe.

Why would anyone miss these misguided and stupid policies?

Washington may soon be a spectator rather than the bad actor it has been so far.

RIP New World Order?

If all of this happens as it is expected to, then who will bail out the impoverished and starving West?

Answer: None other than Asia – China and Russia. There are no other realistic options on the horizon.

In this perspective, Donald Trump’s statements about getting along with Russia and cooperating with her make perfect sense.


Russia refuses to sell tanks to Iran

Russia refuses to sell tanks to Iran


by Don Hank

Russia is constantly accused in the West of only pursuing its own selfish interests in the world, particularly in the Middle East. However, if that were true, then, particularly now that US-imposed sanctions are hurting them economically, one would expect them to sell arms to any country that asks for them. Russia is, however, refusing to sell its sophisticated T-90 tank to Iran.

If you understand what I call the Putin Principle, as described here, you will easily grasp what is motivating him.

According to TASS, President Vladimir Putin is trying to comply with international treaties, which at this time ban the sale of tanks to Iran. Iran and Russia are not on the best of terms right now because Iran thinks Russia is too cozy with the West. For example, Iran does not want Russia to deal with Israel, but of course, Russia does what is best for Russia (which is also what is best for the US people, but the Neocons, as defined here, are not We the People, quite the opposite). Putin is a friend of Israel. Some Israeli leaders have said he is the best friend Israel has. That may be true.

There is contention in the Kremlin right now because the hardliners in the Russian military want direct military confrontation with the West. Putin wants peace with all sides but is also looking out for the security and safety of the Russian speakers in Ukraine and the minorities, notably Orthodox Christians, in Syria. At this point in time, it is fair to say that Putin is the de facto mediator between all world factions. In accordance with the Putin Principle, he does not take sides (at least not in the obtuse manner of Washington), just insists on respect for international law and the sovereignty of nations  –  not some silly “Russian exceptionalism” or the like (though a case could be made for the existence of such).

If the West has the upper hand, there will be constant senseless wars everywhere. If Putin’s Russia imposes its will, there will be peace between the 2 main axes, ie,

Israel-US and allies (incl the Saudis and Turkey)-Europe, and

Russia-China and allies (such as Syria and Iran – though Iran is an unreliable ally).

If Putin is removed from power or retires at this point, the hardline faction in the Kremlin could take over and make life a living hell for the West. There could be a world war. Putin is the key to peace.

So what do our brilliant Neocons (like Hillary and most GOP “leaders”, for ex) do to promote peace and show their respect to the Russian leader?

Why antagonize Russia as much as possible, amassing NATO troops at the Russian border just as Hitler did prior to WW II and imposing sanctions intended to hurt Russia but which in fact hurt Europe more.

We need to understand clearly that there cannot be all-out war with Russia. That is a false concept entertained by all shallow Western foreign policy “experts.” There can only be all-out war with the China-Russia bloc, never with Russia alone. They will defend each other. Numerous joint exercises and military parades in conspicuous places are intended to demonstrate their solidarity and the “experts” snoozed through them all. In the 70s the elites thought that free trade with China would cause a split between the 2 nations (as outlined in my commentary “China, an unreliable tool of the New World Order”), which at the time the free trade deal was signed, were not on friendly terms.

Heavy-handed and childish US meddling has meanwhile united them, and has also made China extravagantly rich – unintended consequences of an irresponsible gamble.

For most of you, the following will be a rhetorical question:

Can the US defeat BOTH China and Russia?

For those who actually have contemplated this question seriously, here is something to chew on:

Don Hank

Germany’s Fourth Reich supports terror in Crimea

The entire Western elitosphere has been quietly dismantling Judeo-Christian culture and putting non-Muslims (Jews, Christians and non-believers) at serious risk for over a half-century, starting roughly in about 1953, when the CIA facilitated a coup against the democratically elected government of Iran ( The CIA later admitted their — and Britain’s role: The upshot was a brutal rule by the Shah followed by an authoritarian Islamic regime in response to this). US involvement in the Middle East has invariably led to the installation of Islamic despots or terror groups like ISIS, who killed, persecuted and expelled Christians and other minorities, eg, in Libya and Syria. Clinton’s war in Kosovo was part of the same campaign, turning Kosovo, the sacred cradle of Serbian Christianity, into a Muslim state that has decimated the former native Serbian population and all but totally destroyed their churches and sacred monuments. And the complicit press has not uttered a word about it. I was able to learn this only by going to a web site in the Serbian language run by a church group. My report (mostly a translation) is here: (The ulterior motive for this intense anti-Judeo-Christian campaign is explained here:

Now comes Berlin attempting to support terror in Crimea by supporting the Mejlis, a Muslim Tatar group that once collaborated with Hitler, and recently has sabotaged power lines in Crimea. As in Kosovo, the West is attempting to portray the Muslims as victims of Christians when a cursory look would suffice to demonstrate the exact opposite. The only reason they can get away with this is because they are keeping you the public in the dark.

That is why you need to read the report below. But also note that the corresponding German language report from this same site provides details on the terror perpetrated by Mejlis (see my comments below).

And despite the clear-cut provocation of Russia (US and EU support for the bloody illegal Maidan coup), US media, pols and officials continue to insist that the US needs to build up arms to resist Russian “aggression.” Yet our buildup is what is leading to a reaction on the part of the Russians. All we need to do is stop the provocation. But, shhhhh. You’re not allowed to know that. It’s all their fault.

Don Hank

Auxiliary Troops Against Moscow (I)





(Own report) – One of Berlin’s government advisors is calling for Russia’s expulsion from the Council of Europe. The Russian government’s actions against the Crimean Tatars and its banning their Mejlis – a political organization – along with other measures, make it “no longer possible to justify continuing Russian membership in the Council of Europe,” according to a current position statement published by the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP). This demand is made at a time when the Crimean Tatars have been drawn into the spotlight throughout Europe, by the openly politicized Eurovision Song Contest (ESC). Whereas public perception of Crimean Tatars has been predominated by their 1944 deportation, their collaboration with the Nazis, which had preceded their deportation, has been obscured. As historians have ascertained, in 1942, “every tenth Tatar on the Crimean Peninsula was in the military” – on the side of Nazi Germany. Crimean Tatars fought on the side of the German Wehrmacht against the Soviet Union, excelling in the notorious “efforts to crush the partisan movement” and turned their Jewish neighbors over to the Nazis’ henchmen. Already in the 1920s, leading Tatar functionaries had complained of a “Jewification” of their communities, in their protests against Moscow’s resettlement measures of Jewish families. Later, exiled Crimean Tatars volunteered their services for the West’s cold war efforts to destabilize Moscow. The Mejlis, which today is quite controversial among the Crimean Tatars, stands in this tradition.

The German language version of this report says, for example, that the head of Mejlis, Refat Chubarov, met with members of the German foreign ministry even though “Chubarov single-handedly announced a blockade of Ukrainian trade with Crimea.” And “expressly praised the consequences thereof, namely, sensitive price hikes in staple foods.” Further “even the bombing of power transmission poles by activists within the sphere of Mejlis did not deter the Ministry from holding the meeting.”

Clearly, the most powerful nation in Europe is in perfect sympathy and harmony with the goals of this Muslim terror organization. And the US government watches in consenting silence. But then, we must recall that Hitler used Muslims to reach his goals as well.

Plus ça change…

Don Hank

German language version, more detailed, here:

Hilfstruppen gegen Moskau (III)





(Eigener Bericht) – Berlin baut seine Zusammenarbeit mit dem Medschlis der Krimtataren trotz dessen Verwicklung in Gewaltaktionen aus. Erst kürzlich ist der Vorsitzende des Medschlis, Refat Tschubarow, zu politischen Gesprächen im Auswärtigen Amt gewesen. Dem Treffen stand nicht entgegen, dass Tschubarow im September eine eigenmächtige Blockade des ukrainischen Handels mit der Krim angekündigt hatte – und auch nicht, dass Tschubarow im Oktober die für die Krim-Bevölkerung schädlichen Folgen der Tataren-Blockade, nämlich Mangel und empfindliche Preiserhöhungen bei Grundnahrungsmitteln, ausdrücklich gepriesen hatte. Sogar die Sprengung von Strommasten durch Aktivisten aus dem Umfeld des Medschlis, die die Krim in hohem Maß von der Stromversorgung abgeschnitten hat, lässt das deutsche Außenministerium nicht auf Distanz zu der Vereinigung gehen. Deutsche Ethno-Organisationen haben schon vor Jahren gute Beziehungen zu Tschubarow und zu seinem Amtsvorgänger Mustafa Dschemiljew aufgebaut, die von 2010 an intensiviert wurden, um nach dem Regierungswechsel in Kiew antirussische Kreise in der Ukraine zu stärken. Die Kooperation mit dem Medschlis-Milieu, das unter den Tataren auf der Krim durchaus umstritten ist, erfolgt in enger Abstimmung mit den USA, der Türkei unter Erdo?an und anderen NATO-Staaten. Die Parallelität von Kooperation mit den Krimtataren und deren teils gewalttätigen Protesten erinnert an die Entwicklung im Frühjahr 2013 in der Ukraine.


Is your favorite news site REALLY conservative? Or is it Neocon?

Is your favorite news site REALLY conservative? Or is it Neocon? 

by Don Hank

There is a good chance that those “conservative” sites you read are not actually conservative but instead are Neocon or a combination of Neocon and Libertarian. Let me put it bluntly: Neoconservative is roughly the diametric opposite of conservative, as explained here.

You will remember my article Has WND gone full-bore Neocon?, which shows how WND grotesquely distorted a NYT report on a member of the Russian public who posted, possible in a blog, that Romania could be reduced to a “smoldering ruin” if there were a confrontation between that country and Russia. WND falsely reported that his quote came from a Russian official.

Now you know that first of all, I would never have made such a mistake. But more importantly, if I had, I would have printed a retraction and an apology as soon as I learned of my error. That was how decent journalists behaved back when there was an ounce of decency left in the profession. But you can no longer call it a profession, more of a money grab.

By way of an update, let me tell you that shortly after my article appeared, a reader advised me that WND had removed that article like a thief in the night.

No apology, no retraction, just a surgical removal.

Recently, our friend Julio Severo wrote an article exposing certain Neocons posing as conservatives. He sent it to Free Republic and it is still archived at that site. You can read it here:

Julio writes to his readers:


I published my article on Cliff Kincaid in the conservative website Free Republic. See a copy saved here:

Now Free Republic has banned me. See my Free Republic account as saved here:

I had been publishing my articles on Free Republic since 2008, and only now I saw that they are partners with Cliff Kincaid.

Free Republic says that they advocate FREE SPEECH from a conservative viewpoint, but they killed the free speech of a Brazilian conservative writer who used no dirty language [the way Olavo de Carvalho does, for example, as described here  – Don] and no personal attack to talk about Kincaid and his ideas.

Julio Severo”

I told Julio his article on Kincaid was still up at the Free Republic archives and that there were a lot of comments, all agreeing with him and mostly mocking Kincaid.

He responded:

“They banned me yesterday, immediately after I published about Kincaid. I called them [on the phone] because they called me a ‘troll,’ but I explained that I am not a troll and that I am a Brazilian writer, but they did not care. They only answered to me “GOOD BYE!” and hung up the telephone.

See this contact information:
Free Republic, LLC
PO Box 9771, Fresno, CA 93794 (559) 273-1400”


I wrote back:


Neocons are the real trolls. They pretend to be conservative and post on conservative issues, but hate the truth when you point out facts that they want covered up.

I warned my readers of this evil ideology here:

You need to read that to understand the enemy.

All Russia bashers are Neocons. Most of them write for money. Kincaid’s group has received millions in donations.



This site details the source of Kincaid’s funding (ie, for Accuracy in Media”):

“A minimum of eight separate oil companies are known to have been contributors in the early 80s. Only three donors of the remainder[clarification needed] are given by name: the Allied Educational Foundation (founded and chaired by George Barasch), Shelby Cullom Davis, and billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife. Scaife gave $2 million to Accuracy in Media between 1977 and 1997.[24]

With this kind of funding coming in, you don’t need talent and you don’t need accuracy. In fact, you can be a liar and a drooling idiot. All you need is slavish obedience to your funding sources.

And who are these funding sources?

Shellby Cullom Davis, is affiliated with the Heritage Foundation, which claims to be conservative but somehow, according to this site:

“The health insurance mandate in the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, is an idea hatched in 1989 by Stuart M. Butler at Heritage in a publication titled “Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans”.[37] This was also the model for Mitt Romney‘s health care plan in Massachusetts.[38]

According to wikipedia, Richard Mellon Scaife, who gave Kincaid’s AIM $2 million, was affiliated with the Center for Strategic International Studies (CSIS), aptly described as Neoconservative and having on its board such notable Neocons as Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski. One of its board members is or was Carla Anderson, listed as the Chairwoman of the CFR – the New World Order flagship that wants all borders eliminated ASAP.

Oh, and Scaife also funded WND. Are you connecting the dots?

So Kincaid can pretend to be conservative, but the Neocon label is stuck to him like glue.

Below is my spoof on Kincaid’s silly comments on Donald Trump, suggesting Trump has some sort of sinister relationship with the Kremlin:


OMG, Wait ’til you read THIS! The smoking gun for sure!:


No WONDER Donald Trump is being nice to Putin. He sinisterly wants to build a hotel in Moscow.

Another building contractor running for president just so he can get a contract in Moscow. Why do they keep doing this?

I don’t know about you but I am very disappointed.

After this revealing article by the gifted researcher Cliff Kincaid, we now KNOW that Trump will be sinisterly trading away all of the Pentagon’s top secret secrets in exchange for the sinister Moscow Trump Tower contract, don’t we?

What’s that you say? Guccifer ALREADY gave away our top secret secrets to Russia?

Oh, ok. Never mind.

Just the same, I really thought Donald Trump wanted to make America great again. But now it looks like he only has sinister plans to make Russian tourism great.  Again…?

Mr. Kincaid is a GENIUS to have figured this sinister intrigue all out.

Now what does America do?

Wait, you say if Trump builds the Moscow hotel, that would bring money into the US instead of the other way around?

Oh, ok. Never mind.

But here is what Cliffy’s article also suggests, and boy you tell me this is not sinister: The article suggests, I think, that Trump is angling for Putin’s job. He no doubt has sinister plans to become the president of Russia so that, as a prestigious representative of not one but TWO world powers, he can build Trump Towers all over the world, including North Korea (I bet that’s the main target and Cliffy would no doubt agree)! Or at the very least, he could become the chief bellhop at Trump Tower Moscow.

At the very sinister least!

Cliffy’s message to America: Vote for Hillary!

Don Hank

PS: I know some of you are wondering why I would devote any time to this stuff (like I did here – which is why Cliffy is not very fond of me). However, I learned long ago that reading Neocon writings is therapeutic. Dealing in real world issues can be depressing and stressful. This is my way of escaping. Thank you, Cliffy!

Yes, Folks, some lame-brained billionaire paid Cliff $2 million to share this kind of “insight” with the world.

Has WND gone full-bore Neocon?

by Don Hank

WND reports here that “Russian officials” threatened to turn Romania into “smoking ruins.” They did not provide a link to that quote and did not state what Russian “official” had said it.

So I went fishing and discovered that the quote came from a NYT article and no Russian officials were quoted. In fact, it came from a member of the Russian public, just some blogger or participant of a forum. Even NYT does not specify who may have made the idle remark or on what web site:

Here is the original report of the anonymous remark:

“But the public discussion in Russia was darker, including online commentary of how a nuclear confrontation might play out in Europe, and the prospect that Romania, the system’s host, might be reduced to “smoking ruins.”

Does WND not know the difference between a Russian official and an anonymous member of the Russian public? Suppose a Russian journalist quoted a member of the KKK haranguing about blacks and claimed the quote came from an American ‘official’.”

Americans rightly complain that the msm have lowered their standards. But these same Americans read WND and think they are reading the gospel truth.

Looks like WND has gone full-bore Neocon. Does WND have any inkling that the US deliberately provoked Russia by using Soros foundations and USAID to bring about an illegal bloody coup in Kiev and then supported the corrupt new government, which includes fascist guerilla fighters? Does anyone at WND understand how much the Russians fear the fascists and why? Let’s review history: Russia lost several times as many of its people in WW II than the other allies combined but managed to kill 3 out of every 4 Nazis that were killed in the war. Without the Russians we’d possibly be goose stepping to the tune of Deutschland über Alles by now. Further, if it were not for US covert operations, there would be no Taliban, no Al-Qaeda and no ISIS. Russia is the only country sincerely fighting ISIS and is pushing them out of territories where their presence was tolerated by Washington. Why so much hate expended against a people to whom we owe so much? Is it ignorance or just plain evil? James Baker promised Gorbachev that there would be no troop buildup along the Russian border if they cooperated with the US. They did but we lied. There are troops everywhere now where we said there would be none and we expect the Russians to think these fighters are just deer hunting perhaps? What would the US do if the shoe were on the other foot and Russia were building up troops along the Canadian and Mexican borders?

Don Hank

Is Dilma impeachment the result of a US-Soros-led covert operation?

Is Dilma impeachment the result of a covert US-Soros operation?

by Don Hank

The alternate news site takes a critical view of the Dilma Rousseff impeachment process and its lead-up in Brazil, pointing out that it has all the earmarks of a Washington-led covert action. The cogent analysis they present supports what I have thought from the outset.

I never liked the far-left Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff, whose politics are not far from those of Barack Obama. Here is an article I wrote condemning her character and politics:

If you read that article, you will see why I condemned her. I still do.

However, now that she is being impeached, a larger issue has emerged, and that is, the meddling of the corrupt leftist Washington government in sovereign governments in a cynical effort to force its will on other peoples.

My reason for opposing this meddling is two-fold:

Firstly, the elites we summarily call the New World Order have attacked a common-sense and morally justified principle that could be called the “Westphalian principle,” described by our friend Bernard Chalumeau here. It is a time-tried principle in international law, which is intended to prevent a country or countries from overpowering other, weaker countries for their own selfish purposes. If we transposed this situation to the school yard and applied it to weaker kids being bullied and having their lunch money stolen by bullies, then no one would argue that the bully must be opposed and defeated.

But in the international arena, the elites know that they can easily pull the wool over the eyes of a public who think foreign affairs are too complicated to study and understand and who are more than willing to turn over the conduct of foreign policy  – including decisions to send our young people to war –  to an elitist government claiming to be “experts” when in fact they have little or no diplomatic skill, little knowledge of the cultures of the regions they deal with (as I pointed out here; see the heading “Culture” about 9 paragraphs from top of the article), and absolutely no moral values whatsoever. Thus they fit the MO of Neoconservatism as described by the founders of that movement, which I summarized here (has no relation at all to true conservatism but millions of duped “conservatives” think it does).

My other reason is the disastrous outcomes of US meddling in other countries, such as Kosovo, Ukraine, Syria, Libya, and others. Washington’s efforts to overthrow governments never result in the replacement of a corrupt government by a stable, viable new government and a viable economy. Entire peoples are ruined as a result. (The Western press refuse en bloc to report on the current genocide in Kosovo. Please see this report).

While my attitude toward Dilma as a president remains unchanged, I want the reader to consider the larger aspect of a corrupt hypocritical Washington government stirring up an uprising against alleged corruption in Brazil (BTW, note that Dilma was not accused of a crime).

Not 5 minutes after I posted this article, one of my researchers sent me this: 

Looks like the impeachment is a done deal and, assuming there was US involvement, Brazil could be added to the growing list of countries ruined by US meddling. I’d hate to be a Brazilian today.

Next US president must understand the Putin Principle

The disarmingly simple Putin Principle in foreign policy

by Don Hank

One of the cardinal points raised by Sun-tzu in his “Art of War” is the proposition of knowing the enemy. I will take that a step further and say that sometimes knowing the enemy leads to the discovery that he is not the enemy after all. And one further step: to the discovery that one is one’s own enemy.

The US government is the classic example.

There seem to be an alarming number of people who actually believe that hoax email making its rounds claiming that Hillary’s emails have been hacked by Russia.

First off, the story originated with a well-known hoaxster with the pseudonym Sorcha Faal, who specializes in these Russian fairy tales.

Secondly, if Americans do not have the ability and resources to hack into Hillary’s server, how in heaven’s name would they be able to hack into the Kremlin server?

The Kremlin is not run like the Washington government. No official would dare to let down his guard enough for a Westerner to hack into Kremlin emails. The offender would not get a smack on the wrist, the way Hillary did. Russians are serious about their government. Sadly, Americans have degenerated to the extent that very few care any more or believe that any government could possibly be serious about protecting its people. Why would any government be more honest than ours?, they reason.

The whole idea behind this fake story is that the Kremlin wants to interfere in our elections.

Nothing could be further from the truth. You will recall that when Putin was asked his opinion of Donald Trump, he ventured to say that Trump was clever (Trump later expanded this compliment claiming Putin had called him a “genius”), but in his very next breath, Putin made it clear that Russia has a policy of non-interference in the affairs of other countries. He was thereby establishing an unmistakable contrast between Russia and the Washington government.

I will attempt in a few lines here to explain a somewhat complex cultural and political situation in Russia as well as the mind of President Vladimir Putin.

One of the most important things you need to know about Putin is that he is serious about government business. Unlike our demented officials, he does not play irresponsible games. I am just now reading his biography, and recently came across an anecdote about his early days in the KGB school in Leningrad, now Saint Petersburg (BTW, Putin was not a spy, but rather an intel analyst). A few of his class mates — senior classmen — were discussing a certain hypothetical order that they might receive in the field.

When it came his turn to add his opinion, Putin said “that order is illegal.” Their attitude was “so what? It is an order.”

He said, “it is still illegal.”

That brief anecdote speaks volumes about who Vladimir Putin is and why he is respected in his own country (his popularity is still in the 80% range) and. increasingly, abroad.

Now, taking this further, Putin saw many years ago that the Washington government lies and cheats. It makes its own laws as it goes and enforces laws that are not on the books. All illegal in the international sphere. (Example: James Baker promised Gorbachev that the US would never encroach on Russian borders. Once an agreement was reached with Russia regarding relations with the US, the US broke that promise, and it is still doing so, with NATO building up heavy forces along Russia’s western border). Americans have been brainwashed into believing that lawless behavior in Washington is a good thing because America is “exceptional.” But this slipshod attitude toward the serious matter of international law – which, after all, governs the circumstances that lead to either war or peace – has led to the near-total destruction of Kosovo (in case you missed these, see: and, Libya, Syria and Ukraine.

Putin discovered long ago that the US was on the wrong track and set about to develop a strategic policy for his country that would restore legality to geopolitics and so impress the rest of the world that they would eventually trust Russia more than any other country. I like to call this policy the Putin Principle. The Kremlin calls it soft power.

It is the iron-clad implementation of this simple principle that led to Russia’s policies in Ukraine (particularly in the former Ukrainian territory of Crimea) and Syria.

The Western press and political class has brainwashed an astounding number of Westerners into believing that Russia is promoting lawlessness in these regions when in fact, even in its military operations, it is respecting sovereignty of nations and ethnic groups and their territories.

The West claims in unison that the accession of Crimea to Russia was an “annexation,” whereby Russia simply snatched territory in a selfish expansionist move. And yet no serious party in this same Western world protested the referendum in Scotland or claimed it was illegal. The US and Europe were all prepared to accept whatever the outcome might be, including Scotland’s separation from the UK, based on the principle that Scotland had a right to sovereignty, even though it was technically part of the UK. And once that vote became official, the Crimean people were free to accede to Russia.

Yet what was perfectly legal in Scotland was “aggression” in Crimea, even though over 90% of Crimeans (the vast majority of whom are Russian speakers and consider themselves Russian) voted in this referendum to break away from Ukraine – and for the same reasons that many Scots (just short of a majority) wanted to break away from the UK, namely, cultural identity.

Thus, by our own Western logic as applied to Scotland, what the Crimeans did was legal and not in any way reprehensible.

Russia simply accepted the will of the Crimean people and honored their sovereignty. But of course, Russia is illegal by definition in the West.

Likewise, in Syria – in contradistinction to the US, which waded into an internal conflict without any invitation from the Syrian people – Russia entered the conflict only when the duly elected president of Syria invited it to do so. In fact, it made a similar offer to the Iraqi government but stayed out of that conflict when the Iraqis declined the offer, choosing instead to allow the US to pretend to fight ISIS there and create one of their  trademark messes.

The “exceptional” US government went into Syria illegally while Russia entered as an invited guest. The US was exceptionally lawless. Yet it accuses Russia of “expansionism,” just as England – the most expansionist country that ever existed, touting an empire on which the sun never set – had once accused Russia of expansionism during the conflict with Turkey in the 19th Century.

Thus the West has always written its own laws as it goes, based on nothing but bare-faced propaganda.

Note that Putin not only wants to apply this more-righteous and in fact, more common-sense international policy of strict adherence to international law to Russia but at the same time, to use this higher virtue as an arm of soft power by contrasting it with the West’s ad hoc law of the Wild West. He and his government, often via the mouthpiece of foreign minister Sergey Lavrov, use every opportunity (eg, UN speeches, speeches before the Valdai Club, press conferences, interviews, RT) to drive this concept home.

The American public will perhaps be the last to grasp this simple concept, not because they are stupid but because they have been brow-beaten into feeling that facing the truth about foreign affairs is somehow unpatriotic. But elsewhere, including in Europe, there are high ranking actors who seem to understand it. And they respect Russia for what must be called a superior approach to geopolitics. After all, ISIS would not be a threat if the Russian principle had been applied in the West.