​Last Eight Months Prove United States a Bonafide ‘Regime’ – written by Neil Clark 

Elected to the Oval Office as a harsh critic of US involvement in costly Middle Eastern conflicts by a war-weary public, The Donald has turned out be just as much of a war president as those who went before. He’s ordered the firing of 59 Tomahawk missiles on a Syrian government airfield and dropped the “Mother of All Bombs” on Afghanistan. That’s in addition to threatening North Korea and Venezuela and escalating US involvement in the bombing of cholera-stricken Yemen.
The millions of Americans who voted for Trump, hoping he’d be the president to bring the troops back home, have been cruelly disappointed and are certainly feeling betrayed. They shouldn’t be at all shocked, however, as American political history shows us a clear pattern.

The sad, inescapable truth is that it doesn’t matter who gets elected as president and what they say on the election trail; the policies on the issues that matter remain the same after the inauguration. What the last eight months have proven, to anyone who still had any doubts, is that the US is not a “democracy” that changes course according to the public will, but a full-blown regime, governed by the Wall Street/CIA/Endless War Party which never loses power regardless of how people vote.

Even if the “wrong” candidate somehow gets elected, as Trump did last fall, the Wall Street/CIA/Endless War Party, working in tandem with their close allies embedded in the US mainstream media, still have plenty of tools at its disposal for making sure there‘s no significant departure from regressive policies that enrich the elite, but leave everyone else worse off.

We’re encouraged to see Trump as the big problem (if only he’d go away everything would be alright again!), but in fact, The Donald is only the latest POTUS to “revert to the mean” when in office. We tend to forget that back in 2000 a certain George W. Bush was hailed as “The president who wouldn’t meddle” after years of Clintonian interventionism. What happened? Dubya meddled more – and even more disastrously than Bill Clinton.

In 2008, Obama was the president who would break with the neocons after the Bush era. He would “Stop the War” and reset relations with Russia. He was even awarded a Nobel Peace Prize. But guess what? He followed exactly the same policies of regime change and interventionism.

Going back 25 years many progressives believed the election of Arkansas governor Bill Clinton, the boy from the “wrong side” of the railroad tracks, would mark an end to the greed-fueled excesses of the Reagan/Bush I years.

But Bill only deregulated further and the super-rich got even richer. While Clinton did Wall Street’s bidding at home, he also did it abroad, targeting Yugoslavia, with its socially-owned economy, for destruction with a bogus “humanitarian” bombing campaign. Practically the same thing was replicated by Obama and his NATO allies against Libya exactly twelve years later.

The striking thing about American politics over recent decades has been its continuity. The wars against resource-rich independent states in strategically important parts of the world have carried on, regardless of who’s been in the White House. The one percent continue to get richer , and the poor poorer, whether we have a boo-hiss nasty Republican or a nice “progressive” Democrat in the Oval Office. Every incoming president pledges to do something about inequality and to improve the lot of the middle class, and everyone fails.

Despite this, people still talk about “the US administration” or obsess about individual presidents as if they matter. By playing the “Democrats are better than Republicans/Republicans are better than Democrats” game we only help to keep the charade going. This is also true if we indulge in “If only x, y or z had won the nomination or presidential election” hypotheticals.

Do we believe President Gore would have been able to resist The Regime’s push for war with Iraq, post 9-11? Or that President Dole would have worked out better for ordinary Americans than President Bill Clinton?

The last eight months have provided us with a valuable insight into how the US regime operates.

Trump was opposed by the Wall St/CIA/Endless War Party not because of concerns about racism or sexism (that’s what they wanted us to think), but because of his criticism of an interventionist foreign policy, and his expressed desire for a rapprochement with Russia. The Regime needs to promote the myth that Russia is a “threat” in order to sell the latest military hardware to European states – and give NATO a reason for its continued existence.

Additionally, the WallSt/CIA/Endless War Party is keen to punish Russia for blocking their plans for regime change in Syria and for standing in the way of their plans for total global hegemony.

A fact-free “Russiagate” smear was peddled to derail Trump’s election bid. Then, when he was elected, over The Regime’s favored candidate, the proven Wall Street-friendly warmonger Hillary Clinton, the smear campaign went into overdrive.

The aim was to threaten the new president with impeachment, to get him to tow the line on foreign policy.

It was revealing that as soon as he bombed Syrian government forces in April, Trump began to receive establishment praise.

The Donald would obviously have noted that and realized that if he wanted to ease the pressure on himself, he had to do more bombing and threaten more countries. Previous presidents have reached the same conclusion.

The American mainstream media plays an absolutely crucial role in helping The Regime maintain its grip on power.

“Experts” from neocon military-industrial complex sponsored “think-tanks” dominate television debates while antiwar voices are deliberately excluded. Pro-war pundits scare their readers with stories of the “threat” posed to national security by the latest official enemy. In 2002/3 it was Saddam Hussein’s non-existent WMDs, in the last few years, it’s been the “threat” from Russia. Note how these pundits, even when their articles are revealed to have been total hogwash, keep their columns. Those who call them out for always being ‘wrong’ are missing the point: being “wrong” – and promulgating WallSt/CIA/Endless War Party fake news is actually a key part of their job.

Any public figures who threaten The Regime, either from the anti-imperialist left, or the isolationist/libertarian right, are subject to relentless smear campaigns, which usually leads to them being branded a “conspiracy theorist,” a “denier” of this that or the other and/or an “agent” of the “official enemy.” The irony is that those doing the smearing are, given past history, likely to be agents themselves.

Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Carl Bernstein revealed in 1977 that over 400 American journalists had “secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency.” “Within the CIA, journalist-operatives were accorded elite status, a consequence of the common experience journalists shared with high-level CIA officials. Many had gone to the same schools as their CIA handlers, moved in the same circles, shared fashionably liberal, anti-Communist political values, and were part of the same ‘ old boy’ network that constituted something of an establishment elite in the media, politics, and academia of postwar America,” Bernstein wrote.

That was in the old Cold War; it’s inconceivable- I think you’ll agree, that the CIA ( and allied intelligence services) don’t have’ journalists’ working for them in the new Cold War of today.

All things considered, The Regime must look back at the first eight months of 2017 with great satisfaction. A president who could have been a problem has been neutered. The coup de grace was the War Party’s representatives in Congress coming together to promote a bill imposing even tougher sanctions on Russia (and Iran)- and curtailing the president’s ability to lift the sanctions.

If Trump refused to sign it, then it would be taken as proof that he was indeed a “Russian agent” and had to be impeached. If he caved in, then it was game, set and match to The Regime.

Not only has Trump been brought into line on Russia, he’s also accepted a McCarthyite purging of White House staff/advisors who rejected or opposed the War Party’s hostile stance toward Moscow. One by one, these people have been replaced by those acceptable to The Regime.

It’s tempting- when looking at how Trump has buckled, to say “If only Bernie had won,” but that would be falling into the trap of thinking that individual politicians can make a difference against the machine set against them. That doesn’t mean though that genuine Democrats should give up on attempts to challenge the status quo.

Instead of focusing obsessively on Trump, we need to be turning our attention to where the power really lies in America. Today Americans are marching over historical statues, which suits the WallSt/CIA/Endless War Party just fine. The sort of protests which would really worry them would be marches demanding the president keeps good the pledges he made on foreign policy before his election, and calls for people to boycott the entire political system as it currently stands. That would really put the big cat among the hawks as it would show to The Regime and its operatives that they’ve been rumbled. However, at the moment “progressives” are doing exactly what the people behind the curtain want them to do, namely regurgitate War Party smears about Trump being a “tool of the Kremlin” and indulge in futile establishment-encouraged “left-right” culture wars, which don‘t harm the ruling oligarchy, and won’t stop the next “real” war against the latest target state.

Everything is done to try and prevent us from noticing and reflecting on the killer fact that US policies remain the same regardless of who is in the White House. The WallSt/CIA/Endless War Party has engineered illegal “regime change” operations around the world. But for the good of the world, and the majority of ordinary American citizens, the most pressing need for a regime change is in the US itself.

Reprinted with permission from RT 

Copied from Ron Paul Institute 

Advertisements

Russell Crowe on Dangers of the American Lawsuit against key Nigerian Officials

A landmark civil damages and human rights lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia by U.S. attorney Bruce Fein against sixteen Nigerian officials for their direct or indirect complicity and in the extrajudicial killings or torture of some Igbo group who were protesting marginalization based on their ethnicity, political viewpoint or religion. The Igbo organized themselves as the Indigenous Peoples of Biafra (IPOB), which is as nonviolent as, if not as symbolic as – for instance – the ‘agitation’ for Republic of Texas, or of California in USA; and even Scotland that its own Premier is the one leading the charge for a referendum of autonomy from Britain. In all these cases, the agitators are not being shot at, tortured or killed by the army and police.
A post by Dean Ikechukwu Onwubuya on FB social media shows American writer and analyst, Mr Russell Andrew Crowe, reportedly stating from his inquiries that service of the summons and complaint, as well as the initial orders has been accomplished by certified international courier on all defendants. They are currently in default for failure to file a response within 21 days of service as stipulated in pertinent United States federal rules of civil procedure. The lead defendant is Nigeria’s army chief, General Tukur Buratai.
The claims of the plaintiffs are grounded under two muscular United States’ statutes – the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA or ATS – the Alien Tort Statute); and the Torture Victims Protection Act (TVPA). Both laws have extraterritorial reach, meaning that they allow US federal courts to assert long-arm jurisdiction that extends beyond the borders of United States.
Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) provides that ‘the district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort (or civil wrong) committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States’. Since 1980, courts have interpreted this St noatute to allow foreign citizens to seek remedies in US courts for human rights violations for conduct committed outside the United States.
Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 is a statute that permits civil suits in the United States against foreign individuals who – acting in an official capacity for any foreign nation – committed torture and/or extrajudicial killing.
Both laws, especially the TVPA endow individuals or their legal representatives to sue foreign individuals, including officials, to collect damages for extrajudicial killings or torture committed “under color of foreign law.”
In Crowe’s opinion, the defendants would be foolhardy to believe this lawsuit will be difficult to win in the United States or stultify and drag on as might have been expected if filed in Nigeria. Judicial independence and the rule of law, as well as speedy trials are the hallmarks of United States jurisprudence. There are legions of US judicial precedents pointing to the high likelihood of a summary judgment for the plaintiffs.
Defendants will have no defense of official immunity because they are being sued in their individual capacities and as officials who purportedly ‘acted under color of law’. They are not sovereigns or diplomats. Further, extrajudicial killings or torture are crimes against humanity. Upon the prompting of the aggrieved, US courts will task any foreign government officials that perpetrate atrocities of the kind visited on the Igbo of Nigeria. It’s not a secret that Nigerian officials had, in the past, engaged in misconducts that resulted in monetary judgments against them – in the millions of dollars – in the United States. This case appears bound for the same predictable result, unless handled differently from the inexplicable bravado that doomed Nigeria in the previous suits preferred against its officials in the United States.
The factual case against the defendants is convincing. All Nigerians know of the widespread beatings and slaughter of some Igbo by elements of Nigerian security forces for merely and peacefully exercising their fundamental human right to protest marginalization and urge a new political dispensation. Indeed, beyond Nigeria, Amnesty International and other credible foreign sources have confirmed those killings and torture; and to be sure – their reports will be deemed probative and admissible under standards of evidence long established in US federal courts in cases of this nature. Plus, plaintiffs are all on standby in the United States to air their tearful testimonies in open court. It even makes it worse that the Nigerian army is reported to be denying and covering up an atrocity that was so open and notorious.
It doesn’t make it any better that the Nigerian government – so far – appears to have condoned the wanton killings by failing to publicly discipline the officers that pulled the trigger or the commanders that gave the order. It’s even worse that President Buhari, upon his return from vacation, reportedly ordered his troops to renew their crackdown on Igbo protesters. That VP Osinbajo gave no such orders when Buhari was away is noticeably demonstrative of the widespread notion that Buhari – a Fulani core Muslim – has profiled the Christian Igbo for persecution because of their ethnicity, their love of freedom, and the perception that they did not vote for him in the 2015 election that saw him to power.
At present, the savage mentality that is directed against the Igbo in Nigeria of this era is widespread and underscored by the notorious threat to expel or destroy millions of Igbo residents and seize their property in the Muslim northern states of Nigeria if they refused to surrender their right to reside and work peacefully in that part of the country. And the federal, state, and local governments appear as spectators to the looming genocide – a spectacle that is not lost on a wary international community; and which might as yet make Nigeria a ‘state actor’ in the ultimate fallouts. Such fallouts will surely raise the specter of an International Criminal Court intervention that may engulf the present crop of Nigerian leadership at the very top.
In Crowe’s analysis, the Nigerian defendants are mistaken if they believe they can defend from the safe confines of Nigeria. If the case goes to trial, they will be required – under penalty of default or even contempt – to appear in a United States court to testify under oath and dangerously probing cross-examination that will dwell on the details of the Igbo killings and the complicity of other unnamed Nigerian officials, which shall include whether they received their orders from the presidential levels of security leadership to use lethal force on unarmed protesters. This evidence could be used in a sequel criminal prosecution before the International Criminal Court or a special court of the likes employed in the prosecution and conviction of Chad’s former dictator, Hissene Habre in Senegal. The State governors – of Abia and Anambra – where these killings largely occurred will also be ensnared by virtue of being the ‘chief security officers’ of their States. Those two governors are also listed as defendants.
If the defendants refuse to appear, notes Crowe, default judgments will be entered against them, in addition to the prospects of undefended huge damage awards that will run in the millions of dollars. The ultimate loser – diplomatically and financially – will be the Nigerian and State governments that presumably control the officials who acted under color of state law when the Igbo killings occurred. In the end, it may snowball to the government of Nigeria being listed as a state sponsor of terrorism in the same manner as was done with Sudan, etc. In the interim and despite the continuing menace of Boko Haram, the United Nations Security Council (or the US – under the Leahy Act) could vote an arms embargo on Nigeria to prevent the diversion of military weapons that could be geared to perpetrating more official violence against the Igbo people.
Crowe also notes that Christian lobby groups in the United States were largely responsible for making Sudan a pariah state, which culminated in the creation of South Sudan through a referendum organized and supervised by the United Nations. And like Nigeria, Sudan had also fancied itself indissoluble just because its Constitution said so. That same political dynamic will be at work against Nigeria if the TVPA/ATCA litigation is not resolved amicably before Nigeria’s dirty linen is exposed at trial in an open United States courtroom for the entire world to see.
However, Crowe’s analysis offers better yet, a third way – a time honored window of opportunity the defendants can exploit to end the case early and avoid the severe rigors of a foreign trial. US trial lawyers and the courts within which they operate are known to have a proclivity for encouraging any alternative dispute resolution path that brings closure through a pre-trial fair settlement of suits. Though this suit has progressed to a point of some disadvantage to the defendants, says Crowe, it’s not too late for them to begin now to seek out plaintiffs’ lawyers and start talking to them.
Reacting to Crowe’s exposition on the issue Aloy Ejimakor argues that beyond Igbo or Biafra, it’s this sort of intervention that helps check the enthusiasm for excesses when governments deal with dissent in their societies. Considering the credible reports on what the Nigerian security forces did to IPOB in, particularly, Aba, he predicts that the plaintiffs will prevail in this suit which, in the interim, will make Africa’s security forces and their commanders more circumspect when dealing with opposing groups.
It is however my humble opinion that this suit, if real by any circumstance, be pursued to its ultimate conclusion in the categorization of Nigeria as a country in sponsorship and support for internal terrorism, ethnic cleansing and genocide against the south eastern and core southern delta nationalities, probably culminating in a United Nations sanctioned referendum for determination of the sovereignty of the affected regions. No third option, window of opportunity, should enable, as Chin Ce had stated, draconian reptilians,  reprieved murderers and violent religious extremists posing as security personnel, military commanders, chief security officers or presidents and heads of state, to escape justice from the bestiality of their crimes, directly and indirectly, against any species of humanity upon our planet.

—–

Join Zito Brown on Facebook