LOL! Trump thinks there’s only 200 troops in Syria. What an IDIOT!
Liz Sly’s Twitter bio reads: “Washington Post Beirut bureau chief covering Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and beyond.”
And she thinks it’s absolutely hilarious that unelected deep state officials are lying to the elected commander in chief in order to ensure more US soldiers die in a pointless war in a God-forsaken desert on the other side of the world.
Four years after signing the now-infamous “Never Trump” letter condemning then-presidential candidate Donald Trump as a danger to America, retiring diplomat Jim Jeffrey is recommending that the incoming Biden administration stick with Trump’s foreign policy in the Middle East.
But even as he praises the president’s support of what he describes as a successful “realpolitik” approach to the region, he acknowledges that his teamroutinely misled senior leaders about troop levels in Syria.
“We were always playing shell games to not make clear to our leadership how many troops we had there,” Jeffrey said in an interview. The actual number of troops in northeast Syria is “a lot more than” the roughly two hundred troops Trump initially agreed to leave there in 2019.
This comes off as extremely disturbing. It’s like he’s saying, “Trump thinks we only have 200 troops in Syria, but don’t you worry: there’s a lot more there.” If that’s supposed to be reassuring, it certainly is not meant to reassure average Americans.
Trump’s abruptly-announced withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria remains perhaps the single-most controversial foreign policy move during his first years in office, and for Jeffrey, “the most controversial thing in my fifty years in government.”
“Controversial”? Only in the Beltway. Most regular Americans emphatically support it.
And “the most controversial thing” in 50 years? More controversial than the Iraq War? More controversial than the overthrow of Gaddafi in Libya? What the hell is this guy talking about?
This is sickening. But it’s how our ruling class rolls. There’s a complete disconnect between them and the American people, who by and large have no appetite for endless wars in the Middle East. And so-called “journalists,” who cackle with delight at the thought of more 19-year-old plebes dying in these pointless wars.
I’m trying to figure out the angle here. Is Wray trying to cover his ass and get on Trump’s good side after the news got out that the FBI sat on the Hunter Biden laptop all throughout the phony impeachment?
This means Biden has to be impeached, right? Because that’s how the media treated Trump when the Russians supposedly “interfered” on his behalf.
If Biden is elected (which I don’t think he will be, but still), then does he have to undergo three-plus years of non-stop media hyperventilating about how he’s in thrall to Iran? Will he be subject to endless investigations and have his whole life turned upside down, like what happened with Trump?
Does this come as a suprise to anyone, though? Iran obviously prefers Biden to Trump. Trump was the one who ripped up the Iran deal and imposed massive, crippling sanctions on Iran. Iran would love to see Biden in the White House.
On the other hand, from the very start of all the RUSSIAN COLLUSION! nonsense, the one thing that undermined it all was the lack of any evidence that Russia preferred Trump to Hillary in 2016. It has never made any sense that Russia would prefer the guy whose motto was “AMERICA FIRST” and was promising to turn America into the world’s biggest oil producer, a move that would directly harm the oil-dependent nation of Russia.
But with Biden, it’s obvious that the Iranians are pulling for him big-time.
So what were the Iranian emails? Apparently they pretended to be the Proud Boys:
I am not sure, exactly, how this was meant to help Biden. Threatening people with violence if they don’t vote for Trump somehow helps Biden? I mean, I guess had the FBI not stepped in and publicly declared these emails to be fake and coming from Iran, this would have been a golden opportunity for the media to seize on them and scream “RIGHT WING EXTREMISM!” and blame Trump for it. I guess that’s how they would help Biden.
But the people that actually received the emails would not be more likely to vote Biden. I’m sure most people ignored the emails as spam, but no doubt there were some people that took them seriously and got scared. If anything, I could see the emails compelling a small number of Biden voters to stay home and not vote out of fear.
Just think of it logically: if you were trying to help Biden, then why would you send emails to his supporters threatening them with violence if they don’t vote for Trump?
The thing is, there have been almost identical letters sent to Trump supporters within the past few weeks. This image has been making the rounds online:
It’s basically the same exact thing, except for Trump supporters. I wonder why the FBI didn’t mention these.
And they also, as far as I can tell, didn’t reveal how many of those threatening emails have been sent out so far.
One of the dumbest terms to enter the American political discourse following the 2016 election–aside from “collusion”–was “election meddling.” For one, it assumes that a foreign nation can actually swing one of our elections. And second, it implies that 2016 was the first time it had ever happened in US history–which it was most certainly not.
Now, all the idiots who believe what they see on cable news are convinced that Russia has the power to choose the American President. The fact that people believe this “election meddling” lie has undermined the public’s confidence in the democratic process. No one has done more to damage the integrity of our elections than the unholy trinity of the media, Democratic politicians and deep staters that started the “election meddling” narrative.
Even NPR’s “FACT CHECK” had to admit that Russia’s so-called “election meddling” in 2016 amounted to little more than $160k spent on Facebook ads and making some posts on social media. NPR tried to hype it up by saying that “as many as 126 million people” may have seen the Russian-produced content–as if 99% of those 126 million people didn’t scroll right on by without a second thought.
But there was no meddling with voting machines or voter fraud. None. And even if they did, there’s no way they’d be able to do enough to offset all the vote fraud committed by the Democrats.
Final thought: the biggest thing to come from the FBI press conference is not what they said, but what they didn’t say:
We are all aware of this week’s NY Post’s story which exposed Hunter Biden’s laptop and all the incriminating stuff contained on it.
But I missed this letter the House Republicans sent to FBI Director Chris Wray, which asks him if the FBI was in possession of this laptop during the Trump Impeachment trial, because if so this would have contained a massive amount of evidence not only incriminating the Bidens, but completely justifying Trump’s attempt to investigate the Bidens for corrupt foreign dealings.
If the FBI was in possession of this laptop in December 2019, then it means the FBI sat on evidence that would have completely exonerated Trump in the impeachment trial.
The letter was written after the New York Post published emailssuggesting that Hunter Biden introduced his father to a top executive at Ukrainian natural gas firm Burisma Holdings in 2015 — one year before his father allegedly pressured the country’s government to fire a prosecutor who had launched an investigation into the company.
The Post reported that the FBI was in possession of the laptop on which the emails were found in December 2019 — right in the middle of the impeachment of President Trump over remarks he made to the Ukrainian president about Biden’s conduct in the country.
Yesterday, Lee Smith, the excellent reporter who has been all over the Spygate/Obamagate/Russiagate hoax since back in 2017, went on Lou Dobbs and said that yes, the FBI did have Hunter’s laptop in December 2019, and that yes, they did deliberately sit on the evidence during the impeachment trial. I highly recommend watching this brief clip:
So to recap:
Bidens: completely let off the hook for their corrupt dealings in Ukraine.
Trump: impeached for trying to investigate the Bidens’ corrupt dealings in Ukraine.
FBI: hid the evidence of the Bidens’ corrupt dealings in Ukraine while the Democrats were impeaching Trump.
As if it weren’t clear enough by now, the FBI is the Democratic Party’s Secret Police–an American KGB.
Smith points out that the New York Times, as early as 2015, was reporting on the Bidens’ shady business in the Ukraine, and that the Times was tipped off to this story by the Hillary Clinton campaign, which was hoping to keep Biden out of the Democratic primaries.
Smith says that Trump is surrounded by people, like FBI Director Chris Wray, who are working against not only Trump, but the American people.
Wray is as swampy as it gets. He needs to be fired immediately and indicted.
It’s also worth noting that we would probably have never heard of Hunter Biden’s laptop if not for the courageous efforts of a man named John Paul Isaac, the owner of the Delaware computer repair shop that handled the laptop. In an interview, Isaac said he was alarmed by what he saw on the laptop and decided to hand it over to both the FBI and Rudy Giuliani–but not before making copies of the hard drive and giving it to a friend:
John Paul Isaac, the owner of a Mac computer repair store in Delaware who came into possession of an abandoned laptop previously owned by Hunter, spoke to the media for nearly an hour, and suggested there is far more content than what the Post published, including illegal content, and said that he fears for his life because of the content on the hard drive. Isaac also hinted that the FBI is covering up the contents on the laptop as a political favor to the Biden family, and claimed that the FBI warned him not to go public with the information in his possession.
At one point in the interview, Isaac explained that during his career as a computer repair professional, he once encountered child porn when repairing a man’s computer and immediately called the police. He compared that to this incident, and said that while he did not see child porn on Hunter’s computer, he saw illegal materials and discussions of illegal activities that made him believe his “life would be in danger.”
When asked whether a third copy of the materials exist, other than the copy in possession of the FBI and the copy in possession of Giuliani and at least partially by the Post, Isaac said that he created a third copy and gave it to a trusted friend as a safety precaution “for fear that if something bad happened to me, I gave the drive to somebody who would hopefully leverage it.” He went on to state that this third copy no longer exists.
Yeah, sure. Clearly this man is scared for his life. Look what he said about his dealings with the FBI:
At one point, Isaac claimed the FBI agents he spoke to suggested he should not discuss the contents of Hunter’s laptop publicly.
“They told me that nothing ever happens to people who don’t talk, the FBI, and that made me scared, because that’s not something I would expect the highest branch of,” said Isaac, before apparently realizing the magnitude of his statement. “Don’t, don’t — It was more along the lines of, in our experiences when stuff like this happens nothing ever bad happens to people that keep quiet,” he added.
As the interview went on, and Isaac was finally asked for his feelings about Giuliani giving the story to the Post, Isaac said he had no emotions and said it was preferable to an assassination, making references to the deaths of Seth Rich, a DNC employee who some believed had a role in the leak or hack of the DNC email servers, and Jeffrey Epstein, the billionaire pedophile hedge fund manager who partied with British royals, the Clinton family, and Bill Gates, among others.
“I have no opinion on the matter. I mean, I prefer this outcome as opposed to getting shot jogging in the morning,” said Isaac, earning the scorn of a reporter who insisted the “conspiracy” that Rich’s murder had anything to do with the leaked or hacked emails was “debunked.”
“Reporters” are the scum of the earth. However low your opinion of the media is, it’s not nearly low enough.
“Muhhh conspiracies!” they whined at a man who in one single action displayed more bravery and patriotism than all of them have in their entire lives combined.
Singer Moby claimed his friends in the CIA asked him to spread the word that President Trump has ties to Russia because he has a larger social media following than the government agency.
Moby, whose birth name is Richard Melville Hall, told Kentucky radio station WFPK in an interview this week that he has friends in the CIA who asked him for his help.
The subject came up after the host, Kyle Meredith, asked the electronic singer about his cryptic Facebook post he wrote in 2017. The post stated that after he spent time with friends who “work in D.C.” he could “accurately post” that the Fusion GPS Dossier was “100% real. He’s being blackmailed by the Russian government.” The post also claimed Trump has colluded “with the Russian government, and has been since day one,” wants to go to war and there are “right-wing plans to get rid of Trump.”
Moby said he wrote the post because his “friends” he claimed are “active and former CIA agents” asked him to “pass on some information.”
“They were like, ‘This is the Manchurian Candidate, like [Putin] has a Russian agent as the President of the United States,’” he told Meredith. “So they passed on some information to me and they said, like, ‘Look, you have more of a social media following than any of us do, can you please post some of these things just in a way that sort of put it out there.’”
First of all, what an incredibly lame and pathetic attempt to topple the President.
Second, why is a singer like Moby in regular contact with the CIA? How many other singers and actors and celebs are in regular contact with the CIA? How much of a hand does the CIA have in the music and film industries? This is concerning stuff.
It’s become blindingly obvious that the Deep State, the Swamp, Hollywood, the Media, Fortune 500, Big Tech–they’re all part of the same beast.
I probably shouldn’t publish this. But I’m going to do it anyway because I’m sure a lot of people in this country are thinking the same thing.
Remember the outrage back in 2017 when Turkish President Erdogan’s bodyguards roughed up some protesters outside the Turkish Embassy in D.C. when Erdogan was making a state visit?
“That’s not how we do things here in America!” we all shrieked in unison.
Here in America, we allow peaceful protests. We have the right to peacefully assemble.
All the f*cking time. Every hour of every day, it seems.
The liberals are always protesting. Always.
Protest All The Things.
When news broke on Friday night that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had died, almost immediately, liberals, led by a transgender named Charlotte Clymer, formed a mob and descended on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s house:
That tweet in the middle that violated Twitter rules? That was McConnell’s address, tweeted out by Clymer for all of his 339k followers to see.
Ann O’Leary, the Chief of Staff to California Governor Gavin Newsom, tweeted this out on Friday night:
Would anyone be surprised if the liberals “occupied space” in the Senate to physically prevent the vote on Trump’s Supreme Court nominee?
Does anyone doubt we’re going to see more protesting and rioting in DC over the course of the confirmation battle?
And as we all know, their protests often turn into riots, and the rest of the country just watches as the liberals smash storefronts, vandalize entire city blocks with graffiti, assault Trump supporters, break into gated communities to Protest there and even kill people, like Jay Danielson, who was murdered in cold blood by Antifa in late August.
The police won’t do anything about the rioting because they’re not allowed. Democratic city officials forbid them from stepping in.
And Soros-funded Democratic city prosecutors make sure that any protesters and rioters that do happen to get arrested are let back out onto the streets ASAP.
If the mob comes for you, good luck. You can’t defend yourself against them. The Soros-funded prosecutors are fully on the side of the mob. Even in places you’d think were under Republican control, like Omaha Nebraska, where local bar owner Jake Gardner shot and killed a black man–who had smashed the windows of Gardner’s bar and physically attacked Gardner–in self defense, but was then indicted on manslaughter charges (among many others). Jake Gardner killed himself over the weekend due to the fact that he was facing up to 95 years in prison for the crime of not allowing a BLM rioter to murder him.
Tonight, they’re rioting in Louisville after the Breonna Taylor decision and already a cop has been shot:
It now turns out that two police officers have been shot.
The mob is harassing store owners:
What did these people do to deserve this? Nothing. Not a damn thing. In no way does harassing these innocent people have anything to do with “racial justice.”
In St. Pete, Florida, a couple just trying to have a nice dinner are harassed and physically bullied by a group of BLM thugs:
“Not sure why they were targeted specifically”? We all know why: because they’re white people who won’t bend the knee.
By this point, I have done a complete 180 on the Erdogan matter from a few years ago.
I get it now.
The reason democracies turn into dictatorships is simple: liberals.
Eventually, the regular, sane people just get sick of their neverending bullshit. They want someone to put an end to it, and they don’t care who or how.
The people are sick of seeing cities descend into complete anarchy. At this point I am in favor of restoring order by any means necessary. Any means.
I want someone to bully the bullies. Send in the troops.
I now understand how and why citizens in a democracy willingly hand power over to a strongman and allow him to become a dictator.
A couple months ago, when the libs were shrieking about plain-clothes federal agents “abducting” people off the streets in Portland, the only thought that went through my head was, “Good.”
I just want law and order restored. I just want to live in a country that doesn’t feel like it’s in the process of imploding.
And this is to say nothing of the fact that the Beltway Political class has grown fat and rich while the rest of the country stagnates, or worse. The economy has been hollowed out and most people have been forced into the soul-crushing service sector because the Ruling Class figured that stripmining the economy and outsourcing all manufacturing to China was better for them. They didn’t care if millions of working class Americans got royally fucked over.
The ruling class does not care about illegals taking Americans jobs. It does not care about the gangs and drugs pouring over the border. It does not care about the Opioid Crisis.
The Democrats have been in control of America’s cities for decades and things have just gotten worse and worse.
The media lies 24/7/365.
And now we’re finding out that the Ruling Class is full of pedophiles too.
I would not be surprised at all if a Julius Caesar-like figure came to power simply by promising two things:
To brutally crush the rioters and anarchists that are running amok in our streets.
To put every last politician, multinational CEO, Wall Street executive, media liar, Hollywood pedophile, and any other type of elite scumbag I may be forgetting at the moment, in prison.
You look at how hard it is for Trump to drain the swamp due to its sheer size–there’s a near limitless supply of of “Deep Staters” working round the clock, within every single government agency or department, to thwart Trump’s agenda.
It’s not crazy to conclude that the problem is too big and the only solution is to abolish the whole damn thing and replace it with a dictator–one man–who has all the power.
I totally get it now.
Now, all that said, I still think America can be saved without turning to Caesarism. I don’t think we need to scrap the whole thing, because this country functioned extremely well for a very long time in the past.
But the corruption just runs so deep, and it’s so, so widespread. And now I completely understand how and why democracies turn into dictatorships.
We now finally have evidence linking Obama to the Spygate scandal:
“Shocking”? I don’t know, Senator. I’ve been expecting this for years.
Anyone who has been following this thing closely since the beginning has known that Obama knew the whole time what was going on. But now we have some proof, in the form of Peter Strzok’s hand-written memos about the Flynn ambush.
Not only that, but we have Biden being involved, too. Add another scandal to the list along with Ukraine.
Here is a photo of the hand-written Strzok note. It’s kind of tough to make out:
The third line down says “VP: ‘Logan Act'” as in it was Biden who suggested using the Logan Act as a pretense to go after Flynn.
“P” has got to mean President, as in President Obama.
“D” means FBI Director James Comey. According to Strzok’s notes, Comey said “Flynn –> Kislyak [Russian Ambassador] calls but appear legit.”
I wish I could transcribe more of it but his handwriting is hard to read.
Obama is also quoted as saying, “Make sure you look at things + have the right people on it.” With, of course, “it” meaning the Flynn “investigation.”
Is this the bombshell we’ve been waiting for? No, I don’t think so. There’s still more that should and hopefully will come out.
I want ’em all in cuffs. Obama, Biden, Hillary, Comey, Clapper, Brennan, Rice, Strzok, Samantha Power, Sally Yates. All of ’em.
From outlandish rightwing conspiracy theory to confirmed by the New York Times:
But they obviously try to put a spin on it by saying it’s just Honest Public SERVANTS who are trying to save us from Trump.
They’re doing this for your own good, you ungrateful peasants! (Even though the header picture they chose for the article clearly has a dark and shadowy vibe to it.)
The most annoying part of this–besides them attempting to gang-rape 250 years of American democracy–is them trying to act like they’re the Good Guys the whole time.
I’m sorry but you cannot have it both ways. You can’t be executing an obvious anti-democratic coup to destroy a duly-elected President while also being the good guys.
Just own it, you slimy bastards. Own the fact that you are the bad guy, the tyrants, the sinister cabal.
Now, people might nitpick here and say that this is the opinion section of the New York Times, but come on: we all know the opinion section is just where they put the material they can’t publish in the “news” section because it’s too obviously partisan.
The Opinion section has the blessing of the Editors one way or another. We all know how this works.
The New York Times has confirmed the existence of the Deep State as well as the fact that it is actively trying to undo the result of the 2016 election–and, presumably, rig the result of the 2020 election.
You didn’t think they’d just give up after their Russian Collusion story went down in flames, did you?
Of course not. Anti-Trump (or more accurately, Anti-You) bureaucrats in the federal government, particularly the intelligence community, are still persisting in their efforts to overturn the result of the 2016 election nearly three years after the fact.
The latest attempt, which I discussed last week, has to do with Trump and a phone conversation he had with the President of Ukraine in late July.
Well, the real, actual scandal has to do with Joe Biden’s dealings in Ukraine, but the Democrats are focused on Trump’s attempts to investigate and expose Joe Biden’s corrupt dealings in Ukraine, and so that, rather than Biden’s blatant corruption, is what everyone’s talking about.
In other words, the Democrats are trying to impeach Trump for making efforts to expose a crime and then elect the guy who committed the crime itself.
Yeah, I know.
As ridiculous and obviously made-up as this whole “story” may seem to you and I, the media’s obsessive coverage of it has helped it blow up to the point where a lot of “normies” out there are buzzing about “impeachment.” In my experiences over the past week or so, people whom I’ve never heard talk about politics prior to this were talking about “impeachment.” They have absolutely no idea why Trump is supposedly about to be run out of office, but they’re aware of the impeachment talk.
But while the conversation is mostly centered on Democrats’ calls for impeachment, it’s important to detail just how this fiasco came together, because it wasn’t an accident.
The media coverage, and Democrat Politicians’ public grandstanding, are only the end results of a deeper and very deliberate process that begins with the intelligence community, which remains vital in tee’ing up Democrat politicians’ calls for impeachment in the Trump Era. Just as with the intelligence community’s dirty tricks in concocting the Russiagate story.
Here’s the general outline: Intelligence community operatives feed phony stories about Trump to the media, the media amplifies the phony stories and dishonestly frames them to reflect as negatively as possible on Trump, and then the Democratic politicians take it from there.
The Ukraine story, for example, originated from a “whistleblower” in the CIA. A John Brennan acolyte, no doubt.
“In the complaint are all the now-familiar tell-tale signs of pseudo-exactness, in the form of Mueller-report-like footnotes and page references to liberal media outlets such as Bloomberg, ABC, and theNew York Times. There is the accustomed Steele-dossier scare bullet points. We see again Comey-memo-like disputes over classification status with capital lettersUNCLASSIFIEDstamped as headers and footers andTOP SECRET lined out.
Scary references abound to the supposed laws that the legal-eagle whistleblower believes were violated. In sum, there is all the usual evidence of an administrative-state bureaucrat, likely to be some third-tier Brennan or Clapper-like intelligence operative, who is canvassing disgruntled White House staffers, writing a report that imitates intelligence-department formats, combing the Internet, in “dream-team” and “all-star” footnote fashion, for scare quotes and anti-Trump stories, and then likely having it dressed up in legalese by an activist lawyer. Take all that away, and one is left with “I heard.”
Personally, I have no interest in dissecting and analyzing the “complaint” form because to do so would only lend it legitimacy and solidify the perception that it ought to be taken seriously. If you want to read more about the nitty gritty details of the complaint, by all means check out other honest and MAGA-aligned sites as I’m sure there’s no shortage of high-quality point-by-point analyses and rebuttals. But in my view it’s completely unnecessary to do so with a story that should be dismissed out of hand and not taken seriously at all.
Because what, exactly, are we talking about here? What’s the crux of the issue?
It’s that Trump wants to investigate Biden’s corruption in the Ukraine, and Democrats are desperate to prevent that from happening. Biden’s crackhead son was somehow making $50k a month from a Ukrainian oil company, and when a government prosecutor there tried to investigate the obvious corruption going on, Vice President Biden himself personally intervened and threatened to withhold $1 billion of aid money to Ukraine until the prosecutor going after his son’s company was fired–which he was.
Do not be distracted by these ridiculous claims about Trump’s “abuse of power.” Investigating real, actual crimes is not an abuse of power, even if the crimes were committed by Democrats.
Beyond that, though, the origin of this “whistleblower report” is all the information you need to know not to believe a single word of it.
After all, this story comes from the CIA, an organization which specializes in overthrowing governments, spreading disinformation and conducting horrible human experiments like MK-Ultra. What, you think they wouldn’t do that stuff to us? Of course they would. John Brennan has made it perfectly clear that the CIA despises not only Donald Trump but the people who made Trump president. You think the CIA has any loyalty at all to the American people? Not a chance.
I’ve said it before but it bears repeating: the entire intelligence community–not just the leadership but also the “rank and file” we’re constantly told is comprised of patriotic Americans who are sadly given a bad name by their corrupt superiors–is out of control. The IC–thousands of government bureaucrats whose names we’ve largely never heard and whom we never voted into power–decided nearly three years ago that America made the wrong choice in the 2016 election, and so they have been working tirelessly since then to overturn it.
When Chuck Schumer famously warned Trump in late 2016 that the IC has “six ways from Sunday to get back at you,” this Ukraine whistleblower story is exactly what he was talking about. As was the whole Russian Collusion Hoax we were caught up in for two-and-a-half years.
And so this is why in my view the simple fact that this “whistleblower” is from the CIA is more than enough reason to believe this whole story is fraudulent and malicious. Just scroll through former CIA Director John Brennan’s insane Twitter ravings and you’ll see why the CIA is never again to be trusted. That madman has wrecked the credibility of the whole department for a generation minimum. Comey has done the same for the FBI.
This “whistleblower” is the new Peter Strzok, or Christopher Steele, or Andrew McCabe–take your pick. The Ukraine “whistleblower” is the latest in a long line of formerly anonymous IC officials who are trying to overthrow the duly-elected President. When the identity of this “whistleblower” is finally revealed, his name will go down along with all the rest as another Deep State co-conspirator.
But here’s the best part of it all, the smoking gun which confims all this to be a giant scam: just last month, the intelligence community changed the rules regarding whistleblowers, removing the requirement that they have first-hand witnessing of wrongdoing. Sean Davis of The Federalist just reported this on Friday, and its significance can’t be overstated:
“Between May 2018 and August 2019, the intelligence community secretly eliminated a requirement that whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings. This raises questions about the intelligence community’s behavior regarding the August submission of a whistleblower complaint against President Donald Trump. The new complaint document no longer requires potential whistleblowers who wish to have their concerns expedited to Congress to have direct, first-hand knowledge of the alleged wrongdoing that they are reporting.
The brand new version of the whistleblower complaint form, which was not made public until after the transcript of Trump’s July 25 phone call with the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and the complaint addressed to Congress were made public, eliminates the first-hand knowledge requirement and allows employees to file whistleblower complaints even if they have zero direct knowledge of underlying evidence and only “heard about [wrongdoing] from others.”
And then, lo and behold, a whistleblower without first-hand evidence, brings this completely fake Ukraine story to light.
Why suddenly change the rules so that anyone in government who so much as heads a rumor can be a “whistleblower” now, if not to make it easier to fabricate stories like this?
This anonymous CIA operative now considered a “whistleblower” wouldn’t have been able to qualify for that title a few months ago.
Seems awfully convenient. But of course the media will try to keep this quiet. The whistleblower’s credibility isn’t supposed to be the story, damnit!
As I wrote last week about the Ukraine story, this isn’t only the latest in a long line of desperate, impulsive attempts to Get The Orange Man–there’s more to it than that. A major part of it is ass-covering for Joe Biden: the political establishment must not allow Trump to investigate Biden’s crimes in Ukraine.
Two and a half years into his presidency, US President Donald Trump has revealed that the President is not truly in control of the federal government.
In theory, the Constitution vests the executive power in the President. He is the head of the executive branch of the federal government, the highest-ranking federal government official. What the President says goes: the executive branch carries out the will of the President, as well as Congress when Congress passes laws.
This is how government is supposed to work: the People’s Elected Representatives, i.e. the President and Congress, give the orders, and the unelected executive branch staff and officials carry out those orders. The executive branch doesn’t get to make policy; it only exists to carry out the orders of democratically-elected officials like the President. In theory they exist only to turn the President’s vision into reality. In theory.
But that’s not how it actually works in America these days.
In reality, there’s the President, and then there’s the Government. The two are not necessarily one and the same, and the latter does not really have to answer to the former if it chooses not to.
Watch this clip of President Trump openly discussing the existence of a military industrial complex which pushes for endless wars in the Middle East. It’s quite an extraordinary thing for the US President to go on-record and say:
“Well, I’m the one that talksabout these wars that are 19years, and people are justthere, and don’t kid yourself,you do have a military-industrial complex.They do like war.You know, in Syria, with the caliphate, so Iwipe out 100 percent of thecaliphate. … I said I want to bring ourtroops back home. The placewent crazy.You have people here inWashington, they never want toleave,” Trump said.
“I said, you know what I’ll do, I’ll leave a couplehundred soldiers behind, butif it was up to them, they‘d bring thousands of soldiers in.Someday people will explainit, but you do have a group,and they call it themilitary-industrial complex.They never want to leave. They always want to fight,” he continued.
Wait, I thought the President was in control? I thought if he wanted the troops out of Syria, the troops leave Syria. Right? Isn’t that how it’s supposed to work? Guess that’s only in theory. In practice, I guess there are other people who have a say in the matter—even though they weren’t elected by the American people.
This is what people mean by “the deep state” or the Permanent State or the Bureaucratic State. The Deep State is the name that has stuck, but they all basically mean the same thing. That is the true government; the unelected, unaccountable officials–whose names most Americans have never heard–pursuing their own agendas at literally all costs, and above all others, including that of the democratically elected President.
Another case in point of the President not really being in control of the government: Trump ordered John Brennan’s security clearance be revoked almost a year ago, but it hasn’t been.
“Once again, more evidence has emerged proving not only that the “deep state” is real, it has become an existential threat to the president of the United States and the security of the country he was elected to lead.
The New York Times published a report noting that Attorney General William Barr would be ‘professionalizing’ the effort against the intelligence community (the deep state’s core element) after POTUS Donald Trump “somewhat clumsily last year to revoke the security clearance of the former C.I.A. director who played a role in opening the Russia investigation.”
That would be former CIA Director John Brennan, one of the most vociferous anti-Trump voices on the planet clearly the guy who facilitated “Spygate” on behalf of a criminal president, Barack Obama.
Further, the Times noted, POTUS “then wanted to release classified documents to prove he was the target of a ‘witch hunt.’ Both attempts petered out, hampered by aides who slow-rolled the president and by Justice Department officials who fought Mr. Trump, warning he was jeopardizing national security. “The White House never followed through with the complex bureaucratic work it would have taken to strip the clearance, according to a person familiar with the process.”
The White House “never followed through,” huh? That’s the New York Times’ way of saying the Deep State overruled the President’s orders. Jon Dougherty remarks:
“Complex bureaucratic work?” Is the Times kidding? How about a) the president ordered it; so b) staffers carry out whatever work is necessary to fulfill the president’s order. Like other administrations.
The real story, then, is that a sitting, duly elected president’s orders have been purposefully ignored as though staffers within the intelligence community bureaucracy have the authority and the right to do so.”
John Brennan still has a security clearance against the President’s wishes. Why? Because the Deep State wishes it so.
Sen. Rand Paul said just as much:
“From the tone and tenor of the Times report, you get the impression that Brennan’s clearance was never revoked, and that elements within the deep state deliberately refused to follow the president’s order to do so.
That’s exactly what happened, according to Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who says he witnessed the order first hand. “What do you think about this recent New York Times story that Brennan still has his security clearance?” CNN host Brianna Keilar asked Paul Wednesday evening during an appearance on the little-watched network.
“People talk about the Deep State, now the Deep State’s actually protecting their own and not listening to the President’s orders,” Paul said. “I was sitting in the White House when President Trump said ‘I want his security clearance taken’ and I saw the order given. I saw the Chief of Staff was there, not the current Chief of Staff, the previous Chief of Staff.”
There’s the President, and then there’s the Government, and more and more these days it seems as if they are two separate entities.
We’re now learning that just because you install an outsider–a person at odds with the Uniparty agenda–in the White House, does not mean you can actually change the government’s policies. Just because we changed the President doesn’t mean we have changed the Government. Over the decades, the power of the unelected deep state has grown exponentially, and now it is collectively more powerful than the President.
The corruption runs very, very deep in Washington. The Uniparty’s power is entrenched more deeply than any of us could’ve imagined just a few short years ago. This is not to say Trump hasn’t made any difference, but it is to say that Trump winning the 2016 election was merely the beginning of what will be a very long, difficult battle against a sprawling, ossified beast.
What Trump has revealed since becoming president is that the President isn’t really in charge. It’s not a pleasant truth; it should bring no one any pleasure that this has been confirmed, but at least we know it for sure now.
“Obama made the remark at a campaign fundraiser while criticizing the budget passed by House Republicans. Obama said the Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget would, among other things, cut funding for research.
“I believe in investing in basic research and science because I understand that all these extraordinary companies that are these enormous wealth-generators — many of them would have never been there; Google, Facebook would not exist, had it not been for investments that we made as a country in basic science and research,” Obama said. “I understand that makes us all better off.”
Barack Obama himself admitted that the government helped Google and Facebook get off the ground. The government was present at the beginning when both companies were created.
Let’s play a game of “What’s More Likely?” Is it more likely that the government funded and assisted the origins of Facebook and Google purely out of the goodness of the its heart? Or is it more likely that the government helped start Facebook and Google because they’d be able to assist the government in achieving its goals in areas like mass-surveillance, “counterterrorism” (itself largely a guise for mass-surveillance) and military intelligence?
“But that’s just a nutty conspiracy theory!”
Really? Almost everyone knows (or at least should know) the US Government’s Military/Intelligence community created the internet via its ARPANET project dating back to the late 1960s. Al Gore in 1999 claimed to have “taken the initiative in creating the Internet” during his time in Congress. Though his remark is often lampooned, it still speaks to the widely-acknowledged truth that the Internet was created by the government. Al Gore is mocked because he tried to take personal credit for inventing the internet, not because he said the government created the internet.
Starting from there, why would it be so hard to believe that any of the major companies that dominate the internet today are also of government origin?
For some reason it’s a stretch to believe the government invented Facebook and Google, but it’s not a stretch at all to believe the government invented the internet itself–which it did.
What’s more likely: that the government invented the internet and then just stopped, totally backed off and said, “Okay, American people: This is all for you. We’re done here. Go wild!” Or that the government invented the internet and then continued using it and expanding it and developing an array of internet-based programs that would help the government–specifically its Military/Intelligence divisions–achieve its goals?
“But if Facebook and Google are government fronts, that means they’re lying to us!”
Yes, because of course the Uniparty Oligarchy would never lie to you.
“But I saw the Facebook movie! It was founded by Mark Zuckerberg!”
Right, because Hollywood would never lie to you either.
“THE PENTAGON CANCELED its so-called LifeLog project, an ambitious effort to build a database tracking a person’s entire existence.”
“Run by DARPA, the Defense Department’s research arm, LifeLog aimed to gather in a single place just about everything an individual says, sees or does: the phone calls made, the TV shows watched, the magazines read, the plane tickets bought, the e-mail sent and received. Out of this seemingly endless ocean of information, computer scientists would plot distinctive routes in the data, mapping relationships, memories, events and experiences.”
Facebook is not quite as intrusive into your personal life as LifeLog aspired to be. But it’s pretty close; Facebook checks many of the boxes the Pentagon hoped LifeLog would. Read Cosmo Magazine? Like their page! Watch Game of Thrones? Like its Facebook page! Why would the government need a record of all the plane tickets you’ve bought when people can’t wait to post pictures of every place they visit? If you’re from Florida and you post a picture of yourself in Times Square, it doesn’t take Sherlock Holmes to deduce that you bought a plane ticket to New York.
“LifeLog’s backers said the all-encompassing diary could have turned into a near-perfect digital memory, giving its users computerized assistants with an almost flawless recall of what they had done in the past. But civil libertarians immediately pounced on the project when it debuted last spring , arguing that LifeLog could become the ultimate tool for profiling potential enemies of the state.”
As if that wasn’t the point all along.
“Researchers close to the project say they’re not sure why it was dropped late last month. Darpa hasn’t provided an explanation for LifeLog’s quiet cancellation. “A change in priorities” is the only rationale agency spokeswoman Jan Walker gave to Wired News.”
Abrupt cancellation in late January 2004 due to “a change in priorities”? How about a change in the name: guess what also happened on February 4, 2004, the same day Wired published its article about the Pentagon killing the LifeLog project?
“Private-sector research in this area is proceeding. At Microsoft, for example, minicomputer pioneer Gordon Bell’s program,MyLifeBits, continues to develop ways to sort and store memories.
David Karger, Shrobe’s colleague at MIT, thinks such efforts will still go on at Darpa, too. “I am sure that such research will continue to be funded under some other title,” wrote Karger in an e-mail. “I can’t imagine DARPA ‘dropping out’ of such a key research area.”
Karger was right. LifeLog wasn’t canceled. It simply became Facebook.
It’s obvious why the government would rather keep its involvement in Facebook quiet: when you’re asking people to voluntarily share almost every detail of their personal lives, they’re much more likely to do so if it’s with a cool start-up tech company than an explicitly government-run program like LifeLog.
Facebook has convinced people to share where they live, their political and religious views, a list of their friends and acquaintances, hundreds and thousands of personal photos, and provide updates of not only everything they’re doing but everything they’re thinking. Facebook’s algorithms are so advanced that it can find people you know in real life but aren’t friends with on Facebook, and even automatically detect your face in photographs you haven’t been tagged in.
And you’re telling me the government wants nothing to do with Facebook?
In a few short years, not only hundreds of millions of Americans but billions of people around the world willingly handed over more personal information to Facebook than any government intelligence agency could ever dream of obtaining over the course of decades and decades of good old fashioned spying.
Facebook is the intelligence community’s dream program. With the invention of Facebook, all the sudden old-fashioned spying no longer really became all that necessary to obtain information on people. You can just go on their Facebook page and find almost anything you want to know.
And the best part for the government is, people are doing it willingly because all their friends are doing it.
So all together, between Facebook’s social media empire of its namesake site, Instagram and the messaging service WhatsApp, this company has more data on more people than all the spy agencies in the world put together.
Do you really believe a 20-year-old computer nerd built the most expansive intelligence database in history and the government had nothing to do with it?
Let’s put it this way: if the government isn’t currently using Facebook to easily and effortlessly conduct mass surveillance on us, then we have the most bumbling, oblivious, idiotic and incompetent government ever.
“But what if Zuckerberg simply told the government to fuck off when it tried to commandeer Facebook? Facebook is a private company!”
First of all, the government would not come asking Facebook to kindly hand over everything after Facebook was already built up into one of the world’s largest corporations. The government would have gotten to Facebook years ago. If the government was not already in Facebook at the beginning, someone from the Pentagon or CIA would have taken notice very early in Facebook’s lifespan–say 2005, 2006, 2007. They would have strong-armed Facebook right at the beginning after recognizing its staggering potential.
Again, that’s if they weren’t in on Facebook from the very beginning.
The point is, it’s nearly impossible to believe the government simply stood by for the past 15 years and allowed Facebook to amass all the power it has.
But another problem is the assumption that Zuckerberg, and private companies in general, even have the ability to tell the government to fuck off. Do you really think the Pentagon is going to be told to fuck off by a college computer nerd?
The government can do whatever the hell it wants. If you have something the government wants, or needs, it can take it from you. The principle of “eminent domain” does not only apply to private landowners having their land seized by the government to build a freeway overpass on. It applies to virtually anything including private businesses.
Most people know the Fifth Amendment from the “right to remain silent” and not self-incriminate, but most people don’t know the Fifth Amendment also permits the government to seize private property at will. Here’s the full text of the Fifth Amendment with the relevant parts highlighted:
“No person shall be subject, except in cases of impeachment, to more than one punishment or trial for the same offense; nor shall be compelled to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor be obliged to relinquish his property, where it may be necessary for public use, without just compensation….[E]xcept in cases of impeachments, and cases arising in the land or naval forces, or the militia when on actual service, in time of war or public danger…in all crimes punishable with loss of life or member, presentment or indictment by a grand jury shall be an essential preliminary….”
The relevant part for our purposes here: “No person shall be obliged to relinquish his property, where it may be necessary for public use, without just compensation.”
The Constitution itself allows the government to oblige individuals to relinquish their private property so long as the government pays “just compensation.” And don’t construe this “just compensation” clause to mean “the government has to make you a fair offer for your private property.” Not at all. What it means is, when the government comes to take your property, they have to say, “We’re taking your property, here’s some money for your troubles.” You don’t have the option to say no. It’s not an offer.
I bet most people don’t even know this is in the Constitution.
And with the greatly expanded government powers since 9/11 to act in the name of “national security,” even if the government didn’t already have eminent domain power, do you really think the government couldn’t simply seize control of Facebook in the interest of national security? And this would have been done over a decade ago.
Okay, so you still don’t believe the government is behind Facebook. You consider it believable that the government allowed a 20-year-old nerd to build the most expansive surveillance database in history. You believe the government stood idly by for 15 years while Facebook grew from one user to 2.8 billion. You believe our government is so bumbling and dimwitted that it neverrecognized and co-opted the incredible power of Facebook all this time.
But do you believe other countries’ governments are all equally as bumbling, incompetent and behind-the-times?
Because if our government had never gotten to Facebook, then Russian intelligence would have. And early, too. If not Russia, then the Chinese government. Or perhaps the British would have stepped in and saved our monumentally stupid government from itself before it allowed the greatest surveillance tool in history to fall into the hands of the Russians or the Chinese. They would all have recognized the incredible potential of Facebook in the highly unlikely event our government didn’t.
But apparently it’s believable that none of the most powerful governments on the planet recognized Facebook’s power early on and took control of it because, I guess, “the government doesn’t understand computers.” Yes, only Mark Zuckerberg understands computers. He’s smarter and more forward-thinking than the full might of the Pentagon and the CIA put together. And the Russian FSB. And M15. And Chinese intelligence. They’re all just a bunch of dumb government bureaucrats who “don’t understand computers” and Silicon Valley is to this day lightyears ahead of all of them.
Utter nonsense. Our government created the internet itself. If you think the government is too doddering and old-fashioned to have recognized the potential for Facebook early on, you’re high. For crying out loud, as we just went over above, the Pentagon had the idea for Facebook in early 2003. Even if you stubbornly believe it’s merely a massive coincidence that Facebook came about right around the time the Pentagon was developing its LifeLog project, there is still indisputable evidence that the government had the idea for Facebook well over 15 years ago.
So that would mean that the government had the idea for Facebook, was beaten to the punch by Mark Zuckerberg, a 20-year-old college computer nerd, and then never lifted a finger while Zuckerberg turned Facebook into the greatest surveillance tool in history over the course of 15+ years, even though it had the power to seize Facebook at any point along the way.
When you get around to thinking about Facebook and its relationship with the government, it’s actually far more difficult to believe the government doesn’t control it than that it does.
In light of everything discussed here, when you ask the question, “Does the government own Facebook?” it’s almost impossible to conceive a situation where it doesn’t.
The only way someone could still, after all that, believe Facebook is a private company and not a cut-out of the federal government, is if they are desperate not to believe it. Perhaps some people are not yet ready to reckon with the fact that this country is a lot less free than they’ve been led to believe their entire lives.
That’s understandable. It’s a tough pill to swallow. Especially if you’ve been a daily user of Facebook over the past 10+ years.
As we’ve seen above, it defies nearly all logic and common sense to believe the federal government is not deeply involved in Facebook.
But where’s the actual evidence? Sure, the theory makes a ton of sense, but where’s the actual connection? If the Zuckerberg Story is a myth, then what’s the real story?
That story begins with a venture capital firm called In-Q-Tel. Like most venture capital firms in America, In-Q-Tel invests in promising tech startups, finding them in their early stages and providing them with crucial funding so that they can realize their full potential.
But unlike all the other venture capital firms in America, In-Q-Tel is unique in that it is owned by the CIA. From the Wikipedia page:
“In-Q-Tel (IQT), formerly Peleus and known as In-Q-It, is an American not-for-profit venture capital firm based in Arlington, Virginia. It invests in high-tech companies for the sole purpose of keeping the Central Intelligence Agency, and other intelligence agencies, equipped with the latest in information technology in support of United States intelligence capability.The name, “In-Q-Tel” is an intentional reference to Q, the fictional inventor who supplies technology to James Bond. In-Q-Tel’s mission is to identify and invest in companies developing cutting-edge technologies that serve United States national security interests.”
Even though this is all public information, most Americans are probably unaware that the CIA has its own venture capital firm designed to invest early in the latest tech companies and products that can potentially be of use to the Intelligence Community.
Former CIA Director George Tenet stated of In-Q-Tel:
“CIA identifies pressing problems, and In-Q-Tel provides the technology to address them.”
In-Q-Tel was founded in 1999, well before Facebook was founded. Assuming the folks in charge of In-Q-Tel weren’t completely incompetent, they would have almost certainly identified Facebook very early on and put the CIA’s money behind it. After all, In-Q-Tel was founded to do just that.
So did In-Q-Tel invest in Facebook early on? Well, there’s no direct evidence that they did, but from what we do know, it seems likely:
“As far back as 2005, The Washington Post reported that virtually any U.S. entrepreneur, inventor or research scientist working on ways to analyze data had probably received a phone call from In-Q-Tel or at least been Googled by its staff of technology watchers.
One company that happened to be very hungry for startup capital in 2005 was Facebook. Facebook was launched in February 2004 from the Harvard dorm room of Mark Zuckerberg and friends.
The company received its first capital injection of $500,000 from Peter Thiel that summer. The next two capital injections were $12.7 million from Thiel and Accel Partners in May 2005 and then $27.5 million from an Accel-led round of financing that included Thiel, Accel and Greylock Partners in April 2006.
Just for fun, I searched for each of those investors and In-Q-Tel at the same time.
Here is what I found:
Peter Thiel — Took In-Q-Tel funding for his startup firm Palantir somewhere around 2004.
Accel Partners — In 2004, Accel partner James Breyer sat on the board of directors of military defense contractor BBN with In-Q-Tel’s CEO Gilman Louie.
Greylock Partners — Howard Cox, the head of Greylock, served directly on In-Q-Tel’s board of directors.
Now, I’m not saying that the CIA or In-Q-Tel had any direct involvement with Facebook.”
“All I’m saying is that it appears to me that the key early investors in Facebook had direct relationships with In-Q-Tel or In-Q-Tel’s top management at the same time that Facebook was raising capital…
I’m also saying that at this very same time, In-Q-Tel was a company that was very, very interested in gathering the kind of data that Facebook would have to offer. I have not seen any evidence that In-Q-Tel made an investment in Facebook, but if I had In-Q-Tel’s connections at the time Facebook was searching for capital, I probably would have made a phone call to one young Mark Zuckerberg.”
The Facebook-In-Q-Tel connection centers around that guy James Breyer. Breyer, according to his Wikipedia page, is a venture capitalist worth over $2.4 billion largely due to his early investments in Facebook.
“Accel Partners was Facebook’s biggest shareholder after Mark Zuckerberg, owning an 11% stake at the time of the company’s 2012 IPO. In 2005, Breyer led Accel Partners’ $12.7 million deposit at a $98 million valuation in the then ten-employee startup Facebook. Breyer also led the 2004 management buyout of BBN Technologies from Verizon.”
Breyer was the second-largest shareholder in Facebook behind Mark Zuckerberg when the company went public in 2012. Breyer got in at the very beginning for Facebook, and during that time in 2004, Breyer was also involved in the buyout of BBN Technologies, where a man named Gilman Louie sat on the board of directors. Gilman Louie is best known for serving as the first CEO of In-Q-Tel. So at the same time Breyer was investing millions in Facebook, he sat on the board of directors of BBN Technologies with the CEO of In-Q-Tel, making it highly likely Breyer’s investments in Facebook were made partially on behalf of In-Q-Tel.
And yet, when you look through the list of In-Q-Tel’s investments–available on its Wikipedia page–the name Facebook does not appear. Why is In-Q-Tel listed as an early investor in dozens of different companies, but not Facebook?
Well, it’s pretty obvious why the CIA would want to keep its involvement in Facebook secret and without a clear paper trail. The whole idea of Facebook is to get people to willingly share their personal information, and that goal would be hampered pretty significantly if there were a clear, public connection between Facebook and the CIA.
In other words, the CIA–I mean In-Q-Tel–is happy to inform you of its investment in tech companies you’ve never heard of like MemSQL, Destineer, Forterra and Lingotek. But it certainly wouldn’t behoove the CIA to publicize its involvement in Facebook. That kind of defeats the whole purpose of Facebook, doesn’t it?
It seems highly likely that the CIA was involved in Facebook early on through investors like James Breyer, Howard Cox and Peter Thiel, all of whom were connected to In-Q-Tel. These guys all got stupidly rich off of Facebook, but most likely they were investing on behalf of In-Q-Tel in order to muddle the CIA’s connection to the social network. The CIA doesn’t care who gets rich off its investments in Facebook; the CIA was after the technology and access to Facebook those investors enabled.
My guess is that the Pentagon was working on LifeLog since at least early 2003 and essentially merged the project with a little tech startup called Facebook after Zuckerberg was discovered by In-Q-Tel. I would assume Facebook has been sharing everything with the government since 2004. I sincerely doubt Facebook would have become what it is today without the government’s early involvement.
Zuckerberg, for his part, has kept quiet about the government’s involvement because he got insanely rich from Facebook, and because spilling the beans would put his company and his billions in jeopardy. He has everything to lose from revealing the truth.
So what about Google?
Fortunately for us, Google’s involvement with the CIA is much clearer than Facebook’s. We don’t have to speculate all that much.
In 2015, Nafeez Ahmed, a British investigative journalist who formerly wrote for the Guardian and VICE, published a long piece entitled “How the CIA Made Google.” It’s a fascinating story that you should read in full, but here are the relevant excerpts detailing the CIA’s oversight of the work of a Stanford computer science student named Sergey Brin, the man who would go on to found Google with Larry Page:
“In 1994 two young PhD students at Stanford University, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, made their breakthrough on the first automated web crawling and page ranking application. That application remains the core component of what eventually became Google’s search service. Brin and Page had performed their work with funding from the Digital Library Initiative (DLI), a multi-agency program of the National Science Foundation (NSF), NASA and DARPA.
But that’s just one side of the story.
Throughout the development of the search engine, Sergey Brin reported regularly and directly to two people who were not Stanford faculty at all: Dr. Bhavani Thuraisingham and Dr. Rick Steinheiser. Both were representatives of a sensitive US intelligence community research program on information security and data-mining.”
Google, like Facebook, is yet another Tech Fairytale of a couple of nerds who seemingly created world-changing technology and founded multi-billion dollar megacorporations essentially by accident:
“Thuraisingham is currently the Louis A. Beecherl distinguished professor and executive director of the Cyber Security Research Institute at the University of Texas, Dallas, and a sought-after expert on data-mining, data management and information security issues. But in the 1990s, she worked for the MITRE Corp., a leading US defense contractor, where she managed the Massive Digital Data Systems [MDDS] initiative, a project sponsored by the NSA, CIA, and the Director of Central Intelligence, to foster innovative research in information technology.
“We funded Stanford University through the computer scientist Jeffrey Ullman, who had several promising graduate students working on many exciting areas,” Prof. Thuraisingham told me. “One of them was Sergey Brin, the founder of Google. The intelligence community’s MDDS program essentially provided Brin seed-funding, which was supplemented by many other sources, including the private sector.”
The government was in on Google from the very beginning:
“In an extraordinary document hosted by the website of the University of Texas, Thuraisingham recounts that from 1993 to 1999, “the Intelligence Community [IC] started a program called Massive Digital Data Systems (MDDS) that I was managing for the Intelligence Community when I was at the MITRE Corporation.” The program funded 15 research efforts at various universities, including Stanford. Its goal was developing “data management technologies to manage several terabytes to petabytes of data,” including for “query processing, transaction management, metadata management, storage management, and data integration.”
In other words, exactly what Google became.
“In her University of Texas article, she attaches the copy of an abstract of the US intelligence community’s MDDS program that had been presented to the “Annual Intelligence Community Symposium” in 1995. The abstract reveals that the primary sponsors of the MDDS programme were three agencies: the NSA, the CIA’s Office of Research & Development, and the intelligence community’s Community Management Staff (CMS) which operates under the Director of Central Intelligence. Administrators of the program, which provided funding of around 3–4 million dollars per year for 3–4 years, were identified as Hal Curran (NSA), Robert Kluttz (CMS), Dr. Claudia Pierce (NSA), Dr. Rick Steinheiser (standing for the CIA’s Office of Research and Devepment), and Dr. Thuraisingham herself.
Thuraisingham goes on in her article to reiterate that this joint CIA-NSA program partly funded Sergey Brin to develop the core of Google, through a grant to Stanford managed by Brin’s supervisor Prof. Jeffrey D. Ullman:
“In fact, the Google founder Mr. Sergey Brin was partly funded by this program while he was a PhD student at Stanford. He together with his advisor Prof. Jeffrey Ullman and my colleague at MITRE, Dr. Chris Clifton [Mitre’s chief scientist in IT], developed the Query Flocks System which produced solutions for mining large amounts of data stored in databases. I remember visiting Stanford with Dr. Rick Steinheiser from the Intelligence Community and Mr. Brin would rush in on roller blades, give his presentation and rush out. In fact the last time we met in September 1998, Mr. Brin demonstrated to us his search engine which became Google soon after.”
Brin and Page officially incorporated Google as a company in September 1998, the very month they last reported to Thuraisingham and Steinheiser.”
I’m sure the government was so proud of Sergey Brin and his work, which it funded, and expected nothing at all in return from him. I’m sure the Intelligence Community’s involvement with Google stopped in 1998.
That’s what Thuraisingham essentially tried to claim when Ahmed’s article was first published in 2015:
“There are also several inaccuracies in Dr. Ahmed’s article (dated January 22, 2015). For example, the MDDS program was not a ‘sensitive’ program as stated by Dr. Ahmed; it was an Unclassified program that funded universities in the US. Furthermore, Sergey Brin never reported to me or to Dr. Rick Steinheiser; he only gave presentations to us during our visits to the Department of Computer Science at Stanford during the 1990s. Also, MDDS never funded Google; it funded Stanford University.”
“Here, there is no substantive factual difference in Thuraisingham’s accounts, other than to assert that her statement associating Sergey Brin with the development of ‘query flocks’ is mistaken. Notably, this acknowledgement is derived not from her own knowledge, but from this very article quoting a comment from a Google spokesperson.
However, the bizarre attempt to disassociate Google from the MDDS program misses the mark. Firstly, the MDDS never funded Google, because during the development of the core components of the Google search engine, there was no company incorporated with that name. The grant was instead provided to Stanford University through Prof. Ullman, through whom some MDDS funding was used to support Brin who was co-developing Google at the time.”
Thuraisingham cleverly tries to claim the MDDS program never funded Google knowing full well that’s not what Ahmed is saying: he’s saying MDDS funded Brin’s research which later became Google.
“Secondly, Thuraisingham then adds that Brin never “reported” to her or the CIA’s Steinheiser, but admits he “gave presentations to us during our visits to the Department of Computer Science at Stanford during the 1990s.” It is unclear, though, what the distinction is here between reporting, and delivering a detailed presentation—either way, Thuraisingham confirms that she and the CIA had taken a keen interest in Brin’s development of Google.”
Thirdly, Thuraisingham describes the MDDS program as “unclassified,” but this does not contradict its “sensitive” nature. As someone who has worked for decades as an intelligence contractor and advisor, Thuraisingham is surely aware that there are many ways of categorizing intelligence, including ‘sensitive but unclassified.’ A number of former US intelligence officials I spoke to said that the almost total lack of public information on the CIA and NSA’s MDDS initiative suggests that although the program was not classified, it is likely instead that its contents were considered sensitive, which would explain efforts to minimize transparency about the program and the way it fed back into developing tools for the US intelligence community.
Fourthly, and finally, it is important to point out that the MDDS abstract which Thuraisingham includes in her University of Texas document states clearly not only that the Director of Central Intelligence’s CMS, CIA and NSA were the overseers of the MDDS initiative, but that the intended customers of the project were “DoD, IC, and other government organizations”: the Pentagon, the US intelligence community, and other relevant US government agencies.
In other words, the provision of MDDS funding to Brin through Ullman, under the oversight of Thuraisingham and Steinheiser, was fundamentally because they recognized the potential utility of Brin’s work developing Google to the Pentagon, intelligence community, and the federal government at large.”
Again, I highly recommend reading Ahmed’s entire piece. It’s long but I’ve included the most relevant parts for our purposes here. In a later section he details how the Pentagon had been funding Stanford’s computer science department dating back to the 1970s in search of programs that could be of great use to the military and the IC. My impression is that the Pentagon also seeded some other successful software projects that went on to become major corporations during that period–such as SUN Microsystems and Granite, which was eventually absorbed by Cisco Systems–but it only truly hit the jackpot in the late 1990s with Google.
The main point here is that not only was the CIA, represented by Rick Steinheiser, funding Brin’s project which would eventually become Google, Brin was directly reporting to Steinheiser and giving him periodic updates on the search project all the way up until the moment Google was incorporated in September 1998.
Now, tell me what’s more likely to have happened after Brin founded Google in 1998: Steinheiser and Thuraisingham proudly watched their little baby bird, Brin, spread his wings and fly away from the Pentagon-funded nest to found his world-changing company, never to speak again. Or that the CIA and other Pentagon departments remained as heavily intertwined with Google after its official founding as they had been during the research and development stage?
It defies belief to claim the CIA and the Pentagon were simply funding Sergey’s School Science Project and were just so gosh darn proud of him when he turned it into Google. They watched from afar like proud parents as Google went on to make hundreds of billions of dollars and dominate the internet. That’s basically what Thuraisingham is saying. “We were just fascinated by Sergey’s School Project! That’s all!”
The fundamental difference, in my understanding of things, between the government’s involvement in Google and its involvement in Facebook is that Google was originally intended to primarily help the Pentagon efficiently manage, process and and navigate its massive computer and data networks. The fact that Google had immense potential for civilian and commercial use was, if not incidental, then at least secondary: at first, the military/IC just wanted a way to easily and efficiently navigate its enormous database of information in the earliest years of the computer/internet era.
But Facebook, on the other hand, was a fundamentally post-9/11 idea: Facebook, from its very beginning as LifeLog, was designed with spying and mass surveillance in mind. It was only after 9/11 that the federal government became obsessed with data collection and monitoring people. The Pentagon had to figure out how to use the internet to nail the next big terrorist cell before it committed another 9/11. And so that’s how the “database for people” idea was born.
Of course, this isn’t to say that surveillance and monitoring never crossed anybody at the Pentagon or CIA’s mind when they were working with/on Google during the pre-9/11 era. This QZ article explains how as early as 1995, the CIA was interested in finding a way to organize the “World Wide Web” in such a way that terrorists and bad actors could be easily identified and tracked based on what they were doing online:
“The research arms of the CIA and NSA hoped that the best computer-science minds in academia could identify what they called “birds of a feather:” Just as geese fly together in large V shapes, or flocks of sparrows make sudden movements together in harmony, they predicted that like-minded groups of humans would move together online. The intelligence community named their first unclassified briefing for scientists the “birds of a feather” briefing, and the “Birds of a Feather Session on the Intelligence Community Initiative in Massive Digital Data Systems” took place at the Fairmont Hotel in San Jose in the spring of 1995.
Their research aim was to track digital fingerprints inside the rapidly expanding global information network, which was then known as the World Wide Web. Could an entire world of digital information be organized so that the requests humans made inside such a network be tracked and sorted? Could their queries be linked and ranked in order of importance? Could “birds of a feather” be identified inside this sea of information so that communities and groups could be tracked in an organized way?
By working with emerging commercial-data companies, their intent was to track like-minded groups of people across the internet and identify them from the digital fingerprints they left behind, much like forensic scientists use fingerprint smudges to identify criminals. Just as “birds of a feather flock together,” they predicted that potential terrorists would communicate with each other in this new global, connected world—and they could find them by identifying patterns in this massive amount of new information. Once these groups were identified, they could then follow their digital trails everywhere.”
So Google was ordained with some degree of surveillance/counterterrorism potential in mind, even in the pre-9/11 era. And this is what makes it all the more likely that the government maintained a close relationship–perhaps even control–with Google after its founding in 1998. But while Google had potential for surveillance, my point is that Facebook is different in that its sole purpose from the start was surveillance. Google was designed to be a way to turn a vast digital ocean of information into an easily navigable and organized database, while Facebook was designed from the start to be a massive database of people.
Which only makes it more likely that Facebook has been run by the CIA from the start. It just makes sense: it built off of the central idea of Google–which is to turn the internet into a massive, easily navigable database–and simply applied it to people.
I’ll admit that it wasn’t until quite recently that I began seriously entertaining the idea that Facebook and Google were not only functioning as arms of the political elite, but were literally founded and directly operated by the political elite.
It was obvious they were on the same side as the Establishment, and working toward the same ends, but I never considered the possibility that they were straight-up Chinese-style State-Owned Enterprises.
I’ll outline my evolution on this line of thinking:
First I thought Big Corporations had become more powerful than the government.
Then I slowly realized, mainly after reading this book, that there are no accidents in politics. That means the Big Corporations, including those in Silicon Valley, only got as big and powerful as they are because the government wanted them to–or, if you prefer, did not stop them from getting so powerful. The government is not a bystander. Barack Obama did the most to promote this idea of the Bystander President and Government that doesn’t have much control over anything at all. Obama was always claiming he heard of his administration’s scandals “in the news,” and shared your anger for his administration’s mishandling of this and that. The common theme was that even though he was President, he was still a bystander who didn’t have much control over anything. This is the opposite of the truth, but it’s exactly what the government wants you to believe.
From bailouts to tax breaks to direct funding by the Pentagon and CIA, the government has its fingerprints on all the big corporations. You only get to be a Big Corporation if you’re either A. willingly doing what the government wants you to do, or B. you were simply created by the federal government itself. Sometimes it’s both A & B.
Why does the government have Big Corporations doing its bidding? Simple: because while the government is constrained in many areas by the Constitution, the private sector is not. The government may not be able to kill free speech, but Facebook and Google certainly can. Plus, regular Americans are largely oblivious to the fact that they’re being tyrannized by the Big Corporations. It’s not as obvious as when the government does it. If Congress passed a law dictating what people can and cannot say on social media, there would immediately be a public outcry over free speech. The law would be struck down by the Supreme Court for violating the First Amendment. This is why they’ve outsourced their assault on free speech to Silicon Valley cut-outs. Regular Americans are far less likely to be skeptical of Big Business™ than they are the government.
It’s funny how our minds work:
“Give up all my personal information to the government? HELL NO!”
“Give up all my personal information to Facebook? Sign me up!”
Americans are largely under the impression that they’re free. No matter what they learn about their government–whether it be about the WMDs in Iraq, the fabricating of evidence of chemical weapon attacks in Syria as an excuse to go to war, the NSA’s widespread spying and surveillance program, or the Deep State-produced Russiagate Hoax that facilitated the Obama administration’s unprecedented weaponization of the intelligence community to spy on the Trump Presidential campaign–Americans still believe they’re free from tyranny.
This is because Facebook is called “Facebook” rather than the Federal Database of Personal Information on All Americans.
This is because Google is called a “Google” rather than “Tell The Government Every Thought That Has Ever Crossed Your Mind Dot Com.”
Way back in 2011, The Onion realized that Facebook was clearly a government project designed to conduct mass surveillance on Americans. The Onion is a parody site, but this hilarious clip hits the nail square on the head: