Visit BATR News the compliment to BREAKING ALL THE RULES News
news you won't find in the mainstream media
Europe’s Real Existential Crisis
However the Greek crisis ends, whether with Athens leaving the eurozone, or submitting and accepting austerity at the dictates of its creditors, the European Union appears headed for an existential crisis. Greece borrowed and spent beyond its means, like New York City in the ’70s, and Detroit, Illinois, and Puerto Rico today. But the crisis of Europe is about more than budget deficits and bad debts. All the momentum toward One Europe — the dream of the generation of Jean Monnet that drove Europeans toward ever-deeper union — seems to have dissipated. The momentum is now toward separation and dissolution. The Greek crisis exposed one fault line in the union, the desire of the Mediterranean nations to build welfare states that their economies could not sustain without huge borrowing abroad. Paying these debts is going to force ever-greater austerity on those nations. Eventually, their peoples may choose, as debtors do, to walk away, rather than pay. But not only economics imperils the EU. There is the call of tribe and nation that has often before torn the Old Continent apart. Read the entire article
Major Tunisia-Style Drill In London To Practice For Live Terror Hoax
The Emergence of Orwellian Newspeak and the Death of Free Speech
How do you change the way people think? You start by changing the words they use. In totalitarian regimes—a.k.a. police states—where conformity and compliance are enforced at the end of a loaded gun, the government dictates what words can and cannot be used. In countries where the police state hides behind a benevolent mask and disguises itself as tolerance, the citizens censor themselves, policing their words and thoughts to conform to the dictates of the mass mind. Even when the motives behind this rigidly calibrated reorientation of societal language appear well-intentioned—discouraging racism, condemning violence, denouncing discrimination and hatred—inevitably, the end result is the same: intolerance, indoctrination and infantilism. It’s political correctness disguised as tolerance, civility and love, but what it really amounts to is the chilling of free speech and the demonizing of viewpoints that run counter to the cultural elite. As a society, we’ve become fearfully polite, careful to avoid offense, and largely unwilling to be labeled intolerant, hateful, closed-minded or any of the other toxic labels that carry a badge of shame today. The result is a nation where no one says what they really think anymore, at least if it runs counter to the prevailing views. Intolerance is the new scarlet letter of our day, a badge to be worn in shame and humiliation, deserving of society’s fear, loathing and utter banishment from society. For those “haters” who dare to voice a different opinion, retribution is swift: they will be shamed, shouted down, silenced, censored, fired, cast out and generally relegated to the dust heap of ignorant, mean-spirited bullies who are guilty of various “word crimes.” Read the entire article
Bank Shutdowns in Greece Preview of World Collapse for NWO
Obama: Rockefeller’s man in the White House close to total victory
Tutored and mentored by David Rockefeller’s intellectual flunkey, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Barack Obama is close to winning his two gold stars for victory—and make no mistake about it, these were his two assignments from the First Globalist Family of Rockefeller:
Obamacare and Obamatrade.
Obamacare was and is a Rockefeller strategy for enforcing the pharmaceutical brand of medicine his ancestors pioneered early in the 20th century.
Obama has also won vaunted, slam-dunk, “fast-track authority” on the three Globalist trade bills that will shortly arrive for Congressional approval, including the horrific TPP, which will grant Big Pharma more profits, as well as greater exemption in the matter of poisoning populations with their drugs.
Hope and change? Yes we can? Faded slogans for the kiddies who, with deplorable, gullible, glazed-over grins, helped put this Globalist front man in the White House.
We all remember how, in early June, President Putin announced that Russia would deploy more than 40 new ICBMs “able to overcome even the most technically advanced anti-missile defense systems.” Oh dear; the Pentagon and their European minions have been freaking out on overdrive ever since. First was NATO Secretary-General, Norwegian figurehead Jens Stoltenberg, who condemned it as “nuclear saber rattling.” Then there’s Lt. Gen. Stephen Wilson, the head of US Global Air Strike Command – as in the man responsible for US ICBMs and nuclear bombers – at a recent briefing in London; “[They’ve] annexed a country, changing international borders, raising rhetoric unlike we’ve heard since the cold war times…” That set up the stage for the required Nazi parallel; “Some of the actions by Russia recently we haven’t seen since the 1930s, when whole countries were annexed and borders were changed by decree.” At His Masters Voice’s command, the EU duly extended economic sanctions against Russia.And right on cue, Pentagon supremo Ashton Carter, out of Berlin, declared that NATO must stand up against – what else – “Russian aggression” and “their attempts to re-establish a Soviet-era sphere of influence.” Read the entire article
Ellen Brown-Obama Secret Trade Deal Serves Corporations and Banks
Likely the Same Overextended American Empire From the Next President
Although the 2016 election is a year-and-a-half away, the verdict is already in on the continuation of post-World War II interventionism as the policy of choice. After the hysteria in the media induced by ISIS’s beheading of a few Americans in retaliation for U.S. bombing of the group in the Middle East, American public sentiment, still exhausted by the long counterproductive wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, demanded some action against ISIS – as long as it didn’t involve another protracted war or any US military personnel getting killed. Thus, President Barack Obama gave the public an ineffective air war against the group and a few thousand "non-combat" military advisers. However, president’s restrained posture has allowed all of the Republican candidates to posture that they would be tougher than Obama on ISIS – and on most other foreign policy issues. And of course, Democrat Hillary Clinton – who would like to be the first woman leader of the United States since Edith Wilson took over for her medically incapacitated husband from late 1919 to early 1921 – has long believed that she has to be as foolishly macho and jingoistic in foreign policy as the men. Hillary voted for George W. Bush’s disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq. Also, as Secretary of States, she couldn’t resist the opportunity created by Arab Spring unrest in Libya to advocate taking out Muammar Gaddafi, a dictator who had actually made nice with the West. The result has been chaos, tribal warfare, and new Islamist terrorist bases, including those of ISIS – all fueled with the huge quantities of weapons in Gaddafi’s stores. Even Rand Paul, a libertarianesque Republican who is supposed to be somewhat less hawkish than the other serious candidates, was recently quoted in the American Conservative magazine, "The enemy is Radical Islam and not only will I name the enemy, I will do whatever it takes to defend America from these haters of mankind." Although Mr. Paul (The Younger) has a better recognition of the ill-effects of and blowback from unnecessary overseas wars than the rest of the pack, he still needs to get through Republican primaries that likely will be more jingoistic than the last few election cycles in which hawks were chastised because of their cataclysmic failure in Iraq. Not lasting very long, the more restrained foreign policy views of about half of the Tea Party have now gone out of style after the ISIS beheading hysteria. Read the entire article
Look at How the Media Is Scripting Charleston to Push a Race War and Gun Control
Out With the Old Parties and Politicians
At the declaration by Donald Trump that he is a candidate for the presidential nomination of the Republican Party, media elites of left and right reacted with amusement, anger and disgust. Though he has been a hugely successful builder-businessman, far more successful than, say, Carly Fiorina, who has been received respectfully, our resident elites resolutely refuse to take Trump seriously. They should. Not because he will be nominated, but because the Trump constituency will represent a vote of no confidence in the Beltway ruling class of politicians and press. Votes for Trump will be votes to repudiate that class, whole and entire, and dump it onto the ash heap of history. Votes for Trump will be votes to reject a regime run by Bushes and Clintons that plunged us into unnecessary wars, cannot secure our borders, and negotiates trade deals that produced the largest trade deficits known to man and gutted a manufacturing base that was once “the great arsenal of democracy” and envy of mankind. A vote for Trump is a vote to say that both parties have failed America and none of the current crop of candidates offers real hope of a better future. The first book in Arthur Schlesinger’s trilogy about FDR’s ascent to power was “The Crisis of the Old Order.” That title is relevant to our time. For there is today a crisis of the regime in America—a crisis of confidence, a crisis of competence, a crisis of legitimacy. People are agitating for the overthrow of the old order and a new deal for America. For there is a palpable sense that the game is rigged against Middle America and for the benefit of insiders who grow rich and fat not by making things or building things, but by manipulating money. Americans differentiate the wealth of a Henry Ford and a Bill Gates from that of the undeserving rich whose hedge fund fortunes can exceed the GDP of nations. Read the entire article
Government Officials Will Be Indicted May Even Get Death Penalty
Our Treasonous Foreign Policy
If you want to know why our “war on terrorism” has failed so miserably – if you want to understand how and why the harder we fight the more enemies we have to face – then read this recent piece in the Wall Street Journal on the evolution of the Syrian civil war, which opens with this startling query: “In the three-way war ravaging Syria, should the local al Qaeda branch be seen as the lesser evil to be wooed rather than bombed?” How can such a question even be conceived, let alone asked? After all, wasn’t the whole purpose of the nearly fifteen-year US military campaign in the region supposed to have been the eradication of Al Qaeda? Aren’t we being constantly reminded of the fact that another 9/11 may well be in our future if we don’t destroy “the terrorists,” denying them safe havens and pursuing them to the ends of the earth? And wasn’t it Al Qaeda that conceived, planned, and carriedout the attacks that changed our world on that fateful September day? Oh well, never mind that – don’t be so closed-minded! – because “This is increasingly the view of some of America’s regional allies and even some Western officials.” As to how one could possibly justify a deal with such a devil, we are told that the Syrian war has killed 230,000 people, and 7.6 million have been forced to flee. The Journal is taking the numbers of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a pro-rebel group, as definitive, yet others put the figure lower, ranging from roughly 140,000 to 215,000 killed. Left unsaid (by the Journal) is who did all that killing, although the clear implication is that Syrian despot Bashar al-Assad is the culprit. And while Assad’s forces have done their share of slaughtering, they have suffered a little less than 85,000 dead, at this point. The rebels, on the other hand, have seen a little over 100,000 killed. To say nothing of civilians caught in the middle…. The assumption that we have to “do something” – even something so downright crazy as allying with Al Qaeda – in order to pull off a “humanitarian intervention” flies in the face of the facts. Both sides are mass murderers. I say both sides – as in two sides – in spite of the Journal‘s insistence that this is a three-sided war: Read the entire article
POLITICO SAYS THE TPP IS FAILING ONE DAY BEFORE TAA VOTE.
The Sunday Times’ Snowden Story is Journalism at its Worst — and Filled with Falsehoods
Western journalists claim that the big lesson they learned from their key role in selling the Iraq War to the public is that it’s hideous, corrupt and often dangerous journalism to give anonymity to government officials to let them propagandize the public, then uncritically accept those anonymously voiced claims as Truth. But they’ve learned no such lesson. That tactic continues to be the staple of how major US and British media outlets “report,” especially in the national security area. And journalists who read such reports continue to treat self-serving decrees by unnamed, unseen officials – laundered through their media – as gospel, no matter how dubious are the claims or factually false is the reporting. We now have one of the purest examples of this dynamic. Last night, the Murdoch-owned Sunday Times published their lead front-page Sunday article, headlined “British Spies Betrayed to Russians and Chinese.” Just as the conventional media narrative was shifting to pro-Snowden sentiment in the wake of a key court ruling and a new surveillance law, the article (behind a paywall: full text here) claims in the first paragraph that these two adversaries “have cracked the top-secret cache of files stolen by the fugitive US whistleblower Edward Snowden, forcing MI6 to pull agents out of live operations in hostile countries, according to senior officials in Downing Street, the Home Office and the security services.” It continues:
Western intelligence agencies say they have been forced into the rescue operations after Moscow gained access to more than 1m classified files held by the former American security contractor, who fled to seek protection from Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, after mounting one of the largest leaks in US history.
Senior government sources confirmed that China had also cracked the encrypted documents, which contain details of secret intelligence techniques and information that could allow British and American spies to be identified.
One senior Home Office official accused Snowden of having “blood on his hands”, although Downing Street said there was “no evidence of anyone being harmed”.