"Many seek to become a Syndicated Columnist, while the few strive to be a Vindicated Publisher . . . "






Inquiries to: batrsartre@gmail.com



BREAKING ALL THE RULES








Iraq War Cost
###











BATR News Updates by email

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner









Visit BATR News the compliment to BREAKING ALL THE RULES News


news you won't find in the mainstream media



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.

The US Supreme Court has just papered over an obvious loophole and contradiction in the law, to keep Obamacare intact: “the state exchanges vs. federal exchanges.” No problem. No issue. Suddenly, for the Court, the “original intent” of the law is the prime consideration—whereas original intent has been derided, bombarded, crushed, and ignored when it comes to that little document called the US Constitution.

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.

Will they ever learn? Not a chance.


Read the entire article

SCOTUS Still Says Obamacare is Legal Why

The Pentagon goes nuclear on Russia

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 carried out 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”.
Read the entire article 

SR 376 - Fast Track Vote Friday

Why Fast Track Isn’t Free Trade

As early as the end of this week, the House of Representatives could vote to approve “fast track” authority for President Obama’s massive new trade deals. The Senate narrowly passed “fast track”—now known as “Trade Promotion Authority”—last month, and its full passage now awaits only the House’s decision.

Fast track commits Congress to an up-or-down vote on whatever the president’s trade negotiators deliver, without the possibility of filibuster in the Senate or further amendments. It thus streamlines and expedites the process of Congressional approval: under fast track, trade deals get special treatment unavailable to other kinds of legislation. And without fast track, it is unlikely that President Obama will be able to pass two controversial trade agreements with our Asian and European allies and competitors.

Fast track approval in the House now hinges crucially on Republican votes because most Democrats are bucking their president to vote against his trade agenda. But why are so many conservatives willing to trust the Obama administration on this issue, while otherwise trying to thwart it at every turn?

Conservatives are caught between their general support for “free trade” and a concern to uphold American national sovereignty. The support for free trade doesn’t just come from a general pro-business orientation; it reflects an older idea that trade unencumbered by government regulation is not only good for business, but good for individuals and for society as a whole, continuous with rights of property and liberty generally.

But today’s trade agreements aren’t really about free trade, at least not as traditionally understood. They are efforts to achieve regulatory harmonization across borders, initiatives in what is now called “global governance.” They don’t keep the state out of the marketplace so much as bring it in, on selective terms, to favor powerful corporate interests at the expense of national sovereignty.

Read the entire article

CNN Real Advertisements and Fake News

Temporary Freedom From the Patriot Act

Many Americans have been heard to mimic the media’s disdain for partisan gridlock in Washington, but because Congress and the president often do the wrong thing, it’s often better when nothing is done. For example, after the Congress’s inaction recently allowed sections of the Patriot Act to lapse, I was so ecstatic about my newfound freedom that I, like victims of Soviet oppression when the USSR collapsed, didn’t know what to do with myself. However, my decision on how to take advantage of my freshly won freedom vis-à-vis government surveillance had to be made fast, because that freedom was likely to be short-lived. Congress was likely to soon reform the Patriot Act with the "USA Freedom Act and did."

I didn’t really know any jihadists to call, and even if I did, I would have just told them that they would be better off getting another more benevolent and productive occupation. But at least I was free of the government’s clearly unconstitutional collection of Americans’ phone metadata (call origin, call receiver, duration of conversation, and location information).

Although the politicians in all three branches of government for a time told us that such a provision was constitutional and appropriate, they began to read public opinion polls that expressed concern about the government of a free republic spying on its citizens en masse. Suddenly the tide shifted and an unusual left-right coalition formed for reforming the always-excessive Patriot Act, which was passed in the post-9/11 hysteria of late 2001. Since then, like many other products marketed in America (mouthwash, dandruff shampoo, car tires, etc.), the politicians and the media profited from using fear to convince Americans that the government needed extensive surveillance powers. Never mind that the average American’s chance of ever getting killed by a terrorist is remote – a lower probability than getting struck by lightning. So that is to not to say that no threat exists, but that the public, by being bombarded with all of this external "perception management," was understandably experiencing what experts call "probability neglect" about the actual severity of the threat.

However, public opinion began to shift when Edward Snowden, an NSA contractor, exposed the government’s secretive and unconstitutional collection of Americans’ phone records. That policy seemed to go against the very foundations of what the American republic stood for – and its violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which requires government specificity in search warrants to guard against the use of general warrants for surveillance fishing expeditions (the British did such things in colonial times), supports that conclusion. In addition, despite the fact that the government can get as much information from mapping calls using phone records as it can snooping into the actual conversations, it thwarted no act of terrorism by using the phone records program. (I wonder what would happen if the public ever realized that the main cause anti-U.S. Islamist terrorism is jihadist objection to non-Muslim – that is, American – military or covert interventions on Muslim soil, and that since World War II the United States has profligately meddled in the affairs of Islamic countries around the world. However, Americans are not usually big on history, and that fact allows politicians and the media to peddle American nationalism and overseas jingoism as patriotism and love of country. Perhaps patriotism should instead be defined as defending the freedoms of the republic.)

Read the entire article

MAINSTREAM MEDIA AS A MILITARY WEAPON

Michael Collins Piper Archives

Bilderberg Group Attendees: A Whose Who of the Ruling Class

The Myth of the Interventionist Revival

A lot of the criticism of Rand Paul’s anti-interventionist foreign policy pronouncements, as well as his high profile opposition to the NSA’s spying on Americans, is couched in terms of “that was then, this is now.” The argument goes something like this: with ISIS on the rise in the Middle East, and in light of effective fear-mongering by government officials and their media echo chamber, Sen. Paul’s views are out of fashion. In a piece confidently entitled “Rand Paul Just Sacrificed His Presidential Campaign For His Libertarian Principles,” Peter Weber, senior writer and “curator” of The Week, opined:

[H]is chances of becoming the 2016 Republican nominee just went from unlikely to long-shot.

“Shutting down American espionage and surveillance capabilities, even for a few days, is too off-brand for the GOP — especially at the moment.

"Paul is ‘a niche candidate of a shrinking niche, because events are not playing out the way he anticipated two years ago when he began running for president,’ George Will said on Fox News Sunday. ‘The world looks much more dangerous than it did,’ and ‘literally cashing in’ on his ‘conscientiousness as a libertarian’ really ‘muddies the waters’ of his intentions."

Paul’s intentions should be clear enough, even for someone such as Will who sees everything through Beltway lenses: the junior Senator from Kentucky intends to dismantle the unconstitutional surveillance system that was secretly foisted on the American people in the dead of night and roll back if not entirely reverse the dangerous foreign policy that served as its rationalization. Aside from that, however, the idea that Paul represents a small and somewhat precious minority is another instance of Will’s myopia: he really ought to get out more.

A new poll shows that the American people side with Paul – and that includes Republicans. The GOP “elders,” aptly embodied by Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell and John McCain, sought to renew Section 215 of the Patriot Act – which had been interpreted by the FISA court and our government to allow for universal (or “bulk”) surveillance – a position held in this poll by a mere 12 percent. More than twice as many – 27 percent – take Paul’s position: let it expire. That includes Republicans as well as Democrats. A plurality – 47 percent – want to “modify,” i.e. limit in some way, the government’s surveillance powers, and again Republicans are right up there with Democrats in their opposition to the McConnell-McCain spy-on-everyone stance. 

Read the entire article

Bank Of America Warning

BUCHANAN TO OBAMA

Barack says we need to have a conversation about race in America .. 
Fair enough. But this time, it has to be a two-way conversation...

 White America needs to be heard from, not just lectured to.... 

This time, the Silent Majority needs to have its convictions, grievances and demands heard. 

And among them are these:

First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known...

Jeremiah Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American.

Second, no people anywhere has done more to lift up blacks than white Americans. Untold trillions have been spent since the '60s on welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and poverty programs designed to bring the African-American community into the mainstream. Governments, businesses and colleges have engaged in discrimination against white folks -- with affirmative action, contract set-asides and quotas -- to advance black applicants over white applicants. Churches, foundations, civic groups, schools and individuals all over America have donated their time and money to support soup kitchens, adult education, day care, retirement and nursing homes for blacks.

We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude??

Barack talks about new 'ladders of opportunity' for blacks. 

Let him go to Altoona ? And Johnstown, and ask the white kids in Catholic schools how many were visited lately by Ivy League recruiters handing out scholarships for 'deserving' white kids...? 

Read the entire article








Subscribe to Newsletter daily updates




Best Videos on BATR News








SARTRE Commentary
















Archives





BATR Tumblr Videos

BATR SARTRE YouTubes | 




national debt







Subscribe to BREAKING ALL THE RULES News by Email


BREAKING ALL THE RULES Updates

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner



BATR News
sent to your email
Enter your Email


Powered by FeedBlitz







Batr Sartre | BREAKING ALL THE RULES Facebook

© 2000-2017: Another BATR Site

add BREAKING ALL THE RULES News to blogroll