Wikileaks Document Dump Exposes “Dark and Disturbing” Relationship Between Corrupt TV News Media and Democratic National Committee

So, just how bad is it? The Wikileaks #DNC document dump is a jaw-dropper. Many very ugly truths are now on display  – most troubling,  the use & misuse of  “TV & digital news media” broadcasting as an overt social engineering and propaganda dissemination arm for the Bilderberg Cabal’s Uberliberal globalist agenda.

Of course this routine tinkering with what we formerly referred to as ‘news’  is something which we’ve long suspected, but could not actually prove – until now. How many times have you experienced that awful “deep gut check” moment, when you surf the news channels in the evening, [ trying to actually find NEWS rather than opposing screaming heads] and hear the exact same words and phrases being spoken on at least 5-6 news outlets within the same evening – usually within the same time period of 1-3 hours. TV anchors are mouthing not a similar phrase, but often the EXACT same phrase.

The time period for broadcasting the intended PSY OP [ TV media psychological operation ] for the OP to be fully successful – is usually at least 3-5 days in a given ‘news’ cycle. For longer, more complex opinion-changing ‘OPs’ the same themed style or tone of news broadcasting will be introduced on all major networks,  then “normalized” over time by repeatedly broadcasting the same types of stories again and again, making it appear that this is [wait for it ] THE NEW NORMAL, or “norm.”

dark-words-media

It’s the very same thing  that spy orgs do when they brainwash an individual: they subject the poor soul whom they intend to “break” with hammered repetition of the same words and phrases nonstop over an extended period of time.

News outlets recently put on a “textbook display” of this classic Pavlovian social engineering tactic, which is also a mainstay of Madison Avenue advertising techniques:  you just keep repeating the same phrase over and over again, every hour, every day, for days on end, on every news network, until the American viewing public has reached a psychological ‘absorption and saturation point that tilts toward intellectual acceptance of the repeated phrase as a fact, whether it bears any remote resemblance to the truth – or not.  This is how American advertising agencies make you buy cars, candy bars, burgers and laundry soap, whether you should actually make those purchases – or not. They verbally hammer you to death. Well, now we know, beyond all shadow of doubt, they do this with voting too. Many TV viewers suspected it for decades, but now we KNOW it’s true.

#BigBilderbergMedia Furiously Working Their “Elect Hillary” Agenda

The establishment cabal, instructed by the UN / Bilderberg Agenda, intends to MAKE America vote for Hillary Clinton this year. Whether we want to – or not.  She’s the ‘official’ Bilderberg choice. And they are going to to hammer it home until the collective psyche of the American people, especially the vulnerable and highly “programmable” young, begins to warp, bend and twist in the direction they want it to.

The day after the GOP convention every news network was broadcasting outlet was using the EXACT same words and phrases about Donald Trump’s blunt and truthful assessment of the current American landscape which he laid out in his acceptance speech as GOP nominee: “Dark and disturbing”  or “darkly pessimistic“.  You could believe this might have been a legitimate press reaction if you had heard a small handful of broadcasters use those phrases. But this was nothing less than an ARMY of media men and women parroting the same exact material. It became so comical, I had to wonder: “Is anyone else seeing what I am seeing?”

It was as if the Bilderberg script had gone out that morning and the official verbal paintbrush was “dark and disturbing.” If any Bilderberg ‘journalist’ [ I now use the term loosely] wanted to use a different phrase, it was permissible to say “darkly pessimistic” instead. But the reporting had to have the word DARK or DARKLY in it.

What had actually happened last Thursday evening at the GOP convention is that career businessman Donald Trump had delivered a speech to his base which describes EXACTLY what we all have been observing and documenting for at least the last eight years of the Obama presidency, possibly longer: that our society is on the verge of violently falling apart due to the complex toxic mix of incendiary half-truth news reporting which either ignores or omits the high crimes of career politicians, refusing to report stories which differ from the “official agenda” along with routinely inciting young people to act out in their own communities, not to mention that we now have a sitting president who endorses this kind of blatant social engineering via “TV newscast” by his own words and actions. The White House will pressure dissenting journalists and reporters until they either fall in line, or resign in despair. This is well documented by the video report at the start of this post.

A few years back a prominent CNN TV news reporter was fired when she brought to light similar accusations about the CNN news network: the “faking” of news stories, network execs handing out scripts which were, more or less, specific directives from the Obama White House, requiring that certain kinds of stories be “pushed” or promoted, while others were to be “pulled”or taken off the air, as they would present facts at odds with the official “agenda.”

It will take some time to watch these videos, but if you care about the truth and the suffering people of the world, vs the UN Bilderberg NWO Oligarchy which is fully propped up and held in place by their spiderweb of fake media outlets, watch these:

And now we have specific credible evidence that the DNC did the VERY same thing. Very damning, many of the leaked DNC emails show the explicit relationship between the Democratic National Committee and TV news media reporting, specifically MSNBC and CNN. Evidence is on display which proves what many Americans have suspected for decades: that our news media is not “ours” at all, but works  in tandem with the goals and agenda of both the White House and the Democratic Party, peppering their daily news broadcasts with stories “favorable” toward their agenda, also “pulling” story lines and facts from airing which might cast an unfavorable shadow over the Bilderberg / Rothschild UN borderless globalist agenda. This awful Orwellian misuse / abuse of news reporting via TV and digital media is on display this national election year as never before!

Follow the links below. Full list published courtesy of The Gateway Pundit conservative news website:

“The hacked emails revealed the DNC’s hatred for Bernie Sanders and his movement. The documents reveal the party’s hidden ties with the liberal media. The emails reveal the heights of dishonesty of the party infrastructure.

Here’s a list of a few of the most shocking emails released by Wikileaks.
The list was compiled thanks to the work of Reddit Bernie Sander supporters and Donald Trump supporters: 

Hat Tip Steve A.
DNC requesting a pull an MSNBC commentary segment.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/6107
DNC controlling the narrative with time released stories.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/12450
DNC conspiring to create false Trump information and release with Reuters.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7102
DNC Hillary supporters infiltrated Sanders campaign.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/4776
DNC members complaining to #Morning Joe producers about his mention of a “rigged system.”
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/8806
DNC discussing their relationship with NBC/MSNBC/CNN and how to get better treatment.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/13762
Super PAC paying young voters to push back online Sanders supporters. Paid shills.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/8351

But Wait. It Gets Worse.

The operative phrase in the jpeg image below is “they didn’t send it to us before planting the story.”

Below are several screenshots of some DNC email segments. One phrase that stood out in the first image was “planting the story” – confirming what news bloggers and citizen journalists have long pointed out, that media outlets “pepper” their internet news sites and TV news broadcasts with certain types of stories when they want to push to BEND or alter public opinion and perception in a certain way. The phrase “planting the story” confirms this fact. Again, thank you Wikileaks. You have my job of re-educating the American people as to what is actually going on in network “news” broadcasting a little bit easier today.

I attribute the very public deterioration of race relations in the United States within the past eight years to precisely this type of intentionally manipulated socially engineered “twisted half-truth news” reporting.

Beginning with Trayvon Martin’s shooting death in Florida a few years back, after he had pounced on and assaulted George Zimmerman, the “story line” of these events was exaggerated by news networks with specific intent, thus instigating a slow specific slide toward complete distortion and / or omission of the facts. The problematic criminal backgrounds of many of the young black men who have ended up dead due to their own actions has been completely suppressed in most TV news reporting. The “racist cops” story line by contrast, has been pushed pushed emblazoned underlined and pushed again – for years, until it has now cascaded into Ferguson, Baltimore, “Black Lives Matter” [ funded by George Soros ] culminating in the murder of innocent policemen in Dallas just a few weeks ago. The madness of lies being broadcast as news is yielding a miserably violent horrific fruit. It has to be stopped. The news networks which routinely use race-baiting themes in their coverage and reporting have to be held to account.

Conspicuous in all of this has been the UTTER refusal of the fake news media to go into the gang infested crime ridden deathly awful criminal bowels of Chicago and report the truth to the American people – that “black on black” murder, violent crime, rape, robbery and heroin dealing is a MUCH more serious problem in America than “blacks vs cops” or “blacks vs whites.”

The Bilderberg TV Media Cabal wants society in America to crumble to pieces, so that they can bring us “their version” of law and order: total loss of privacy, personal civil liberties and never-ending borderless martial law.

That’s what this endless sea of fake “scripted” news being crammed down our throats is really is ALL about.

Related:

Wikileaks reveals Hillary Clinton was sent a damning account of her actions in Benghazi, written by Michael Hastings. 5 months later he was murdered in a car crash.

Wikileaks Releases 1,258 Clinton Emails On IRAQ! Perfect Timing.

https://www.youtube.com/user/breakingtheset/videos

 

Democratic National Convention Rocked By DNC Chair Wasserman’s Resignation on Day One: What A Way to Start the Show

Well, God bless Wikileaks. Once again Julian Assange’s renown hacker-sleuth team has outed some serious rottenness in our government, this time by way of showing the world what DNC staffers were emailing each other about candidate Bernie Sanders all this past year, while the still vigorous 70-something was working his ass off all over the country, building a movement, with every intention of becoming the presumptive democratic nominee. If Bernie Sanders is not at this moment one of the most bitter men in modern politics [ rivaling even the bitterness of Ted Cruz ] then he should be. Because he got CHEATED on a scale that’s pretty breathtaking. I would compare what the DNC did to Bernie as like unto a prominent national bank stealing from it’s own top depositors, while assuring them that their funds are indeed FDIC insured. It’s JUST NOT SUPPOSED to HAPPEN.

Cited: Lingering bitterness from the heated primary campaign between Clinton and Sanders erupted after more than 19,000 Democratic National Committee emails, leaked on Friday, confirmed Sanders’ frequent charge that the party played favorites in the race.

DNC chair Debra Wasserman Schultz has been implicated, and she is to resign. She has also been pulled as a keynote speaker at this week’s DNC Convention.

Even though I am neither a socialist, nor a Sanders supporter [ I’m with #Trump all the way ] it’s been amazing to watch Bernie build a national coalition which is almost large enough to rival Trump’s, putting to shame the actual paltry number of people who really support Hillary Clinton and plan to vote for her.  When Hillary holds a rally and less than 500 people show up, that SHOULD be news in and of itself. It’s a telltale litmus test that she has no real groundswell of support.

But since we all know that @CNN and @MSNBC are mostly dedicated to getting her elected, while suppressing all support for Donald Trump, no one has bothered to report this important ACTUAL real news to the American people, who urgently need to know about it. By contrast, Bernie Sanders rallies have drawn crowds of young people 20,000 to 30,000 strong – literally hundreds of times the number of attendees that Hillary rallies draw. It got so bad by late last year and this winter news cameramen refused to pan the crowds at any Hillary rally – keeping their cameras squarely fixed on her as she spoke. That’s because there WERE NO CROWDS in attendance. Go looking online anywhere on the internet and see if you can locate photos of Hillary Clinton speaking to more than a few hundred people. You won’t find them because they do not exist. Fascinating fact, huh?

But you would never have known any of this to read excerpts from several DNC staff emails. One staffer stated in an email, which was included in the DNC Wikileaks dump:

“This story is silly. Bernie Sanders will never be president.” – DNC staff email excerpt from the Wikileaks dump

So, just how bad is it? The Wikileaks dump is a jaw-dropper. Many many very ugly truths were brought to light, including animal abuse to raise money for DNC coffers, homophobia, and more. Follow the links below. Full list courtesy of The Gateway Pundit website:

“The hacked emails revealed the DNC’s hatred for Bernie Sanders and his movement. The documents reveal the party’s hidden ties with the liberal media. The emails reveal the heights of dishonesty of the party infrastructure.

Here’s a list of a few of the most shocking emails released by Wikileaks.
The list was compiled thanks to the work of Reddit Bernie Sander supporters and Donald Trump supporters: 

Hat Tip Steve A.

DNC member killing horses for insurance money.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/578
DNC making fun of black womans name.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/17942
DNC telling each other, “I love you too. no homo.”
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/425
DNC requesting a pull an MSNBC commentary segment.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/6107
DNC controlling the narrative with time released stories.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/12450
DNC conspiring to create false Trump information and release with Reuters.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7102
DNC Hillary supporters infiltrated Sanders campaign.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/4776
DNC members going to complain to Morning Joe producers about his mentioning of a “rigged system.”
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/8806
DNC discussing their relationship with NBC/MSNBC/CNN and how to get better treatment.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/13762
Super PAC paying young voters to push back online Sanders supporters. Paid shills.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/8351

Below are several screenshots of some DNC email segments. One phrase that stood out in the first image was “planted the story” – confirming what news bloggers like me have long held, that media outlets “pepper” their internet news sites and news broadcasts with certain types of stories when they want to BEND public opinion and perception in a certain way. The phrase “planted the story” confirms this fact.

Bernie’s personal religious beliefs were also discussed:

So one can imagine, as rabid as Bernie’s coalition is, that they have now taken to the streets of Philadelphia in numbers. It’s a motley crew of #BLM protestors, #SEIU employees, #GREENParty people, mom and pop uber-liberals, college students, college drop-outs, PINK party women and girls, neo-Black Panthers and just about every other non-conservative and very angry liberal political group who wants to take over the country and create a full fledged socialist revolution which would make Fidel Castro proud. Here are some photos from the front lines:

Bilderberg Controlled American Media Makes A Last Ditch Effort to Destroy Trump on The Day He’s Set to Give His GOP Acceptance Speech

Trump-Grand-Rapids-MI-Getty

In twenty or thirty years, for those of us who are still alive, reflecting on our past, recalling the year 2016, we’ll be saying: “You had to be there.”

Because no one from any time period in American history would ever believe what present day eye-witnesses have to say about the print & internet media gorefest of slander, libel, hearsay, lies, and sheer nonsense which is being published right now – on this day – to attempt to tarnish, discredit and derail the presidential candidacy of Mr. Donald J. Trump.

Had anyone from the future of the year 2016, who might have traveled back to the very recent past of even 2011, or 2012, ventured to try to explain to me a few years ago, what was just around the corner, which I would confront in this year, I would have sworn that it just could not be true. How can that many prestigious media outlets orchestrate that many libelous, false articles on one candidate, to appear in America’s media – on one day!?

Only those who are in the know about who runs the American media empire can comprehend what’s taking place today. It is as if the #Bilderberg cabal sent out a personal letter of mandate to every author, TV anchor, left wing journalist, and liberal reporter working in the business, promising to put a million dollars in their bank account if they would please write something really trashy and patently not true about Donald Trump today.

I would begin citing these dozens and dozens of sleazy “National Enquirer” style fake news reports but it would take me hours and dinner is in the oven, and needs to be checked. After this year I will never, EVER, trust the American news media again. Further, I am fully and completely vindicated that it was the right thing for me to do to begin news blogging after I retired as a graphic designer and web developer. I’m needed and I know it.

The TRUTH matters. When it finally ceases to matter, and American society begins subsisting completely on #Bilderberg generated lies, half-truths, #CFR psychological operations and #CIA social engineering OPs run by Facebook, we not only won’t have a country worth living in, but the uber-rich and ultra-wicked #Bilderberg people will be lording it over a drooling steaming heap of half-animal [formerly human] creatures who behead each other over the tiniest social or civil infraction. The stench will literally be unbearable. Satan will perch atop his pile of black charred rubble, which was formally planet earth, howling like a rabid jackal. I’ll be gone and so very very glad about it.

trump-media

trump-rally

trumplindperfectpopulist

trump-getty

trump-fans_3579198b

 

I Wonder Why the US Post Office Needs So Much Ammunition

I saw this article this morning, now just wondering out loud how the FED might be planning to deploy your friendly neighborhood post office to handle potential civil unrest. Thus far it’s not against the law to speculate, to ‘wonder out loud’ about such things, so I’m re-posting this article with some links. Lucky for me, I’m good friends with all the postal workers in my little Oregon coast village, and I take them fresh produce out of my garden every summer. We talk guns and ammo over the front desk when I buy postage, so they know I’m as armed as they are [ well, almost. ] I watch as ‘legal open carry’ folks with their favorite pistols sticking out of the back of their farmer’s overalls go in to get their mail. We’re all on the same team out here.

We LOVE law and order out here, and you can hear a pin drop after 9 pm in my tiny little town. Rapes, breaking & entering, car thefts, vandalism are practically ZERO. Why? Everyone knows everyone else is armed, and no one breaks the law. It’s not rocket science. We also have practically ZERO homeless laying about peeing on every public street corner. What you WILL find is a Christian church on just about every street corner, of some denomination or the other. I love it out here and I would gladly die defending my little town from the hordes. We quietly live and let live. But enough about us gun toting rural Oregon rednecks, gay and straight. Here’s the article. It’s more than two years old, but I just found it this morning. If our local PO is also buying “bullets, lots and lots of bullets” then I guess we have a few things in common. Next time I talk ‘guns and ammo’ with my buddy behind the desk, maybe I’ll ask him about it.

I’d like to pause to congratulate Mr. Donald Trump for achieving his 1238 delegate today and clinching the #GOP nomination for this fall’s national election.

US Post Office Is Buying Bullets, Lots And Lots Of Bullets

04-20-2014, 08:07 PM


The US Post Office is now counted among the federal agencies posting advertisement to purchase copious amounts of bullets. Some Second Amendment advocates are concerned about the large amounts of ammunition being purchased, according to a NewsMax report.

The USPS posted a notice on its website requesting bids for various types of bullets. The notice on the Postal Service website under the heading “Assorted Small Arms Ammunition” said, “The United States Postal Service intends to solicit proposals for assorted small arms ammunition. If your organization wishes to participate, you must pre-register. This message is only a notification of our intent to solicit proposals.”
Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is speaking to the media and questioning the need for arming US Post Officer staffers. Committee Chairman Alan Gottlieb said, “We’re seeing a highly unusual amount of ammunition being bought by the federal agencies over a fairly short period of time. To be honest, I don’t understand why the federal government is buying so much at this time.”
National Shooting Sports Foundation Director Jake McGuigan also has raised eyebrows over the massive ammo purchases by federal agencies. McGuigan noted that the unusually large ammunition bid request announcements posted on government websites in the past year or so have prompted “conspiracy-type fears” among many gun owners. According to McGuigan, some firearms owners are concerned that the federal government is attempting to impact the Second Amendment rights of Americans via a back door effort to limit the availability of ammunition on the open market.

After the tragic Sandy Hook school shooting, ammunition and guns flew off the shelves when firearms owners grew concerned about the enactment of gun control laws which would limit what types of weapons and ammo could be purchased or that prices would raise significantly. Many popular types of bullet calibers are still in short supply today.

While it is understandable that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would purchase ammo, there appears to be a significant increase in the order amounts. The DHS requested 450 million rounds of ammo as the FBI sought about 100 million hollow-point rounds. The requests to fill ammunition orders by a host of federal agencies that are not regularly viewed as an entity with law enforcement functions, continue to ignite questions and angst.
In late 2012, the Social Security Administration posted a purchasing request for 174,000 rounds of.357 125 grain bonded jacketed hollow point bullets. The Department of Agriculture (USDA) began seeking 320,000 rounds of ammo around the same time. The National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAH) also posted a notice seeking 46,000 rounds of ammunition. Virginia Citizens Defense League President Philip Van Cleave asked the question many Americans, gun owner or not, were wondering about; why does the weather service need bullets?
Van Cleave had this to say about the non-law enforcement federal agencies purchasing significant amounts of ammunition:

“NOAA — really? They have a need? One just doesn’t know why they’re doing this,” he said. “The problem is, all these agencies have their own SWAT teams, their own police departments, which is crazy. In theory, it was supposed to be the U.S. marshals that was the armed branch for the federal government. What’s the need for that” Do we really need this? That was something our Founding Fathers did not like and we should all be concerned about.”

What do you think about the US Post Office buying ammo?

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/1214065/us-…VhBtm1dxL4W.99

Bill & Hillary Clinton Are Career Criminals. No Way in Hell Can They Be Allowed in the White House EVER Again. Listen to the Evidence.

5.24.2016

Many younger internet readers weren’t even born when President Bill Clinton served two terms in the White House, from 1992 to 2000. Therefore they don’t know anything about one of the most scandalous tenures by any man and wife in the office of the President in American history.  Many of the ugliest, most sordid secrets of HOW Bill and Hillary made it to the White House in the early 1990s may never become common knowledge, as our Bilderberg & Rothschild controlled American press won’t allow the publishing or broadcasting of those awful events. But alternative news reporters and radio hosts who are dedicated to the TRUTH will continue to broadcast the facts. Then it’s up to the reader / listener to share what they learn and to help educate other Americans, especially vulnerable, often gullible younger voters.

The Clinton presidency in the 1990s was a time of great national shame and disgrace for our nation, a time that us older folks will NEVER forget. The number of people who died during the Clinton White House years in the 1990s under VERY mysterious circumstances is something that haunts many voters to this day. It began with the very suspicious so-called suicide of Hillary’s close aid in Washington DC, Vince Foster, right after the Clintons moved into the White House in 1992. This all took place BEFORE the age of the internet began  in 1995.

Only God knows who else was raped, molested, abused, personally destroyed or suspiciously died while the Clintons were climbing to national power from his governorship in Arkansas that we might never know about.  I have just today learned WHY Bill Clinton was expelled from Oxford in Great Britain. He raped a girl and was thrown off the campus. That’s just one of dozens of awful suppressed truths about career criminals Bill and Hillary Clinton that the American people urgently need to know about, especially younger voters, who are being terribly deceived by them. While I update this post, begin by listening to the 1/2 interview below.

Related Research:

How Much Do You Know About the Ongoing “Clinton Body Count”? Be Sitting Down.

Tags: secret past Bill Clinton, secret past Hillary Clinton, 2016 historic presidential election, sex lies videotape Bill and Hillary, suppressed blacklisted news history of the Clintons, blacklisted news death of Vince Foster, Larry Patterson, Roger Perry, mysterious death of private detective Luther Jerry Parks,

Bill and Hillary Clinton Sold Uranium Rich US Ranch Lands to Russia While She Was Acting Secretary of State

Are you a Hillary Clinton supporter? If you are, there’s a #BlacklistedNewsReport you need to know about. Once you know about it, you might be forced to re-assess your support of this woman. It’s a crying shame that no US mainstream news outlet will touch this story. That ought not to be. But the same oligarchic octopus of about 6 corporations, controlled by the Bilderberg Agenda, own every news outlet in the nation. THAT’s why you are not hearing this story on the CBS Evening News, or NBC or ABC, etc. Please please please share this report. Thank you. – Author, Screenshots News Blog

The story has to do with American ranch land, precious metals and mineral resources that lie within it, and the covert selling of American ranch lands to Russia, so that Russia can mine the uranium ore that is located on these lands. Sound far-fetched? Be sitting down. You’ll want to follow the links below, but for the sake of expediency, I have also re-posted the in-depth report revealing this awful, criminal land deal below, as I wanted to archive it on my own news blog, in case the report gets yanked off the NYT website as the November 2016 presidential election draws closer.

If you think it’s appropriate for a sitting US government high official, such as the Secretary of State, to find a covert way to sell off precious US assets which would be vital to US national security interests during times of war, to a foreign nation, like RUSSIA, for example – and have her husband accept millions upon million of dollars in donations to their [dubious ] foundation in return for the sale – then by all means, Hillary Clinton is your girl. But if learning about this deal makes your skin crawl, and you are both outraged and determined that something like this should never happen again, and that the wheels of justice should begin to turn AT ONCE to bring the Clintons under indictment, then you might just be a real, red blooded American, who loves their country, and doesn’t want to see it sold off to Russia or China right out from underneath our patriotic feet.

Why hasn’t a Grand Jury been convened to investigate this deal, and others like it, where monies flowed into the Clinton Foundation while Hillary was Secretary of State? What else did she coordinate with foreign nations which was a blatant conflict of interest to American national security? Don’t people usually go to prison for doing things like this while holding high office?

Donations to the Clinton Foundation, and a Russian Uranium Takeover of American Ranch Lands

Clinton Foundation took massive payoffs, promised Hammond Ranch and other publicly owned lands to Russians along with one-fifth of our uranium ore

======Re-posted from The New York Times ==========

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

A Uranium One sign that points to a 35,000-acre ranch owned by John Christensen, near the town of Gillette, Wyo. Uranium One has the mining rights to Mr. Christensen’s property. Credit Matthew Staver for The New York Times

The headline on the website Pravda trumpeted President Vladimir V. Putin’s latest coup, its nationalistic fervor recalling an era when its precursor served as the official mouthpiece of the Kremlin: “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.”

The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.

But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.

At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.

Frank Giustra, right, a mining financier, has donated $31.3 million to the foundation run by former President Bill Clinton, left. Credit Joaquin Sarmiento/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control of the company’s assets to the Russians. Those promises have been repeatedly broken, records show.

The New York Times’s examination of the Uranium One deal is based on dozens of interviews, as well as a review of public records and securities filings in Canada, Russia and the United States. Some of the connections between Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation were unearthed by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institution and author of the forthcoming book “Clinton Cash.” Mr. Schweizer provided a preview of material in the book to The Times, which scrutinized his information and built upon it with its own reporting.

Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown. But the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation’s donors.

In a statement, Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign, said no one “has ever produced a shred of evidence supporting the theory that Hillary Clinton ever took action as secretary of state to support the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation.” He emphasized that multiple United States agencies, as well as the Canadian government, had signed off on the deal and that, in general, such matters were handled at a level below the secretary. “To suggest the State Department, under then-Secretary Clinton, exerted undue influence in the U.S. government’s review of the sale of Uranium One is utterly baseless,” he added.

Donations to the Clinton Foundation, and a Russian Uranium Takeover

Uranium investors gave millions to the Clinton Foundation while Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s office was involved in approving a Russian bid for mining assets in Kazakhstan and the United States.

Either way, the Uranium One deal highlights the limits of such prohibitions. The foundation will continue to accept contributions from foreign sources whose interests, like Uranium One’s, may overlap with those of foreign governments, some of which may be at odds with the United States.

When the Uranium One deal was approved, the geopolitical backdrop was far different from today’s. The Obama administration was seeking to “reset” strained relations with Russia. The deal was strategically important to Mr. Putin, who shortly after the Americans gave their blessing sat down for a staged interview with Rosatom’s chief executive, Sergei Kiriyenko. “Few could have imagined in the past that we would own 20 percent of U.S. reserves,” Mr. Kiriyenko told Mr. Putin.

Now, after Russia’s annexation of Crimea and aggression in Ukraine, the Moscow-Washington relationship is devolving toward Cold War levels, a point several experts made in evaluating a deal so beneficial to Mr. Putin, a man known to use energy resources to project power around the world.

“Should we be concerned? Absolutely,” said Michael McFaul, who served under Mrs. Clinton as the American ambassador to Russia but said he had been unaware of the Uranium One deal until asked about it. “Do we want Putin to have a monopoly on this? Of course we don’t. We don’t want to be dependent on Putin for anything in this climate.”

A Seat at the Table

The path to a Russian acquisition of American uranium deposits began in 2005 in Kazakhstan, where the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra orchestrated his first big uranium deal, with Mr. Clinton at his side.

The two men had flown aboard Mr. Giustra’s private jet to Almaty, Kazakhstan, where they dined with the authoritarian president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev. Mr. Clinton handed the Kazakh president a propaganda coup when he expressed support for Mr. Nazarbayev’s bid to head an international elections monitoring group, undercutting American foreign policy and criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, his wife, then a senator.

Within days of the visit, Mr. Giustra’s fledgling company, UrAsia Energy Ltd., signed a preliminary deal giving it stakes in three uranium mines controlled by the state-run uranium agency Kazatomprom.

Ian Telfer was chairman of Uranium One and made large donations to the Clinton Foundation. Credit Galit Rodan/Bloomberg, via Getty Images

If the Kazakh deal was a major victory, UrAsia did not wait long before resuming the hunt. In 2007, it merged with Uranium One, a South African company with assets in Africa and Australia, in what was described as a $3.5 billion transaction. The new company, which kept the Uranium One name, was controlled by UrAsia investors including Ian Telfer, a Canadian who became chairman. Through a spokeswoman, Mr. Giustra, whose personal stake in the deal was estimated at about $45 million, said he sold his stake in 2007.

Soon, Uranium One began to snap up companies with assets in the United States. In April 2007, it announced the purchase of a uranium mill in Utah and more than 38,000 acres of uranium exploration properties in four Western states, followed quickly by the acquisition of the Energy Metals Corporation and its uranium holdings in Wyoming, Texas and Utah. That deal made clear that Uranium One was intent on becoming “a powerhouse in the United States uranium sector with the potential to become the domestic supplier of choice for U.S. utilities,” the company declared.

Still, the company’s story was hardly front-page news in the United States — until early 2008, in the midst of Mrs. Clinton’s failed presidential campaign, when The Times published an article revealing the 2005 trip’s link to Mr. Giustra’s Kazakhstan mining deal. It also reported that several months later, Mr. Giustra had donated $31.3 million to Mr. Clinton’s foundation.

(In a statement issued after this article appeared online, Mr. Giustra said he was “extremely proud” of his charitable work with Mr. Clinton, and he urged the media to focus on poverty, health care and “the real challenges of the world.”)

Though the 2008 article quoted the former head of Kazatomprom, Moukhtar Dzhakishev, as saying that the deal required government approval and was discussed at a dinner with the president, Mr. Giustra insisted that it was a private transaction, with no need for Mr. Clinton’s influence with Kazakh officials. He described his relationship with Mr. Clinton as motivated solely by a shared interest in philanthropy.

As if to underscore the point, five months later Mr. Giustra held a fund-raiser for the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative, a project aimed at fostering progressive environmental and labor practices in the natural resources industry, to which he had pledged $100 million. The star-studded gala, at a conference center in Toronto, featured performances by Elton John and Shakira and celebrities like Tom Cruise, John Travolta and Robin Williams encouraging contributions from the many so-called F.O.F.s — Friends of Frank — in attendance, among them Mr. Telfer. In all, the evening generated $16 million in pledges, according to an article in The Globe and Mail.

“None of this would have been possible if Frank Giustra didn’t have a remarkable combination of caring and modesty, of vision and energy and iron determination,” Mr. Clinton told those gathered, adding: “I love this guy, and you should, too.”

But what had been a string of successes was about to hit a speed bump.

Bill Clinton met with Vladimir V. Putin in Moscow in 2010. Credit Mikhail Metzel/Associated Press

Arrest and Progress

By June 2009, a little over a year after the star-studded evening in Toronto, Uranium One’s stock was in free-fall, down 40 percent. Mr. Dzhakishev, the head of Kazatomprom, had just been arrested on charges that he illegally sold uranium deposits to foreign companies, including at least some of those won by Mr. Giustra’s UrAsia and now owned by Uranium One.

Publicly, the company tried to reassure shareholders. Its chief executive, Jean Nortier, issued a confident statement calling the situation a “complete misunderstanding.” He also contradicted Mr. Giustra’s contention that the uranium deal had not required government blessing. “When you do a transaction in Kazakhstan, you need the government’s approval,” he said, adding that UrAsia had indeed received that approval.

But privately, Uranium One officials were worried they could lose their joint mining ventures. American diplomatic cables made public by WikiLeaks also reflect concerns that Mr. Dzhakishev’s arrest was part of a Russian power play for control of Kazakh uranium assets.

At the time, Russia was already eying a stake in Uranium One, Rosatom company documents show. Rosatom officials say they were seeking to acquire mines around the world because Russia lacks sufficient domestic reserves to meet its own industry needs.

It was against this backdrop that the Vancouver-based Uranium One pressed the American Embassy in Kazakhstan, as well as Canadian diplomats, to take up its cause with Kazakh officials, according to the American cables.

“We want more than a statement to the press,” Paul Clarke, a Uranium One executive vice president, told the embassy’s energy officer on June 10, the officer reported in a cable. “That is simply chitchat.” What the company needed, Mr. Clarke said, was official written confirmation that the licenses were valid.

The American Embassy ultimately reported to the secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton. Though the Clarke cable was copied to her, it was given wide circulation, and it is unclear if she would have read it; the Clinton campaign did not address questions about the cable.

Among the Donors to the Clinton Foundation

Frank Giustra
$31.3 million and a pledge for $100 million more
He built a company that later merged with Uranium One.
Ian Telfer
$2.35 million
Mining investor who was chairman of Uranium One when an arm of the Russian government, Rosatom, acquired it.
Paul Reynolds
$1 million to $5 million
Adviser on 2007 UrAsia-Uranium One merger. Later helped raise $260 million for the company.
Frank Holmes
$250,000 to $500,000
Chief Executive of U.S. Global Investors Inc., which held $4.7 million in Uranium One shares in the first quarter of 2011.
Neil Woodyer
$50,000 to $100,000
Adviser to Uranium One. Founded Endeavour Mining with Mr. Giustra.
GMP Securities Ltd.
Donating portion of profits
Worked on debt issue that raised $260 million for Uranium One.

What is clear is that the embassy acted, with the cables showing that the energy officer met with Kazakh officials to discuss the issue on June 10 and 11.

Three days later, a wholly owned subsidiary of Rosatom completed a deal for 17 percent of Uranium One. And within a year, the Russian government substantially upped the ante, with a generous offer to shareholders that would give it a 51 percent controlling stake. But first, Uranium One had to get the American government to sign off on the deal.

The Power to Say No

When a company controlled by the Chinese government sought a 51 percent stake in a tiny Nevada gold mining operation in 2009, it set off a secretive review process in Washington, where officials raised concerns primarily about the mine’s proximity to a military installation, but also about the potential for minerals at the site, including uranium, to come under Chinese control. The officials killed the deal.

Such is the power of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. The committee comprises some of the most powerful members of the cabinet, including the attorney general, the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy, and the secretary of state. They are charged with reviewing any deal that could result in foreign control of an American business or asset deemed important to national security.

The national security issue at stake in the Uranium One deal was not primarily about nuclear weapons proliferation; the United States and Russia had for years cooperated on that front, with Russia sending enriched fuel from decommissioned warheads to be used in American nuclear power plants in return for raw uranium.

Instead, it concerned American dependence on foreign uranium sources. While the United States gets one-fifth of its electrical power from nuclear plants, it produces only around 20 percent of the uranium it needs, and most plants have only 18 to 36 months of reserves, according to Marin Katusa, author of “The Colder War: How the Global Energy Trade Slipped From America’s Grasp.”

“The Russians are easily winning the uranium war, and nobody’s talking about it,” said Mr. Katusa, who explores the implications of the Uranium One deal in his book. “It’s not just a domestic issue but a foreign policy issue, too.”

President Putin during a meeting with Rosatom’s chief executive, Sergei Kiriyenko, in December 2007. Credit Dmitry Astakhov/Ria Novosti, via Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

When ARMZ, an arm of Rosatom, took its first 17 percent stake in Uranium One in 2009, the two parties signed an agreement, found in securities filings, to seek the foreign investment committee’s review. But it was the 2010 deal, giving the Russians a controlling 51 percent stake, that set off alarm bells. Four members of the House of Representatives signed a letter expressing concern. Two more began pushing legislation to kill the deal.

Senator John Barrasso, a Republican from Wyoming, where Uranium One’s largest American operation was, wrote to President Obama, saying the deal “would give the Russian government control over a sizable portion of America’s uranium production capacity.”

“Equally alarming,” Mr. Barrasso added, “this sale gives ARMZ a significant stake in uranium mines in Kazakhstan.”

Uranium One’s shareholders were also alarmed, and were “afraid of Rosatom as a Russian state giant,” Sergei Novikov, a company spokesman, recalled in an interview. He said Rosatom’s chief, Mr. Kiriyenko, sought to reassure Uranium One investors, promising that Rosatom would not break up the company and would keep the same management, including Mr. Telfer, the chairman. Another Rosatom official said publicly that it did not intend to increase its investment beyond 51 percent, and that it envisioned keeping Uranium One a public company

American nuclear officials, too, seemed eager to assuage fears. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission wrote to Mr. Barrasso assuring him that American uranium would be preserved for domestic use, regardless of who owned it.

“In order to export uranium from the United States, Uranium One Inc. or ARMZ would need to apply for and obtain a specific NRC license authorizing the export of uranium for use as reactor fuel,” the letter said.

Still, the ultimate authority to approve or reject the Russian acquisition rested with the cabinet officials on the foreign investment committee, including Mrs. Clinton — whose husband was collecting millions in donations from people associated with Uranium One.

Undisclosed Donations

Uranium One’s Russian takeover was approved by the United States while Hillary Rodham Clinton was secretary of state. Credit Doug Mills/The New York Times

Before Mrs. Clinton could assume her post as secretary of state, the White House demanded that she sign a memorandum of understanding placing limits on the activities of her husband’s foundation. To avoid the perception of conflicts of interest, beyond the ban on foreign government donations, the foundation was required to publicly disclose all contributors.

To judge from those disclosures — which list the contributions in ranges rather than precise amounts — the only Uranium One official to give to the Clinton Foundation was Mr. Telfer, the chairman, and the amount was relatively small: no more than $250,000, and that was in 2007, before talk of a Rosatom deal began percolating.

But a review of tax records in Canada, where Mr. Telfer has a family charity called the Fernwood Foundation, shows that he donated millions of dollars more, during and after the critical time when the foreign investment committee was reviewing his deal with the Russians. With the Russians offering a special dividend, shareholders like Mr. Telfer stood to profit.

His donations through the Fernwood Foundation included $1 million reported in 2009, the year his company appealed to the American Embassy to help it keep its mines in Kazakhstan; $250,000 in 2010, the year the Russians sought majority control; as well as $600,000 in 2011 and $500,000 in 2012. Mr. Telfer said that his donations had nothing to do with his business dealings, and that he had never discussed Uranium One with Mr. or Mrs. Clinton. He said he had given the money because he wanted to support Mr. Giustra’s charitable endeavors with Mr. Clinton. “Frank and I have been friends and business partners for almost 20 years,” he said.

The Clinton campaign left it to the foundation to reply to questions about the Fernwood donations; the foundation did not provide a response.

Mr. Telfer’s undisclosed donations came in addition to between $1.3 million and $5.6 million in contributions, which were reported, from a constellation of people with ties to Uranium One or UrAsia, the company that originally acquired Uranium One’s most valuable asset: the Kazakh mines. Without those assets, the Russians would have had no interest in the deal: “It wasn’t the goal to buy the Wyoming mines. The goal was to acquire the Kazakh assets, which are very good,” Mr. Novikov, the Rosatom spokesman, said in an interview.

Amid this influx of Uranium One-connected money, Mr. Clinton was invited to speak in Moscow in June 2010, the same month Rosatom struck its deal for a majority stake in Uranium One.

The $500,000 fee — among Mr. Clinton’s highest — was paid by Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin that has invited world leaders, including Tony Blair, the former British prime minister, to speak at its investor conferences.

John Christensen sold the mining rights on his ranch in Wyoming to Uranium One. Credit Matthew Staver for The New York Times

Renaissance Capital analysts talked up Uranium One’s stock, assigning it a “buy” rating and saying in a July 2010 research report that it was “the best play” in the uranium markets. In addition, Renaissance Capital turned up that same year as a major donor, along with Mr. Giustra and several companies linked to Uranium One or UrAsia, to a small medical charity in Colorado run by a friend of Mr. Giustra’s. In a newsletter to supporters, the friend credited Mr. Giustra with helping get donations from “businesses around the world.”

Renaissance Capital would not comment on the genesis of Mr. Clinton’s speech to an audience that included leading Russian officials, or on whether it was connected to the Rosatom deal. According to a Russian government news service, Mr. Putin personally thanked Mr. Clinton for speaking.

A person with knowledge of the Clinton Foundation’s fund-raising operation, who requested anonymity to speak candidly about it, said that for many people, the hope is that money will in fact buy influence: “Why do you think they are doing it — because they love them?” But whether it actually does is another question. And in this case, there were broader geopolitical pressures that likely came into play as the United States considered whether to approve the Rosatom-Uranium One deal.

Diplomatic Considerations

If doing business with Rosatom was good for those in the Uranium One deal, engaging with Russia was also a priority of the incoming Obama administration, which was hoping for a new era of cooperation as Mr. Putin relinquished the presidency — if only for a term — to Dmitri A. Medvedev.

“The assumption was we could engage Russia to further core U.S. national security interests,” said Mr. McFaul, the former ambassador.

It started out well. The two countries made progress on nuclear proliferation issues, and expanded use of Russian territory to resupply American forces in Afghanistan. Keeping Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon was among the United States’ top priorities, and in June 2010 Russia signed off on a United Nations resolution imposing tough new sanctions on that country.

Two months later, the deal giving ARMZ a controlling stake in Uranium One was submitted to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States for review. Because of the secrecy surrounding the process, it is hard to know whether the participants weighed the desire to improve bilateral relations against the potential risks of allowing the Russian government control over the biggest uranium producer in the United States. The deal was ultimately approved in October, following what two people involved in securing the approval said had been a relatively smooth process.

Moukhtar Dzhakishev was arrested in 2009 while the chief of Kazatomprom. Credit Daniel Acker/Bloomberg, via Getty Images

Not all of the committee’s decisions are personally debated by the agency heads themselves; in less controversial cases, deputy or assistant secretaries may sign off. But experts and former committee members say Russia’s interest in Uranium One and its American uranium reserves seemed to warrant attention at the highest levels.

“This deal had generated press, it had captured the attention of Congress and it was strategically important,” said Richard Russell, who served on the committee during the George W. Bush administration. “When I was there invariably any one of those conditions would cause this to get pushed way up the chain, and here you had all three.”

And Mrs. Clinton brought a reputation for hawkishness to the process; as a senator, she was a vocal critic of the committee’s approval of a deal that would have transferred the management of major American seaports to a company based in the United Arab Emirates, and as a presidential candidate she had advocated legislation to strengthen the process.

The Clinton campaign spokesman, Mr. Fallon, said that in general, these matters did not rise to the secretary’s level. He would not comment on whether Mrs. Clinton had been briefed on the matter, but he gave The Times a statement from the former assistant secretary assigned to the foreign investment committee at the time, Jose Fernandez. While not addressing the specifics of the Uranium One deal, Mr. Fernandez said, “Mrs. Clinton never intervened with me on any C.F.I.U.S. matter.”

Mr. Fallon also noted that if any agency had raised national security concerns about the Uranium One deal, it could have taken them directly to the president.

Anne-Marie Slaughter, the State Department’s director of policy planning at the time, said she was unaware of the transaction — or the extent to which it made Russia a dominant uranium supplier. But speaking generally, she urged caution in evaluating its wisdom in hindsight.

“Russia was not a country we took lightly at the time or thought was cuddly,” she said. “But it wasn’t the adversary it is today.”

That renewed adversarial relationship has raised concerns about European dependency on Russian energy resources, including nuclear fuel. The unease reaches beyond diplomatic circles. In Wyoming, where Uranium One equipment is scattered across his 35,000-acre ranch, John Christensen is frustrated that repeated changes in corporate ownership over the years led to French, South African, Canadian and, finally, Russian control over mining rights on his property.

“I hate to see a foreign government own mining rights here in the United States,” he said. “I don’t think that should happen.”

Mr. Christensen, 65, noted that despite assurances by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that uranium could not leave the country without Uranium One or ARMZ obtaining an export license — which they do not have — yellowcake from his property was routinely packed into drums and trucked off to a processing plant in Canada.

Asked about that, the commission confirmed that Uranium One has, in fact, shipped yellowcake to Canada even though it does not have an export license. Instead, the transport company doing the shipping, RSB Logistic Services, has the license. A commission spokesman said that “to the best of our knowledge” most of the uranium sent to Canada for processing was returned for use in the United States. A Uranium One spokeswoman, Donna Wichers, said 25 percent had gone to Western Europe and Japan. At the moment, with the uranium market in a downturn, nothing is being shipped from the Wyoming mines.

The “no export” assurance given at the time of the Rosatom deal is not the only one that turned out to be less than it seemed. Despite pledges to the contrary, Uranium One was delisted from the Toronto Stock Exchange and taken private. As of 2013, Rosatom’s subsidiary, ARMZ, owned 100 percent of it.

Correction: April 23, 2015
An earlier version of this article misstated, in one instance, the surname of a fellow at the Hoover Institution. He is Peter Schweizer, not Schweitzer.An earlier version also incorrectly described the Clinton Foundation’s agreement with the Obama administration regarding foreign-government donations while Hillary Rodham Clinton was secretary of state. Under the agreement, the foundation would not accept new donations from foreign governments, though it could seek State Department waivers in specific cases. It was not barred from accepting all foreign-government donations.
Correction: April 30, 2015
An article on Friday about contributions to the Clinton Foundation from people associated with a Canadian uranium-mining company described incorrectly the foundation’s agreement with the Obama administration regarding foreign-government donations while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. Under the agreement, the foundation would not accept new donations from foreign governments, though it could seek State Department waivers in specific cases. The foundation was not barred from accepting all foreign-government donations.

The NRA Just Sent Obama a Warning He Will Never Forget

“Mr. Obama: If you want to stop violent crime, take violent criminals off the street. Begin in your own hometown, in Chicago, crime capital of the US.”

Tags: NRA, Obama legacy on guns, third world gun violence Chicago, gangbangers killings Chicago, civil liberties, 2nd amendment rights, #TruthOut Obama presidency, criminal killers guns Chicago, lawlessness Chicago 2015 2016

US Military Operation Inherent Resolve 2015: Where We Stand in the Mideast, Maps

Some re-posted statistics, charts, maps, links courtesy of www.defense.gov

U.S. Air Force Senior Airman Jesse Anocibar removes a bolt on a C-130 Hercules aircraft on Bagram Airfield, Afghanistan, Nov. 13, 2015. Anocibar is a crew chief assigned to the 455th Expeditionary Aircraft Maintenance Squadron. U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Robert Cloys

11.19.2015

Your tax dollars at work:

Where does America currently stand in the Mideast? How much territory has #ISIL gained or lost since the summer of 2014?

It all depends on whose maps you believe are accurate, and whose statistics you think are truthfully represented. Posted on our own US military site designed for public consumption, the following statistics are available below. Other maps at the end of this report have been curated from diverse sources across the web. It’s a fluid ever-morphing situation, so a map from April 2015 might look considerably different from a map displaying territorial regions from November.

I try to gather and study at least 6-10 maps every few months and look for large changes. “Syria” as it was once known by geographic boundaries, arguably, no longer exists.  Neither is there any longer a distinct “Iraq” as it might have looked in 2003, right before the US invasion.  There might be a collective memory of the old Syria, but outside of a few clusters of densely populated areas along the Mediterranean coast, Assad’s “Syria” is gone. Enter the newest geographic term: ‘Syraq’. Was this the actual long term goal of US foreign policy since the year 2000 all along? I have to wonder.

https://4gwar.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/isis_sanctuary_map_3april15_high-01.png?w=1062&h=759

https://i0.wp.com/endtimesresearchministry.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/iraq.jpg

The Emergent ‘Syraq’

In the very last map posted in this report, a large elongated triangular region of parts of the [old] Syria and the [old] Iraq are shown as being under ISIS control. These areas are rich in oil and natural gas reserves and are dotted with lucrative wells and energy infrastructure. Are we to believe that this dreadful current outcome was the intended goal for US military interests, having lost 5,000+ American lives, maimed thousands more, killed nearly countless Iraqis, and cost between 3.9 and 6 trillion dollars?  That’s the current estimated price tag from 12 years of Mideast of war – 2003-2011- if we include the cost of Afghanistan.

Our US military continues to report that they are degrading and disrupting the flow of income from oil and gas within ISIL controlled regions, but the maps I am looking at [ dozens of them, daily ] seem to present a different story. Who can we really believe?

https://s2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/GAwdStR21AGS7lQHTKsFSw--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTEyMDA-/http://globalfinance.zenfs.com/en_us/Finance/US_AFTP_SILICONALLEY_H_LIVE/The_Worst_Case_Scenario_In-cfcd037f0b5ebbcbd2cb926cfec8575d

As of 3:59 p.m. EST Nov. 12, the U.S. and coalition have conducted a total of 8,125 strikes (5,321 Iraq / 2,804 Syria).

  • U.S. has conducted 6,353 strikes in Iraq and Syria (3,695 Iraq / 2,658 Syria)
  • Rest of Coalition has conducted 1,772 strikes in Iraq and Syria (1,626 Iraq / 146 Syria)

The countries that have participated in the strikes include:

  • In Iraq: (1) Australia, (2) Belgium, (3) Canada, (4) Denmark, (5) France, (6) Jordan, (7) The Netherlands, and (8) UK
  • In Syria: (1) Australia, (2) Bahrain, (3) Canada, (4) France, (5) Jordan, (6) Saudi Arabia, (7) Turkey and (8) UAE

As of Nov. 14, U.S. and partner nation aircraft have flown an estimated 57,301 sorties in support of operations in Iraq and Syria.

https://i1.wp.com/dronecenter.bard.edu/files/2015/09/LeadersTimeline-3.jpg