China Colluded With The Clintons To Interfere In The 1996 Election

No one cared when China colluded with the Clintons to interfere in the ’96 Election; “Back in 1996, China helped then-President Bill Clinton get re-elected by funneling money to the Clinton campaign”

China Colluded With The Clintons To Interfere In The 1996 Election

The Mainstream Media has devoted exhaustive coverage over the allegation that Russia may have interfered with the 2016 election, as most recently seen in their massive reporting of the James Comey hearings. But there was a time when they didn’t care when a foreign country tried to buy a U.S. election (Hint: It helped a Democrat).

Back in 1996, China helped then-President Bill Clinton get re-elected by funneling money to the Clinton campaign. During Clinton’s re-election campaign against Republican Bob Dole, the Chinese Red Army (via fundraiser Johnny Chung) donated $300,000 to the Clinton campaign. After Clinton won, his administration quietly approved the export of key technology that aided China’s ballistic missile program.

Despite scoops by the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, Washington Post, The Washington Times that detailed connections between Chinese contributions and espionage efforts, as well as exhaustive Congressional hearings the Big Three networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) all but buried the Clinton-Chinese fundraising scandal.  

And even when they did cover the scandal, anchors and reporters were dismissive. The late ABC World News Tonight anchor Peter Jennings, on his April 10, 1997 show, thought the investigation into the scandal wasn’t worth the effort: “When we come back, two investigations of fundraising abuse, two of them on Capitol Hill. Is it a waste of time and money?”

When the late-Senator Fred Thompson’s Governmental Affairs Committee took up the matter in the summer of 1997, ABC correspondent Linda Douglass was quick to claim there was nothing to the investigation: “Senator [Fred] Thompson is clearly tired of taking a beating from the Democrats, who every single day point out the fact that he’s failed to prove there is any Chinese plot in connection with the Democratic presidential campaign.”

On June 17, 1997 then Today co-anchor Katie Couric absurdly asked The Washington Post’s Bob Woodward “Are members of the media, do you think, Bob, too scandal-obsessed, looking for something at every corner?”

And while today the liberal media is playing up the sinister KGB past of Vladimir Putin, back then they were offended by any labeling of China as communist or “red.” On the April 4, 1997 CBS Evening News, reporter Phil Jones huffed: “Republicans call this money ‘a direct slap at those brave young Americans who spilled their blood defending freedom.’ China is referred to as ‘Red China.’ Why not just call it ‘China’? Why ‘Red China’?”

The following are some of the major discoveries from that era and how they were or were not covered: 

China’s Army Funds the Democrats.

On April 4, 1999 the Asian fundraising scandal culminated in a Los Angeles Times report: Johnny Chung told Justice Dept. investigators that the chief of Chinese military intelligence gave him $300,000 to donate to the Clinton campaign. None of the broadcast networks touched this bombshell until Chung appeared before Congress on May 11, but even then the ABC and NBC morning shows and the CBS Evening News ignored him.

China Acquires U.S. Missile Technology.

Beginning in April 1998, The New York Times reported the Chinese government had been given technological expertise that “significantly advanced Beijing’s ballistic missile program,” and the head of one of the offending defense contractors was the largest individual contributor to Democrats in 1996. The number of evening news reports on this story since April 1998? ABC: 7. CBS: 3. NBC: 2. ABC outnumbered these 12 pieces in a 24-hour period highlighting their Monica Lewinsky interview.

China Acquires U.S. Warhead Technology.

One year after that discovery, The New York Times found that the Chinese government had stolen technology from U.S. nuclear labs that would help them miniaturize their nuclear warheads. In the first ten days the Big Three aired only 11 evening stories and six morning stories, then dropped the issue. The networks have since ignored several significant revelations and conducted only one morning show interview.

Clinton’s Denials Exposed.

When pressed by print reports about whether he knew Chinese espionage was occurring on his watch, President Clinton claimed in two press conferences that he was told nothing about espionage occurring during his term. When new print reports revealed him to be lying, the networks again refused to give viewers the evidence. 

 
 
via

The CIA Implanted Microphones Into The Skin Of CATS

The CIA tried to turn a CAT into a cyborg spy by implanting it with a microphone and antenna

The CIA Implanted Microphones Into The Skin Of CATS

The CIA once implanted microphones into a cat in a bizarre attempt to spy on Soviet Russia.

The cat had a microphone, antenna and battery pack surgically embedded into its skin so the feline could act as a covert recording device.

Recently declassified documents show how the scientists responsible for the cruel research were praised by spy chiefs for their ‘pioneering’ work.

[pdf-embedder url=”https://commonsenseevaluation.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Acoustic-Kitty.pdf” title=”Acoustic Kitty”]
The CIA once implanted microphones into a cat in a bizarre attempt to spy on Soviet Russia. Declassified documents reveal that the work was praised by CIA chiefs as a ‘remarkable scientific achievement’

The strange eavesdropping technique, though never used in the field, resurfaced this week when WikiLeaks tweeted a link to declassified CIA memos, first released in 2001.

The research was dubbed ‘Project Acoustic Kitty’ and cost $13 million (£10 million) over its five-year development in the 1960s.

The cat’s tail was used as an antenna with a wire travelling all the way up its spine to a microphone in the animal’s ear.

The equipment’s battery pack was sewn into the cat’s chest.

Victor Marchetti, a former CIA officer, told The Telegraph that year of the gruesome creation.

He said: ‘They slit the cat open, put batteries in him, wired him up’.

‘They made a monstrosity. They tested him and tested him.

‘They found he would walk off the job when he got hungry, so they put another wire in to override that,’ he added.

The final 1967 report on the project concluded it was non-practical, signalling the end of the research.

But the memo hailed the ‘remarkable scientific achievement’ reached by the American spy agency.

‘The work done on this problem over the years reflects great credit on the personnel who guided it,’ the document concluded.


The cats had microphones, antennae and battery packs surgically embedded into their skin so the felines could act as covert recording devices.

 
 
via

The Terrifying True Scale Of Nuclear Bombs

The True Scale of Nuclear Bombs Is Totally Frightening

The True Scale Of Nuclear Bombs

Nuclear bombs are already scary enough, but when you dig deeper and find out how powerful the weapons truly are, they get even more terrifying. The weapons we’ve built after the first atomic bombs are so strong that you can basically use Hiroshima as a unit of measurement. The largest nuclear explosion in human history, the Tsar Bomba, detonated with a force of 50 megatons or the power of 3,333 Hiroshimas.

The Russians had another bomb planned that would have been double the force of the Tsar Bomba at 100 megatons (and 6,666 times the force of Hiroshima) but luckily they never tested it. I mean, the Tsar Bomba was already as scarily powerful as it can get, since it almost destroyed the plane that dropped it and shattered windows as far as Norway and Finland. (The bomb was tested at Novaya Zemlya in Northern Russia).

Even something like the B83 bomb (which is the largest nuke in the US arsenal) explodes with a mushroom cloud taller than where commercial airlines fly. The true scale of nuclear weapons is really something, man. Learn more about it with this video by Real Life Lore, which also shows what kind of damage these nukes would do if they were dropped on New York City.

Nuclear weapons have come a long way and come in all types of different sizes. Some are relatively small while others are enormous, so big they boggle the mind at what they can be capable of. This video analyzes the sizes and impacts of various different nuclear devices, the history of nuclear weapons and what countries in the world are in possession of such devices.

Tsar Bomba, 1961 Tsar Bomba, 1961

 
via

Fact-Sheet On Syria’s White Helmets

Who are the White Helmets? This is a question that everyone should be asking themselves.

Fact-Sheet On Syria’s White Helmets

The White Helmets – here are a few facts that you need to know. Share this with your family and friends who rely on the Western Mainstream Media:

 
• The White Helmets, also called Syria Civil Defence, are not who they claim to be. The group is not Syrian; it was created with USA/UK funding under the supervision of a British military contractor in 2013 in Turkey.

• The name “Syria Civil Defence” was stolen from the legitimate Syrian organization of the same name. The authentic Syria Civil Defence was founded in 1953 and is a founding member of the International Civil Defense Organization (1958).

• The name “White Helmets” was inappropriately taken from the legitimate Argentinian relief organization Cascos Blancos / White Helmets. In 2014, Cascos Blancos / White Helmets was honored at the United Nations for 20 years of international humanitarian assistance.

• The NATO White Helmets are primarily a media campaign to support the ‘regime change’ goals of the USA and allies. After being founded by security contractor James LeMesurier, the group was “branded” as the White Helmets in 2014 by a marketing company called “The Syria Campaign” managed out of New York by non-Syrians such as Anna Nolan. “The Syria Campaign” was itself “incubated” by another marketing company named “Purpose”.

• The White Helmets claim to be “neutral, impartial and humanitarian” and to “serve all the people of Syria” is untrue. In reality, they only work in areas controlled by the violent opposition, primarily terrorists associated with Nusra/AlQaeda (recently renamed Jabhat Fath al Sham).

• The White Helmets claim to be unarmed is untrue. There are photos which show their members carrying arms and celebrating Nusra/AlQaeda military victories.

• The White Helmets claim to be apolitical and non-aligned is untrue. In reality they actively promote and lobby for US/NATO intervention in violation of the norms of authentic humanitarian work.

• The Right Livelihood description that “Syria Civil Defence” saved over 60,000 people and “support in the provision of medical services to nearly 7 million people” is untrue. In reality the zones controlled by terrorists in Syria have few civilians remaining. That is why we see “cat” video/media stunts featuring the White Helmets.

• The NATO White Helmets actually undermine and detract from the work of authentic organizations such as the REAL Syria Civil Defence and Syrian Arab Red Crescent.

• The recent Netflix movie about the White Helmets is not a documentary; it is a self promotional advertisement. The directors never set foot in Syria. The Syrian video, real or staged, was provided by the White Helmets themselves. From the beginning scenes showing a White Helmet actor telling his little boy not to give mommy a hard time until the end, the video is contrived and manipulative. The video was produced by a commercial marketing company Violet Films/Ultra Violet Consulting which advertises its services as “social media management”, “crowd building” and “campaign implementation”.

The true face of the White Helmets:


 

The REAL Syria Civil Defence

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-real-syria-civil-defence-exposes-natos-white-helmets-as-terrorist-linked-imposters/5547528

Who are the Syria White Helmets?

http://21stcenturywire.com/2016/06/21/who-are-the-syria-white-helmets/

White Helmets Deceive Right Livelihood and CodePink

http://truepublica.org.uk/global/white-helmets-deceive-right-livelihood-codepink/

White Helmets cat video showing terrorist zone with no civilians.  “The homeowners abandoned this district and its kittens.”  How fake does it get?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkfcE-Drnas

White Helmets are caught staging rescue only to claim they were making a mannequin challenge video.

http://archive.is/5D2Ew

 


 

 
via

The Collusion Between Russia and Obama

Rich Lowry documents the collusion between Russia and Obama

The Collusion Between Russia and Obama

What Rich Lowry has done here is put it down in a page and a half in almost chronological order, in as simple and understandable a way as possible.

From Rush Limbaugh:

Rich Lowry has done a great piece of work here at National Review. “Turns Out Obama Was the Real Russian Stooge”. All of this that Lowry writes about is known and has been known, but it was known and reported on, discussed in piecemeal fashion. What Rich has done here is put it down in a page and a half in almost chronological order, in as simple and understandable a way as possible. And he has a very clever beginning of the piece.

Rich Lowry“The circumstantial evidence is mounting that the Kremlin succeeded in infiltrating the US government at the highest levels.” Now, the hoi polloi and the great unwashed reading that are obviously going to think that Lowry is talking about the Russians colluding with Trump to beat Hillary.

“The circumstantial evidence is mounting that the Kremlin succeeded in infiltrating the US government at the highest levels. How else to explain a newly elected president looking the other way after an act of Russian aggression? Agreeing to a farcically one-sided nuclear deal? Mercilessly mocking the idea that Russia represents our foremost geo-political foe?”

Let me take each one of these. How else to explain a newly elected president looking the other way after an act of Russian aggression. That’s Obama and Crimea. That’s Obama and Ukraine. And that’s Assad. At every step of the way, when Russia, when Putin commits an act of aggression, Obama said (imitating Obama), “You better cut it out. You better stop doing it,” and with Syria he drew a red line and dared Assad to cross it. Assad crossed the red line; Putin kept acting aggressive. Nothing was done to stop it.

Agreeing to a farcically one-sided nuclear deal, that’s Iran. Agreeing that the region’s number one terror state will be permitted to develop nuclear power under terms of an agreement with the American president, that’s Obama. That is not Trump. And mercilessly mocking the idea that Russia represented our foremost geopolitical foe, that’s the presidential campaign of 2012 when Mitt Romney was doing everything he could to convince people that Russia was a foremost enemy, and it was Obama and his team mocking Romney for seeing a communist behind every rock, making a mountain out of a molehill and being stereotypical in his foreign policy.

It was Obama at every stage of the way aiding and abetting and facilitating Putin and the Russians. But we’re not through. How else to explain a newly elected president “accommodating the illicit nuclear ambitions of a Russian ally?” Of a president, an American president “welcoming a Russian foothold in the Middle East?” Hello, Syria. Hello, Iran.

How about an American president “refusing to provide arms to a sovereign country invaded by Russia?” Hello, Ukraine. An American president “diminishing our defenses and pursuing a Moscow-friendly policy of hostility to fossil fuels?” That would be Obama and climate change, which benefits Putin and the Russians. All of these items, of course, refer to things said or done by Barack Hussein Obama, not by Donald Trump.

“To take them in order: He re-set with Russia shortly after its clash with Georgia in 2008. He concluded the New START agreement with Moscow that reduced our nuclear forces but not theirs. When candidate Mitt Romney warned about Russia in the 2012 campaign, Obama rejected him as a Cold War relic.

“The president then went on to forge an agreement with Russia’s ally Iran to allow it to preserve its nuclear program. During the red-line fiasco, he eagerly grasped a lifeline from Russia at the price of accepting its intervention in Syria. He never budged on giving Ukraine ‘lethal’ weapons to defend itself from Russian attack,” which we had sworn by treaty to do. We were the ones that made Ukraine give up its military in exchange for our defending them against such aggression.

The Collusion Between Russia and ObamaThen when the aggression happened and they had no weaponry to defend themselves, we sided with the aggressor, Russia. All of this, Barack Obama. Not a single instance of this collusion can be laid to Donald Trump because he was not even running for president when this stuff happened. The evidence of Kremlin, Moscow, and Washington collusion is with Obama and Putin. “Finally, Obama cut US defense spending and cracked down on fossil fuels — a policy that Russia welcomes, since its economy is dependent on high oil prices.”

So it is abundantly clear that if anybody in our country was working with Russia to their benefit, it was Barack Obama and the Democrat Party. It was not Donald Trump. All of this business about Russia and Trump colluding to deny the election, it would have made every bit of sense in the world for Putin to want Hillary Clinton to win to continue just this kind of deference.

With this evidence and using common sense guided by intelligence, there is no way Putin would want to deal with some newcomer like Trump who was talking tough. America first and all this sort of stuff. He would much rather prefer Hillary Clinton, guaranteed to continue the same appeasement policies of Barack Obama as she was promising to do.

 

 

 

Load More