Tuesday, July 11, 2017

Mexican-owned New York Times Voices Moral Outrage Over War Profiteers...... in Russia..... But Not a Word on America's Biggest War Profiteer, Senator Dianne Feinstein!






The Center for Public Integrity has reported that US Senator Dianne Feinstein, who voted in favor of the Iraq Resolution, and her husband, Richard Blum, are making millions of dollars from Iraq and Afghanistan contracts through his company, Tutor Perini Corporation.[26][27]

New York Times voices moral outrage over profiteering military contractors ... in Russia

By Bill Van Auken
11 July 2017

In an editorial published Monday, “The Spoils, and Profits, of Conflict,” the editors of the New York Times worked themselves into a moral lather over war profiteering by military contractors.
The subject is unquestionably one worth pursuing in a country that is engaged in at least seven different military conflicts, has troops stationed in nearly 150 countries and spends more on arms than the next nine largest military powers combined.
That these wars translate into massive profits for the arms industry and obscene fortunes for their stockholders, even as the American troops who do the killing and dying are drawn overwhelmingly from the working class and poor, is one of Washington’s dirty little secrets.
But the target of the Times’ umbrage is not the sprawling US military-industrial complex, but rather a little known Russian firm, Evro Polis, which, according to sources quoted by the newspaper, has made a deal with the Syrian government to provide private military contractors in return for Damascus guaranteeing it a share of the oil revenues from the areas that it retakes from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
The newspaper describes the deal as “shadowy and secret” and reports that at the head of the company is a figure “close to President Vladimir Putin.” It goes on to provide what it presents as a shocking quote from an unnamed private security consultant that “War is business.”
The Times’ editors, seemingly conscious that they are treading on thin ice, acknowledge that “mercenaries have always been around” and even “played a major role with US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq.” It goes on to cite the infamous 2007 Nisour Square massacre in Baghdad, in which mercenary gunmen employed by the major US military contractor Blackwater gunned down 17 Iraqi civilians and wounded another 20.
Nonetheless, the newspaper insists, there is something uniquely nefarious about the deal between Evro Polis and the Syrian government, declaring that “turning the fight into a private scramble for profit is a dangerous and ignoble gambit.”
At this stage, after some 16 years of the US “war on terror,” the decimation of entire societies in the Middle East and the destruction of more than a million lives as a result of US acts of aggression, who does the Times editorial board think it is kidding?
Whatever the role of Evro Polis, its connection to the Russian government and the semi-criminal oligarchy that it represents, the fact of the matter is that it represents less than small potatoes in relation to the vast army of mercenary military contractors deployed by Washington, and the multi-billion-dollar corporations that profit from their exploits.
In Afghanistan today, there are nearly three military contractors for every US soldier deployed on the ground. In Iraq, contractors are 42 percent of the force fielded by the Pentagon.
As for “shadowy and secret” deals and close relations between military contractors and top government officials, this is hardly a Russian innovation. Has it escaped the memory of the Times editors that the largest military contractor in the Iraq war, scooping up seemingly unlimited billions of dollars worth of no-bid contracts, was Halliburton (now KBR), whose former CEO was none other than Vice President Dick Cheney?
This incestuous relationship underscoring the “war is business” model has been reprised under the current administration, with the elevation of the former ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson to the post of secretary of state.
And while citing Blackwater (which has since chosen the innocuous name Academi in an attempt to escape its legacy of blood and filth) as a fleeting historical reference, the Times doesn’t bother recalling for its readers that the company’s former CEO Erik Prince is the brother of current Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, and that he serves as an unofficial adviser to Trump, while continuing to reap huge profits off of the “private security” racket.
As for the feigned outrage over anyone who would dare turn war into a “scramble for profit,” the truth is that this is precisely what it has been since the advent of imperialism, and never more nakedly than in the past quarter century of uninterrupted US military interventions. As the Times foreign affairs commentator Thomas Friedman infamously commented—after first trying to sell the illegal invasion of Iraq as a legitimate response to non-existent “weapons of mass destruction” and a crusade for democracy and human rights in the Middle East—“I have no problem with a war for oil.”
The feigned shock of Times editorial page editor James Bennet over Russian military contractors embracing the profit motive beggars belief. After all, didn’t the newspaper support capitalist restoration and the dissolution of the Soviet Union? The editorial is merely one more piece of war propaganda on behalf of those sections of the military and intelligence apparatus and the ruling establishment as a whole that see Russia as the foremost obstacle to US imperialism’s drive to assert global hegemony.
Bennet, the brother of right-wing Democratic Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado and son of Douglas Bennet, a former top State Department official who headed the Agency for International Development (AID), a frequent conduit for CIA operations, is closely attuned to these circles.
The problem for these factions for which the Times speaks is not that Russia is using mercenaries, but that its activities are cutting across crucial geo-strategic interests of American imperialism in Syria and the broader Middle East.
The newspaper’s hypocritical and hollow attempts to generate outrage over a military contract that is dwarfed by any number of similar deals struck by US war firms is part of an attempt to shift the Trump administration toward a more aggressive policy toward Moscow and, more decisively, counter the immense popular hostility in the US toward escalating a military confrontation with the world’s second-largest nuclear power.

SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN, HUBBY LOOTER RICHARD BLUM AND LAP B ITCH, BARBARA “BRIBES” BOXER…. Along with Nancy Pelosi, four of the most corrupt and self-serving plunderers of America… These Cretans redefine the term CRONY CAPITALIST PIGS!


 “Our entire crony capitalist system, Democrat and Republican alike, has become a kleptocracy approaching par with third-world hell-holes.  This is the way a great country is raided by its elite.” ---- Karen McQuillan  THEAMERICAN THINKER.com

Senator Feinstein's War Profiteering - by Joshua Frank - Antiwar.com

Army contract for Feinstein's husband / Blum is a director of firm that ...


Apr 22, 2003 - URS Corp., a San Francisco planning and engineering firm partially owned by California Sen. Dianne Feinstein's husband, landed an Army ...

War brings business to Feinstein spouse / Blum's firms win multimillion ...


Apr 27, 2003 - When it comes to scoring mega-military-related contracts, Sen. Dianne Feinstein's multimillionaire husband, Richard Blum, is right in the thick ...

War profiteering - Wikipedia


war profiteer is any person or organization that profits from warfare or by selling weapons and .... The Center for Public Integrity has reported that US Senator Dianne Feinstein, who voted in favor of the Iraq Resolution, and her husband, ...

# 23 Feinstein's Conflict of Interest in Iraq – Top 25 of 2008


Apr 28, 2010 - Dianne Feinstein—the ninth wealthiest member of congress—has been ... With Blum's financial backing, Klein, a war contractor, operates a ...

Unacceptable! Senator Profits from War and Post Office - Roots Action


Senator Dianne Feinstein's numerous apparent conflicts of interest are clear grounds for an Ethics Committee investigation.

Dianne Feinstein: War profiteer and war criminal | Freepress.org


Dianne FeinsteinWar profiteer and war criminal. by Gerry Bello. July 5, 2013. Somewhere in northwest Pakistan Tuesday a sound was heard. Hellfire missiles ...

The Greatest Threat to Campus Free Speech is Coming From Dianne ...


Sep 25, 2015 - But none of that seems to matter to Dianne Feinstein and her war-profiteering husband, Richard Blum. Not only is Blum demanding adoption of ...

Feinstein quits committee under war-profiteer cloud - WND.com


Mar 28, 2007 - Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has abruptly walked away from her responsibilities with the Senate Military Construction Appropriations ...

Senator Feinstein's War Profiteering- Democratic Blood Money By ...


Apr 5, 2007 - Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein of California silently resigned from her post on the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee ...

Senator Feinstein's War Profiteering

Senator Feinstein's War Profiteering

by Joshua Frank
It happens all the time. If the antiwar movement takes on the Democrats for their bitter shortcomings, a few liberals are bound to criticize us for not hounding Bush instead. It doesn't even have to be an election year to get the progressives fired up. They just don't seem to get it. "How can you attack the Democrats when we have such a bulletproof administration ruling the roost in Washington?" somebody recently e-mailed me. "Don't you have something better to do than write this trash?!"

Well, not really. It's too cold in upstate New York right now to do anything other than fume over the liberal villains in Washington. "Why do I write about the putrid Democratic Party?" I responded, "I'll tell you, there's a reason this Republican administration is so damn bulletproof – nobody from the opposition party is taking aim and pulling the trigger."

And that's why the Dems are just as culpable in all that has transpired since Bush took office in 2000. They aren't just a part of the problem – the Democrats are the problem.
I mean, who is really all that surprised Bush and his boys wanted to conquer the Middle East? Not me. That's just what unreasonable neocons do: they stomp out the little guy, kill off the weak, and suffocate the voiceless. They only care about the girth of their wallets and the number of scalps they can tack above their mantles.

The Democrats aren't just letting the Republicans get away with murder, however: some of them are also reaping the benefits of the Bush wars. We constantly hear about Dick Cheney's ties to Halliburton and how his ex-company is making bundles off U.S. contracts in Iraq. But what we don't hear about is how Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein and her husband are also making tons of money off the "war on terror."

The wishy-washy senator now claims Bush misled her prior to the invasion of Iraq. I don't think she's being honest with us, though. There may have been other reasons she helped sell Bush's lies. According to the Center for Public Integrity, Feinstein's husband Richard Blum has racked in millions of dollars from Perini, a civil infrastructure construction company, of which the billionaire investor wields a 75 percent voting share.

In April 2003, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers gave $500 million to Perini to provide services for Iraq's Central Command. A month earlier in March 2003, Perini was awarded $25 million to design and construct a facility to support the Afghan National Army near Kabul. And in March 2004, Perini was awarded a hefty contract worth up to $500 million for "electrical power distribution and transmission" in southern Iraq.

Feinstein, who sits on the Senate

 Appropriations Committee as well as the

 Select Committee on Intelligence, is reaping

 the benefits of her husband's investments.

 The Democratic royal family recently

 purchased a $16.5 million mansion in the

 flush Pacific Heights neighborhood of San

 Francisco. It's a disgusting display of war

profiteering, and just like Cheney, the leading

 Democrat should be called out for her


And that's exactly why the Bush

 administration is so darn bulletproof.

 The Democratic leadership in

Washington is just as crooked and just

as callous.

War profiteering

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
war profiteer is any person or organization that profits from warfare or by selling weapons and other goods to parties at war. The term can have strong, negative connotations. General profiteering may also occur in peace time. An example of war profiteers were the "shoddy" millionaires who allegedly sold recycled wool and cardboard shoes to soldiers during the American Civil War. The ten highest war profiteers are Lockheed MartinBoeingBAE SystemsGeneral DynamicsRaytheonNorthrop Grumman, European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company EADSFinmeccanicaL-3 Communications, and United Technologies.[1] These corporations are all directly connected with production of weapons, machinery, vehicles, aircraft, electronics and artillery(including missiles) and as such have significant political influence given their lobbying efforts and campaign contributions to members of the United States Congress in the promotion of war efforts. In 2010, the defense industry spent $144 million on lobbying and donated over $22.6 million to congressional candidates.[2]

In the United States[edit]

Companies such as Halliburton have been criticized in the context of the Iraq War for their perceived war profiteering.[24]
Steven Clemons, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation think tank, has accused former CIA Director James Woolseyof both profiting from and promoting the Iraq War.[25]
The Center for Public Integrity has reported that US Senator Dianne Feinstein, who voted in favor of the Iraq Resolution, and her husband, Richard Blum, are making millions of dollars from Iraq and Afghanistan contracts through his company, Tutor Perini Corporation.[26][27]
Indicted defense contractor Brent R. Wilkes was reported to be ecstatic when hearing that the United States was going to go to war with Iraq. "He and some of his top executives were really gung-ho about the war," said a former employee. "Brent said this would create new opportunities for the company. He was really excited about doing business in the Middle East."[28]
The War Profiteering Prevention Act of 2007 intended to create criminal penalties for war profiteers and others who exploit taxpayer-funded efforts in Iraq and elsewhere around the world.[29] This act was introduced first on April 25, 2007, but was never enacted into law.[30] War profiteering cases are often brought under the Civil False Claims Act, which was enacted in 1863 to combat war profiteering during the Civil War.[31]
Major General Smedley Butler, USMC, criticized war profiteering of US companies during World War I in War Is a Racket. He wrote about how some companies and corporations increase their earnings and profits by up to 1,700 percent and how many companies willingly sold equipment and supplies to the US that had no relevant use in the war effort. In the book, Butler stated that "It has been estimated by statisticians and economists and researchers that the war cost your Uncle Sam $52,000,000,000. Of this sum, $39,000,000,000 was expended in the actual war period. This expenditure yielded $16,000,000,000 in profits."[32]
In the American Civil War, concerns about war profiteering were not limited to the activities of a few "shoddy" millionaires in the North. In the Confederacy, where supplies were severely limited, and hardships common, the mere suggestion of profiteering was considered a scurrilous charge. Georgia Quartermaster General Ira Roe Foster attempted to increase the supply of material to the troops by urging the women of his state to knit 50,000 pairs of socks. Foster's sock campaign stimulated the supply of the much needed item, but it also met with a certain amount of suspicion and backlash. Either the result of a Union disinformation campaign, or the work of suspicious minds, rumors, which Foster denied as a "malicious falsehood!",[33] began to spread that Foster and others were profiteering from the socks.[33] It was alleged that contributed socks were being sold, rather than given freely to the troops. The charge was not without precedent. The historian Jeanie Attie notes that in 1861, an "especially damaging rumor" (later found to be true) had circulated in the North, alleging that the Union Army had purchased 5,000 pairs of socks which had been donated, and intended for the troops, from a private relief agency, the United States Sanitary Commission.[34] As the Sanitary Commission had done in the North, Foster undertook a propaganda campaign in Georgia newspapers to combat the damaging rumors and to encourage the continued contribution of socks.[35] He offered $1,000.00 to any "citizen or soldier who will come forward and prove that he ever bought a sock from this Department that was either knit by the ladies or purchased for issue to said troops."[33]

Unacceptable! Senator Profits from War and Post Office

Shortly after San Francisco's then-Mayor Dianne Feinstein married private equity financier Richard C. Blum in 1980, those who knew them called theirs "a marriage of the public and private sectors."

Although Feinstein lost a gubernatorial bid to Republican Pete Wilson, she soon took his seat in the U.S. Senate. Working across the aisle, her power rapidly grew along with her husband's diversified investments and their mutual wealth.1

• As Chair and ranking member of the Military Construction and Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Feinstein appears to have steered contracts to companies controlled by her husband.2  Blum has profited handsomely from military contracts.

• In 2009, Senator Feinstein introduced legislation to provide $25 billion in taxpayer money to the FDIC after it gave Blum's CBRE real estate company a contract to sell foreclosed properties at unusually high rates.4

• As a Regent of the University of California, Blum appears to have profited from contracts with the UC-run nuclear weapons laboratory at Los Alamos.5

• In the summer of 2012, the U.S. Postal Service awarded Blum's CBRE company the exclusive contract to sell its portfolio of public properties. Feinstein's office denies any influence in the awarding of the contract. 
Ask your Senators to request an Ethics Committee investigation of Senator Dianne Feinstein now.
In order to address your message to the appropriate recipient, we need to identify where you are.
Please enter your zip/postal code:  


1. MetroActive: Senator Feinstein's Iraq Conflict
Z Magazine: The Power Couple of California

2. Bohemian: Senator Warbucks

3. San Francisco Chronicle: War Brings Business to Feinstein Spouse
San Francisco Chronicle: SF Firm Awarded Contract in Iraq

4.Washington Times: Senator's Husband's Firm Cashes in on Crisis

5. San Francisco Chronicle: Amid Loud Dissent, Panels Urge Los Alamos Bid
Santa Cruz Indymedia: Conflict of Interest for Vice Chair of the UC Regents, Richard C. Blum?

6. San Francisco Chronicle: Grim Outlook for Post Office Buildings
LaJolla Light: Berkeley Preservationists Question Senator's Ties to Post Office Sales
Truthout: The USPS Media #FAIL

July 11, 2017

Had Hillary Clinton Won the Election...

To paraphrase Robert Frost, America has taken the road less traveled.  We elected a political outsider.  What might America look like today if Hillary had been elected?  Had she won we would not be hearing a single word about Russia.  Not a whisper.  It was not on the left's radar at all.  Ms. Clinton had embarrassed herself with that inane Office Depot reset button while she was Secretary of State.  Obama had told Medvedev to tell "Vlad" he would have more flexibility after the election, presumably re: nuclear disarmament.  The left cared nothing about that bit of collusion. 
Hillary and her campaign aides have long been involved with Russia for reasons of personal gain.  Clinton herself got $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation for allowing Russia to take over twenty percent of all uranium production in the U.S. Her campaign chairman, John Podesta, is reaping the financial benefits of being on the board of a Russian company, Joule, which hedid not disclose.  Besides, the Left has historically loved Russia and wanted to emulate its authoritarian governments.  They laughed when Mitt Romney, in 2012, named Russia as our most serious foreign policy problem.  And Obama, even when he knew/believed that Russia was attempting to meddle in the election, he did nothing.  They've done it for decades and so what?  Hillary was going to win.
Had Hillary been elected, the Clinton Foundation would be raking in even more millions than it did before.  She would be happily selling access, favors and our remaining freedoms out from under us.   She would be further eviscerating our military and she would be raising taxes to fund Obamacare even though it is a clear and present disaster.  Anyone who doubts that should look up Hillarycare,the monstrosity she designed behind closed doors when her husband was in the White House.  Her plan would dictate who could go to medical school, what specialty they would  "choose,"  and where they would be compelled to practice.  Her plan was the U.K.'s NHS on steroids.  Her plan was rationed care and death panels from hell.
Had HRC won, she would be implementing thousands of new regulations on businesses to further hamstring the economy.  She would let the fascist freaks at the Environmental Protection Agency have their way with every aspect of our daily lives:  Our cars, our showerheads, our toilets, our rainwater in our yards, etc.  She would, like the EPA under Obama, privilege any species, no matter how insignificant,  over humans.  Central California has been devastated by the environmentalists' reverence for the delta smelt!  Thousands of farm workers lost their jobs thanks to this lefty decision, turning a lush agricultural valley into a brown wasteland in the name of "going green."  This is the American left today.
Dr. Ben Carson, Trump's Secretary of HUD has already uncovered $520 billion  in fraud that occurred under Obama.  Two-thirds of the people who gotObamaphones at taxpayer expense, lied.  That program was riddled with fraud.
Had Hillary been elected, the stock market would be tanking rather than booming.  Every one of her policies would have been an economic wet blanket.   She would have instituted a minimum wage by executive order and thousands of more small businesses would be closing.  Instead, the stock market has gained $2 trillion in wealth since Trump was elected.  Hillary would have already increased our $20 trillion in national debt; Trump reduced it by $100m in his first hundred days.  Job numbers would have fallen under Hillary; Trump added nearly 300k jobs in the first month after his inauguration.  Housing sales would have fallen under Hillary because even fewer people would have been able to afford to buy a home.  Under Trump, housing sales have increased for the first time since 2011.
Had Hillary won, she would, as promised, have increased the number of refugees from the  Middle East, Mexico and Central America.  There would be countless more potential terrorists in our midst, thousands more on public assistance on the taxpayer's dime.  Under Trump, illegal immigration is down 67%.  The DOJ, under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, is rounding up criminal illegals, most of them gang members, many of them released from prisons by Obama to roam our streets with impunity.  Hopefully the citizens of sanctuary cities will realize how much safer they and their children will be once this pathetic policy comes to an end.  Trump stands firmly behind our law enforcement officers; Hillary would be standing with Black Lives Matter and even more police would be sacrificing their lives to this domestic terrorist group and its anti-cop rhetoric. 
Hillary, like the rest of the left, hates the Second Amendment.  Had she won,  it would likely have been abrogated out of existence.  Law-abiding citizens would be relegated to victim status by decree, no longer allowed to defend themselves from the always armed criminals while the likes of Hillary and her crowd live in gated mansion and have armed guards.  "For me but not for thee" is the mantra of the left.  She would be taking the nation in the direction of Oregon, which is fast becoming the fascist state the left so admires.
Trump was vilified throughout the campaign for repeatedly calling out NATO members for not paying their minimal fair share.  Since he won, allied spending is up $10 billion!    Then there is the Supreme Court. We now have another constitutional scholar, like Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito, on the bench who may just do Antonin Scalia proud.  Trump  will likely get the chance to appoint two more justices in the coming years.  Given the power our courts have grasped for themselves, his appointments of jurists who revere our founding documents may be the only path back to a Constitutional Republic.  Neil Gorsuch is the first step.
Trump took us out of the Paris Climate Accord, a $2.5 trillion economy killer.  He got us out of the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership that would have been great for the eleven other nations in it, and bad for America.  As he promised, he is putting America and American workers first.  The left and the media hate him for all this.  They have been rendered apoplectic and thoroughly irrational.  Their response to his glorious speech in Warsaw, was that it was racist, xenophobic, tribalist.  How dare he preference Western Civilization! They no longer hear actual words spoken. They hear what their radical ideology dictates they must hear when Trump speaks.  If he said it, it must be racist, it must be sexist, it must be nationalist, etc.  They are completely unable to grasp the meaning of Trump.  Had Hillary won, this miraculous nation would be continuing the death spiral Obama set in motion eight years ago.  It's almost as though divine providence has rescued us once again as it has  at so many crucial times over the past 241 years..

No comments: