↓ Archives ↓

Archive → January 24th, 2017

CIA director slams Trump for slamming CIA

CIA director slams Trump for slamming CIA

0 Shares

In case you hadn’t noticed, uttering a politically incorrect comment is now a bigger crime than decimating thousands in a war.

You can bomb a country into submission and chaos, leaving dead and wounded from shore to shore, and that might be counted as a “mistake in judgment”; but using a few loaded words—or in this case—criticizing an intelligence agency—is an earthshaking event that could make the planet spin off-course…

Case in point…

The lame-duck outgoing CIA director, John Brennan, lectured Donald Trump Sunday, on FOX.

NBC News reports:

Trump has repeatedly called for a better relationship between the U.S. and Putin’s government. He suggested in an interview with the Wall Street Journal on Friday that he’d consider easing the latest sanctions on Russia.”

“I think he has to be mindful that he does not have a full appreciation and understanding of what the implications are of going down that road,” Brennan said.

The CIA chief roundly denounced Trump’s approach to Russia and other national security threats, suggesting the president-elect has much to understand before he can make informed decisions on such matters.

“The world is watching now what Trump says and listening very carefully. If he doesn’t have confidence in the [US] intelligence community, what signal does that send to our partners and allies as well as our adversaries?” Brennan said.

Signal?

Mr. Brennan, the signal was sent to our partners, allies, and adversaries decades ago:

The CIA is a criminal agency.

Is that clear enough?

Long ago, the CIA criminally stepped outside its mandate, in order to shape world events it had no business participating in. Is that clear enough?

In that regard, do these names and phrases mean anything to you, Mr. Brennan?

(Note to readers: if this list of names and phrases doesn’t ring any CIA bells, a refresher course is in order.)

* The Gehlen Org.

* Operation Gladio.

* MKULTRA.

* Operation CHAOS.

* Nugan Hand Bank.

* BCCI Bank.

* Golden Triangle. Asian heroin.

* Air America.

* Central American cocaine. Mena.

* The Contras.

* Henry Luce. William Paley. Arthur Sulzberger. Operation Mockingbird.

* Overthrow of Mohammed Mossadegh (Iran).

* Overthrow of Jacobo Arbenz (Guatemala).

* Murder of Patrice Lumumba (Congo).

* Bay of Pigs.

* JFK.

* Diem assassination.

* Rafael Trujillo assassination.

* Sukarno. Suharto.

* East Timor genocide.

* Military coup—Greece.

* Allende.

* Gulf of Tonkin.

* Operation Phoenix.

* Laos bombing.

* Sihanouk.

* The Khmer Rouge.

* El Salvador death squads.

On and on it goes…

See Mark Zepezauer’s book. The CIA’s Greatest Hits.

Overthrow, assassination, regime change, mind control, covert war, mass destruction, drugs, financial theft, co-opting the press…

Do you recall any of this, Mr. Brennan?

Trump (or any president) is sending a negative signal about the US intelligence community to our friends, allies, and adversaries? Are you kidding, Mr. Brennan? Are you telling some kind of inside joke?

People all over the world have known, for decades, what the CIA has been doing.

And you’re worried about the effect of a little tweak from Trump?

The murderous history of the CIA has been a cat out of the bag for a long, long time.

Professional amnesia may be your friend, Mr. Brennan, but it doesn’t convince the victims and targets of your agency’s actions since 1948.

Source: Will County News

Workers’ comp reform a top priority for Rauner in 2017

Source: Will County News

Bye, bye, bureaucrat

Bye, bye, bureaucrat!

687 Shares

President-elect Donald Trump appears already to be working toward making good on his promise to cut the size of government. The incoming president has reportedly advised members of his team to begin compiling a plan to make significant department reductions across the federal government.

According to Trump administration insiders, various federal departments could see spending reductions of around 10 percent along with 20 percent reductions in staffing.

Trump has put together what his administration is calling “landing teams” to make recommendations for areas where the heaviest cuts are needed. The teams are, however, focusing the cuts only on areas of discretionary spending, leaving alone mandatory spending for things like Medicare and Social Security.

While Trump’s plans to cut spending from the outset of his administration are uncommon for an incoming president, it’s not believed that they will lead to a reduction in overall government spending.

Instead, the money freed up by the cuts will likely be used toward Trump’s plan to boost military spending, on infrastructure projects and possibly toward the construction of the wall he has promised to construct along the nation’s southern border.

Still, conservatives and small government advocates are cheering the news that the incoming administration is looking to give hordes of bureaucrats pink slips.

That’s because it signals a departure from the Obama administration’s proclivity for allowing federal agencies to act with little oversight, a governing style that led to massive increases in regulatory burdens over the past eight years.

The Trump administration could also make it easier for federal agencies to fire underperforming government workers moving forward.

Over the summer, Trump campaign officials began discussing the need for congressional legislation to make it easier to give government employees the axe.

Congressional Republicans like Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) have taken note.

“It’s nearly impossible to fire somebody,” Chaffetz said after Trump’s election. “When the overwhelming majority do a good job and the one bad apple is there viewing pornography, I want people to be held accountable.”

 

Source: Will County News

Lockport Township voters have been active in observing the antics of our government

 

 

An informed group of Lockport Township voters and myself have been active in observing the antics of our township government for the last two years. At the 2015 Town Hall Meeting the Board presented to the electorate a proposal to build a new six million dollar building. We rejected it by a vote of 150 to 40. Numerous voters address the board that night and told them that they did not want a new expensive building, senior center or an expansion of township government.

Seven months later the Township Board bought a former church building with no public notice that was over three times larger than their existing facility. Legally they could do that without our input because they bought it with cash reserves. Ethically it smack of a lack of transparency. No surprise there with a failing grade of 31% from the Illinois Policy Institute.

Before the 2016 Annual Town Meeting our group work hard to draft a petition to add four items to the agenda, obtained 100 signatures and filed it with the township. The township board rejected our petition in whole and refused to place those items on the annual town meeting agenda. The items that we wanted the electorate to vote on were requiring the board to pay off a $565,000 judgment, conduct a space utilization study for their needs, have the Secretary of State office to digitize the assessor’s records at no charge and halt any work on the new building until the completion of the space utilization study.

We could have challenged their decision in court, but the money for legal fees was not available. We felt that by providing positive and commonsense solutions to the board our group was avoiding a negative perception.

Yes, the new twenty-five thousand square foot building is over three times bigger than their old offices, but along with that comes higher expenses in the form of utility bills and maintenance. Of course, now the board is looking for ways to fill up the building and expand the role of township government. Our small and peaceful protest at the ribbon cutting was our way of telling the board that some voters want a transparent, smaller and limited township government.

My only disappointment was that all the politicians present avoided any contact with us and did not seek any input from us. Elected officials are supposed to represent all of us.

Pete DeLaney

Source: Will County News