Old-liners Protecting Private Interests
Filling the Minds of
Poorly Educated,
Intellectually Lazy Americans with
Lies,
Half truths,
Misrepresentations of Russia and USA
Setting some of the Record Straight
|
T
|
here is no greater Global interventionist than the USA.
- There is no greater regime changer in the world than the USA.
- There is no greater stockpiller of bombs, no greater bomber of nations and peoples than the USA.
- There is no greater arsenal of nuclear bombs, not greater seller of and trader in lethal weapons and promoters of world wars and conflict than the USA.
- There is no greater peddler of propaganda than the USA.
- There is no greater executor of global (including domestic) surveillance than the USA.
In any just and truly merit-based system, the British woman known as Fiona
Hill would never have been given a high level position in the U.S. government
or in the U.S. foreign relations domain.
She is British (we fought a revolution against these people) born, bred and educated (she did not come her as an infant). And she is an old-line anti-Russia (anti-Putin) sycophantic propagandist who should never have been given a position of advisor or officer to any American about any issue bearing on domestic or foreign affairs.
This is an especially critical issue — the issue of incompetents,
propagandists and sycophants kowtowing, ingratiating themselves, to one or another
personality or ideology inside Washington — at a time when the greatest and most
compelling global matters confronting the world are international relations and genuine
and long-lasting cession of hostilities; instead of deepening hostilities and
repeating Cold War and past wars, old-line aggression.
|
T
|
he United States with other nations (particularly past empires, world
war hawks and colonizers, e.g., the USA, the Russian Federation or former USSR, Britain,
France) should be leading forward, leading critically important 21st century change:
- ending Western and Eastern aggression
- leading diplomatic verbal engagement
- talking resolutions
- principled (not partisan) rapprochement between and among nations; recommitting to nuclear disarmament;
- ending landmine use and clearing landmines of past conflicts;
- drafting and ratifying peace treaties (and sharing instead of plundering resources, aiding in basic infrastructures such as running water and energy and mending entities and relations destroyed by war and conflict).
Instead of persisting in the old mold of aggression and propaganda and
provocation; conflict in the service of empire, an elite establishment, special
interests including think tank, NGO and weapons industrial interests —
- the way forward must be characterized by peaceful measures demonstratively engaged in mending relations and improving conditions across cultures and languages, within, among and between nations and peoples of the East (Eastern Asia and Eastern Europe including Russia), the Near East (Middle East, North and Eastern Africa), the South (Americas, Australia New Zealand, including sub-Saharan Africa), the North (Russia, Canada, Greenland), and the West (Europe, USA, Central and Caribbean Americas).
|
W
|
ho is Dr. Fiona Hill?
Harvard University gave Fiona Hill a place in the early1990s and, with
virtually nothing to offer except Ivy League “connections,” the United States, just
over a decade later, granted her a citizenship card.
She took a degree at
Harvard and Harvard gave her a research job at its JFK School of Government
(where even drug abusers get entry). And with connections still in hand and a newly
minted citizenship card, Fiona Hill landed a position (2006-2009) focused on “Russia
and Eurasia” on the U.S. National Intelligence Council.
And in less than a
decade, she hopped up to the White House’s National Security Council staff as “Deputy
Assistant to the U.S. President and Senior Director for European and Russian.”
Between times, Hill’s connections connected her with the think tank
Brooking Institution and they published a couple of her books, which are not
considered university faculty scholarship but would fall into a category of anti
Russia / anti-Putin propaganda. And with her penchant or malleability for propaganda,
the British lady took (or was given) membership in the controversial
foreign-country- meddling Council on Foreign Relations and Eurasia foundation.
|
F
|
iona Hill’s Old-line interventionist memberships
CFR, ER
The post-World War I era neoconservative, neoliberal-leaning Council on Foreign Relations has included among its 4,900 members: senior politicians, dozens of U.S. secretaries of state, Central Intelligence Directors, bankers, lawyers, professors and senior media figures.
Because of the number of high-ranking government officials (along with
world business leaders and prominent media figures) in its membership and the
large number of aspects of American foreign policy that its members have been
involved with, the CFR has come under scrutiny concerning matters of “sovereignty”
and “undue influence on US foreign policy.…”
The Eurasia Foundation is a public-private United States Agency for International Development (USAID)-supported “privately managed grant-making, program implementing, private-enterprise advancing, public policy/administration promoting organization — that is a meddler attempting to influence internal affairs of “former Soviet Union” countries: “Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan.”
Fiona Hill’s Brookings Institution
Among the Ivory-towered Washington, D.C., think tanks is post-World
War I era Brookings Institution, sporting a treasure chest of “nearly
half-a-billion (with a B) dollars in
assets and deep ties to political leaders.”
Though Brookings bills itself as a group (a) engaged in “in-depth
research” leading to “new ideas for solving problems facing society at local,
national and global levels”; (b) valuing “the independence of its scholars” and
(c) priding itself on “open-minded” inquiry — independent reporting has found that
Brookings is instead “swayed by ‘open-wallet’ inquiry.”
Brookings’s massive collection of money, Adam Andrzejewski reported in
2017, is not “just dollars provided by private donors”; they “are (U.S.) tax
dollars funding partisan advocacy projects and papers.”
One former fellow at the Brookings Doha Center in Qatar was quoted saying
“If a member of Congress is using the Brookings reports, they should be aware that
they are not getting the full story.” This scholar recalled his employment
interview with Brookings in which he was told “he could not take positions
critical of the Qatari government in papers.” Reports produced by Brookings and
peddled to the U.S. Congress and Executive leaders “‘may not (convey) … a false
story; … (but) they are not the full story.”
Public funding shows that “Brookings is less of a think tank and more
of a public affairs shop for establishment-left donors and allied government
officials; and while what they are doing is “not illegal under current federal
law…, the question is whether it’s ethical to secretly coerce taxpayers into
supporting partisan causes.”
|
S
|
ome of Andrzejewski’s findings
2008-2014 “Brookings amassed from 50 government agencies (including the
Obama Administration’s Office of the President) nearly $20 million in contracts
and grants. Brookings’ assets in Fiscal Year 2014: $496 million (IRS990, FY2014)
2008 – 2017
- Billed $1.8 million to the Agency for International Development (USAID) in taxpayer-funded grants to provide generic ‘humanitarian assistance’
- 2016: Brookings published a white paper funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark touting the veracity of the USAID public/private partnerships. But, Brookings paper did not disclose its conflict-of-interest -- USAID direct funding of the organization during the period covered by the study.
- $1.2 million in grants (2008-2018) flowing from the National Science Foundation into the Brookings vertical “Brookings Papers On Economic Activity” – an academic journal published twice a year on a range of macroeconomic topics impacting public policy debates.
- $719,102 in grants (2009-2011) from the Department of Energy flowed to Brookings for their “climate and energy economic policy research.” This Brookings project advocates a domestic cap-and-trade tax and thanks California for taxing carbon.
- $25,000 in National Endowment of the Arts grants (2013) funded Brookings for “promotion of the arts.” Presto! Brookings published research on the Arts and Economic Development. If taxpayers want a copy of the report, Brookings sells it for $30.99.
Sources
Forbes Media “Brookings Institution — The Progressive Jukebox Funded By
U.S. Taxpayers” Adam Andrzejewski, senior contributor June 2, 2017
Adam Andrzejewski (say: And-G-F-Ski) is the founder and Chief Executive
Officer of OpenTheBooks.com – a database containing 3.5 billion captured
spending transactions from federal, state and local governments across America.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2017/06/02/brookings-institution-the-progressive-jukebox-funded-by-u-s-taxpayers/#3a828d035e53
Wikipedia
Council on Foreign Relations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Foreign_Relations
Eurasia Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasia_Foundation
Brookings Institution: “INDEPENDENCE & INTEGRITY POLICIES”
“The Brookings Institution is a nonprofit organization devoted to
independent, in-depth research that leads to pragmatic and innovative ideas on
how to solve problems facing society. Brookings’s commitment to institutional
independence is rooted in the individual independence of its scholars.
Therefore, the Institution does not take positions on issues.” https://www.brookings.edu/about-us/
Today’s Impeachment Inquiry News
Business Insider “LIVE: Former NSC official Fiona Hill told EU
ambassador Gordon Sondland, ‘I think this is all going to blow up’” Sonam
Sheth, John Haltiwanger and Grace Panetta’
- “House investigators leading the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump are hearing testimony from Fiona Hill and David Holmes on Thursday.
- “Hill, the former top Russia adviser on the National Security Council, offered a scathing picture of shadowy efforts to urge Ukraine to investigate Trump's political rivals.
- “Holmes is a top staffer at the US Embassy in Ukraine and worked closely with Marie Yovanovitch while she was serving as the US ambassador to Ukraine.
- “Hill and Holmes said they were ‘shocked,’ ‘saddened,’ and ‘disappointed’ after they read a summary of Trump’s July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, during which Trump repeatedly pressured Zelensky to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and a conspiracy theory suggesting Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election.
- “They also forcefully defended Yovanovitch’s record and said Trump's and Rudy Giuliani’s ‘smear campaign’ against her was ‘shameful.’
https://www.businessinsider.com/impeachment-hearing-updates-fiona-hill-testimony-2019-11
Insight Beyond Today’s News, CLB - © All Rights
Reserved
No comments:
Post a Comment