How Deep State controls the 'acceptable narrative' all over the world
Deep State Deconstruction: USAID
What is USAID and is it used to bypass HHS for international health "interventions"?
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is (was) an independent agency of the United States government. Current indications are that it may be the first agency defunded by the new Trump administration, in part consequent to investigations by the DOGE initiative (Department of Government Efficiency). The agency defines (or defined) its mission as “We partner to end extreme poverty and promote resilient, democratic societies while advancing our security and prosperity.” Historically, the chain of command for USAID does not follow the military chain of command but rather is structured within the executive branch of the U.S. government. USAID operates under the President's guidance and is directly overseen by the Secretary of State with support from the National Security Council. The President has ultimate authority and responsibility, followed by the Secretary of State, overseeing USAID's operations and policy guidance. So while USAID is historically separate from the State Department, both ultimately separately report to the Secretary of State.
With a budget of over $50 billion, USAID is one of the largest official aid agencies in the world and accounts for more than half of all U.S. foreign assistance – the highest in the world in absolute dollar terms. USAID has missions in over 100 countries, primarily in Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe.
USAID is a CIA Surrogate
A former USAID director, John Gilligan, admitted that USAID was "infiltrated from top to bottom with CIA people." Gilligan explained that "the idea was to plant operatives in every kind of activity we had overseas; government, volunteer, religious, every kind." Given that USAID is widely believed and reported to be infiltrated by CIA personnel, and to function essentially as an arm of the CIA, it is ironic that USAID was established by President John F. Kennedy on November 3, 1961, through the signing of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. Kennedy aimed to create a more efficient way to counter Soviet influence abroad through foreign assistance, seeing the State Department as too bureaucratic to accomplish this task efficiently.
When American humanitarian groups receive funds from USAID, their reports made the groups they assisted legible to USAID, and through USAID, this information is passed along to the CIA. Father Cotton, a missionary who became curious about the sources of mission work, described USAID as "the CIA'S little sister", and worried that those working on humanitarian and assistance projects were being "plugged into an information network that starts with the U.S. government and to which the CIA is connected". Cotter also understood that the CIA valued missionaries because, like anthropologists, they tended to "spend years working with grass-roots people and helping the unfortunates among them, they win trust and confidence. People will tell them about their hopes and fears, about village happenings, and about whatever there is of interest. They learn who are the most promising leaders, what are the region's problems, and they are often given access to people and areas closed to most outsiders. This is the information wanted by the CIA, and wanted in steadily flowing streams".
While groups such as Anthropologists for Radical Political Action developed critiques of military-linked anthropological projects, at times singling out USAID projects directly linked to war zone counterinsurgency operations, during the Cold War American anthropologists were slow to develop such broad critiques of the ways that modernization theory, USAID, and other development projects directly and indirectly connected with the CIA and Cold War politics
There is so much more on this disturbing story. Please continue reading at:
USAID Funded Academic “Misinformation” Research and Domestic US Censorship
===============================================================================================
The Biggest, Most Corrupt News Organization You Have Never Heard of
The Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project
What if you knew that there was an organization called the The Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), which claims to be one of the largest news organizations in the world, with 200 staff members that is partnered with more than 50 independent media outlets worldwide, but whose fundamental mission is to instigate regime change in countries or entities deemed hostile to the United States?
“OCCRP is one of the largest investigative journalism organizations in the world, headquartered in Amsterdam and with staff across six continents. We are a mission-driven nonprofit newsroom that partners with other media outlets to publish stories that lead to real-world action.”
-the Organized Crime Reporting Project (OCCRP)
How is this accomplished? With an annual budget of around 23 million, OCCRP leverages its substantial financial resources to investigate individuals and governments for crimes or misconduct in nations deemed hostile to U.S. interests. OCCRP then collaborates with the Global Anti-Corruption Consortium (GACC) to initiate criminal investigations or sanctions based on its reporting. Lastly, OCCRP joins forces with the CIA-affiliated organization "Transparency International" to develop initiatives aimed at regime change.
No doubt, OCCRP would be involved in the Georgian election controversy, and many corruption accusations against politicians around the world, anywhere where right-leaning politicians are being harassed and sent to prison for not accepting the acceptable narrative. For instance - Pakistan, the Philippines, etc., etc. Of course, George Soros is involved.
The Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) is a worldwide collective of investigative journalists established in 2006, primarily funded by USAID and the Soros Foundation. It claims to focus on revealing international corrupt financial transactions, organized crime, and corruption—solely focused offshore and published through local media outlets. Its aim appears to be to influence political movements and shifts in nations not aligned with US interests, without those nations realizing that the USA and George Soros are behind this influence.
OCCRP publishes its investigative stories through local media and on its website. The organization conducts more than 60 cross-border investigations annually and trains journalists in reporting techniques. OCCRP also develops practical tools to enhance the efficiency of reporting and publishing.
In 2017, “NGO Advisor” ranked OCCRP 69th in the world among the top 500 non-governmental organizations.
USAID’s involvement in OCCRP
The Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) has been found to have significant involvement (entanglement?) with the US Agency for International Development (USAID).
USAID Funding: The US government provided 52 percent of the money spent by OCCRP between 2014 and 2023.
OCCRP's Independence: Despite presenting itself as an independent organization, OCCRP's management has placed it in a position of structural dependence on the US government,
USAID has complete veto power over appointing key personnel and “helps” direct the organization's annual work plan. USAID has been called “the new CIA" - and this makes its intimate involvement with OCCRP operations highly suspect.
Investigative Focus: OCCRP focuses on foreign governments and entities hostile to American interests, while the organization infrequently investigates its allies.
OCCRP is a key founding partner and leader of the Global Anti-Corruption Consortium (GACC). This program aims to trigger criminal investigations or sanctions proceedings based on OCCRP's articles.
The U.S. government is the primary funder of GACC, having contributed $10.8 million through USAID, but another top funder is the Open Society Foundations (OSF). Founded by George Soros, OSF has provided grants to OCCRP, a key partner in GACC (1).
Finally, OCCRP partners with Transparency International, which Michael Hershman (a former member of US military intelligence) founded. He holds several other key positions, including director at the Centre for International Private Enterprise, Head of Recruitment for FBI informants, and Managing Director of the private intelligence firm Fairfax Group.
Transparency International has been called a front for the CIA's economic intelligence operations. Additionally, it serves as a media tool to convince countries to revise their laws to “promote open markets.” According to Wikispooks, Transparency International is used as a pressure mechanism in the US government's regime change efforts.
Transparency International is funded through the US State Department, the European Commission, the US State Department’s National Endowment for Democracy (NED), Britain’s Department for International Development, and the Open Society Foundations (owned by billionaire George Soros).
OCCRP acts as a propaganda tool for the US government, serves as a media instrument to persuade countries to amend their laws, and OCCRP is utilized as an internal force within the borders of non-US aligned sovereign nation-states to drive regime change initiatives.
==============================================================================================
Can a Critic of the Deep State Run the Deep State?
Tulsi Gabbard has praised Edward Snowden, the most notorious intelligence leaker in U.S. history. Will the Senate confirm her to oversee 18 spy agencies?
President Donald Trump’s pick to be the next director of national intelligence is in trouble. In the hours-long public session of her confirmation hearing before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Thursday, Tulsi Gabbard could not bring herself to agree with senators from both parties that the notorious leaker, Edward Snowden, betrayed his country.
Before the hearing, Gabbard had won the support of the committee’s chairman, Senator Tom Cotton, and most Senate Republicans. But as the hearing dragged on, senators grew visibly uneasy. The usually mild-mannered Senator Michael Bennet, a Democrat from Colorado, raised his voice in frustration at Gabbard’s equivocations about Snowden.
“This is not a moment for social media. It’s not a moment to propagate conspiracy theories,” he said. “This is when you need to answer the questions of the people whose votes you’re asking for to be confirmed as the chief intelligence officer of this nation.”
Oklahoma Republican James Lankford asked: “Was he a traitor at the time when he took America’s secrets, released them in public, and then ran to China and became a Russian citizen?” Gabbard declined to answer him directly and said only that Snowden “broke the law” and that she is “focused on the future.”
This may sound like much ado over ancient history—to mix a metaphor. But to many intelligence pros, there’s no forgetting—or forgiving—how Snowden allegedly used his security clearances to gather digital secrets from the National Security Agency, where he worked as a contractor, and gave them to the press way back in 2013. The leaks detailed some of the U.S. government’s most sensitive surveillance methods, including its infiltration of popular web platforms, and according to both Congressional and intelligence community investigations, did grave damage to U.S. national security.
Gabbard’s past praise for Snowden—“a brave whistleblower,” she called him in 2019—who has since taken asylum in Vladimir Putin’s Russia, marks her as not just a critic of the U.S. intelligence community but a radical one. In 2020 she even publicly urged Trump to pardon Snowden, who faces multiple criminal charges under the Espionage Act.
It’s almost as if someone had picked the late atheist writer Christopher Hitchens to be Pope. The closest historical parallel to Gabbard’s nomination might be President Jimmy Carter’s choice of Ted Sorensen, a CIA critic and former speechwriter for President John F. Kennedy, to run the agency in 1977. The Sorensen nomination failed in the face of bipartisan opposition.
What a difference 50 years have made. Back in Carter’s day, it was the Democratic Party that sought to expose America’s national security state. Now it is Trump’s Republican Party that has cooled on this bureaucracy. In the eyes of Trump and his GOP supporters, the intelligence agencies have been warped into a weapon against American citizens.
And it’s true: The FBI ignored its own procedures in pursuit of a flimsy case that Trump’s 2016 campaign had colluded with Russia. Agents misled the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to obtain a warrant to surveil a former Trump campaign aide, Carter Page. Toward the end of the presidential campaign in 2020, 51 former senior U.S. intelligence officials signed a public letter that implied the laptop abandoned by former president Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, and later passed to the New York Post, was a Russian disinformation operation. In truth, the FBI had already authenticated the laptop. This was the essence of Gabbard’s testimony, her pledge to reform a discredited intelligence community.
The Gabbard nomination fits the broader theme of Trump’s appointments. At the National Institutes of Health, Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and now Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), he has picked some of those institutions’ most trenchant critics to run them. The question before the Senate today—as it heard testimony both from Gabbard and from FBI director pick Kash Patel—is how far the critics can go. Can a person who praised Snowden—the most notorious intelligence leaker in U.S. history—oversee 18 spy agencies?
All of which explains why—though other questionable aspects of Gabbard’s past came up—Snowden was by far the hottest topic on Thursday.
When senators of both parties pressed on her past sympathy for him, Gabbard offered a carefully prepared response. “Edward Snowden broke the law,” she said. “I do not agree with or support all of the information and intelligence that he released, nor the way in which he did it.” But Gabbard did herself no favors when she said that Snowden “released information that exposed egregious, illegal, and unconstitutional programs that are happening within our government.”
Tulsi Gabbard passed the Senate Committee with a 9-8 vote and will join, Pam Bondi, and RFK2 for a final vote very soon.
For more on this story please continue reading the Free Press at:
================================================================================
No comments:
Post a Comment