American interference in the Russian elections — new research shows Communist Party won 1996 election – Yeltsin implanted by Clinton

Some “advisors” have talked openly on C-SPAN-covered events about their involvement in the election and in the “transition” within Russia. 


Time Magazine cover after Yeltsin win

From Fort Russ
June 18th, 2017 – Fort Russ News –
Rusvesna – By Inessa Sinchougova

Boris Yeltsin’s victory at the 1996 election was the direct result of American political consultants, and personally of Bill Clinton, says World Socialist Web Site.
Not only did they supervise the election program of the Russian president, and followed the ratings, but some evidence suggests that the elections were indeed rigged. The real victory belonged to Gennady Zyuganov, Communist Party leader, explains the author.
“The US electoral system is one that legally allows super-rich financial oligarchy to bribe candidates, parties and elections,” – he writes. So, for example, in the disclosed correspondence of the Democratic Party National Committee, it is clear that they were trying to sabotage the campaign of Bernie Sanders, by the manipulation of the electoral process.
“If we are talking about manipulation of elections in other countries, the US ruling elite, its media and political puppets know very well what they are doing. The United States is the world leader in the intervention in elections in other countries”, – says the author of the article, citing research data. In the period from 1946 to 2000, the United States 81 times interfered in the electoral process in other countries.
In addition, this figure does not include the operation to overthrow regimes and military coups that took place in Iran, the Congo, Guatemala, Chile and so on. In fact, the article notes, the US government and its accomplices leave almost no one without intervention, including nominal allies.
However, one case, according to the author, is especially notable in the list of the US undisguised insolence.
“We are talking about 1996, when Boris Yeltsin went to a second term. Then the White House and President Bill Clinton personally conducted a massive campaign in support of the leader, whose regime was established to monitor the final collapse of the Soviet Union and the imposition of capitalism.”
By the time that Yeltsin announced that he will go for a second term, he was one of the most despised people in Russia, asserts the author, due to the privatization of the Russian economy and its catastrophic consequences: There was a 50 percent GDP contraction, hyperinflation, rising corruption, crime, the collapse of the medical sphere, depletion of food and fuel, non-payment of salaries and pensions, living standards fell to catastrophic levels. The war in Chechnya was tearing the country apart in a brutal civil against foreign-funded Wahhabists, while some regions in Siberia stopped conscripting their young men into the army and sending taxes to the federal budget – effectively Russia was disintegrating into several states, and remained a ‘federation’ only in name.
Yeltsin’s opposition was so strong that in 1993 with the help of a dictatorial decree, he dissolved parliament, and with the help of the military, suppressed protests – killing, according to the author of the article, about two thousand people.
“This was the so-called democratic character, which was supported by the United States in the 1996 elections,” – the author writes.
According to the journalist, Yeltsin’s entourage called on him to cancel or postpone the election, fearing that his opponent, Gennady Zyuganov, would win. However, the“rescue of Yeltsin was delegated to American political consultants.” Moreover, this operation was not particularly secret: after the victory of Yeltsin, Time magazine made the appropriate cover and an article, describing how it was done.

The result was due to the American political consultants who had experience in such cases as Watergate and helping Bill Clinton become the governor of Arkansas. The three worked for four months in Russia and received a salary of $250 thousand, plus an unlimited budget to carry out surveys and other civil-political life activities. To hide their mission, they said that they had come to Russia to sell TVs.

The study finds that Yeltsin obtained only 6% of the electorate vote.
Around the same time, the International Monetary Fund, on US request, gave Russia a loan of $ 10.2 billion, which allowed the Russian government to “spend a huge sum for the payment of long-owed wages and pensions to millions of Russians”, forever tying its hands by interest rates. (This was later paid off during Putin’s first term)
The exact role of the Clintons remains blurry, but the US president personally said that he wanted for Yeltsin to be elected as opposed to Zyuganov; calling Yeltsin and teaching him how to campaign – in effect becoming the political adviser of the Russian President.
The author of the article believes that Yeltsin lost the election, and the results were rigged. The same opinion was expressed in 2012 by Dmitry Medvedev.
“This story emphasises the absolute hypocrisy of the CIA, the Democratic Party and the media, who are trying to foment anti-Russian hysteria to prepare aggression against Russia, attributed to its mythical intervention in what has historically been the preserve of America – to determine the outcome of elections in other countries”, – concludes the author.

http://www.fort-russ.com/2017/06/new-research-shows-communist-party-won.html

Advertisements

Nixon’s advisor Ehrlichman said White House enemies were “antiwar left and black people”; WH created fake “war on drugs” to demonize and destroy

Several articles below

From Natural Blaze

Former Nixon Aide Admits War On Drugs Was A Big Lie; Was Never About Drugs

March 23,
By Brandon Turbeville

In an interview conducted by Harper’s Dan Baum nearly 22 years ago, former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman admitted what many have known ever since the beginning – that the Nixon administrations’ War On Drugs was a giant lie.

To clarify, it was not Nixon’s police state that was a lie. That was very real. It was the justification used for the war, the fearmongering, and the panic-inducing hype produced by the White House that was a monumental obfuscation.

Ehrlichman doesn’t mince words when he discusses the War On Drugs and it is not inference suggesting that the justification given for the War on Drugs was a lie. In fact, Ehrlichman even states that the policy was in order to attack political rivals and alleged “threats” to the Nixon administration like “blacks and hippies.”

“The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people,” Ehrlichman said.

“You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities,” Ehrlichman said. “We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

As Tom LoBianco writes for CNN, “It’s a stark departure from Nixon’s public explanation for his first piece of legislation in the war on drugs, delivered in message to Congress in July 1969, which framed it as a response to an increase in heroin addiction and the rising use of marijuana and hallucinogens by students.”

Of course, the War On Drugs and the ensuing police and incarceration states that followed had a much larger purpose than merely helping Nixon fight back against potential political threats. Indeed, most drugs were already illegal by Nixon’s election.

Hiding and preventing the knowledge of positive effects of some substances, shredding Constitutional and human rights, creating a culture of incarceration, and implementing a gradual but eventually total police state were most certainly part of the plan as well, which history has demonstrated. For instance, Reagan and especially Clinton were under no threat from the populations mentioned by Ehrlichman but they nevertheless sent the drug war and the natural results of it listed above into overdrive.

Nevertheless, after setting the United States further down the path of totalitarianism, we at least appreciate Ehrlichman’s honesty even if it is decades later. Perhaps now, we can begin dismantling the drug war.

Photo credit: gmcmullen via Visualhunt / CC BY-NC-SA, modified by editor

[1]

————————————————

 

Here’s the article where Dan Baum reveals this information.

from Harpers

April 2016 issue

Legalize It All
How to win the war on drugs

In 1994, John Ehrlichman, the Watergate co-conspirator, unlocked for me one of the great mysteries of modern American history: How did the United States entangle itself in a policy of drug prohibition that has yielded so much misery and so few good results? Americans have been criminalizing psychoactive substances since San Francisco’s anti-opium law of 1875, but it was Ehrlichman’s boss, Richard Nixon, who declared the first “war on drugs” and set the country on the wildly punitive and counterproductive path it still pursues. I’d tracked Ehrlichman, who had been Nixon’s domestic-policy adviser, to an engineering firm in Atlanta, where he was working on minority recruitment. I barely recognized him. He was much heavier than he’d been at the time of the Watergate scandal two decades earlier, and he wore a mountain-man beard that extended to the middle of his chest.

At the time, I was writing a book about the politics of drug prohibition. I started to ask Ehrlichman a series of earnest, wonky questions that he impatiently waved away.

“You want to know what this was really all about?” he asked with the bluntness of a man who, after public disgrace and a stretch in federal prison, had little left to protect. “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

I must have looked shocked. Ehrlichman just shrugged. Then he looked at his watch, handed me a signed copy of his steamy spy novel, The Company, and led me to the door.

Nixon’s invention of the war on drugs as a political tool was cynical, but every president since — Democrat and Republican alike — has found it equally useful for one reason or another. Meanwhile, the growing cost of the drug war is now impossible to ignore: billions of dollars wasted, bloodshed in Latin America and on the streets of our own cities, and millions of lives destroyed by draconian punishment that doesn’t end at the prison gate; one of every eight black men has been disenfranchised because of a felony conviction…

For the rest of the article, http://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/

——————————————————————–

The interviewer didn’t publish this information, information that shocked him at the time, for 22 years. Instead, he forgot, and only discovered this in his notes when he was writing the Harper article.

From CNN on how this went missing for 22 years — see highlighted text below.

Report: Aide says Nixon’s war on drugs targeted blacks, hippies

By Tom LoBianco, CNN
March 24, 2016

Washington (CNN)One of Richard Nixon’s top advisers and a key figure in the Watergate scandal said the war on drugs was created as a political tool to fight blacks and hippies, according to a 22-year-old interview recently published in Harper’s Magazine.

“The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people,” former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman told Harper’s writer Dan Baum for the April cover story published Tuesday.

“You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities,” Ehrlichman said. “We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

Ehrlichman’s comment is the first time the war on drugs has been plainly characterized as a political assault designed to help Nixon win, and keep, the White House.

It’s a stark departure from Nixon’s public explanation for his first piece of legislation in the war on drugs, delivered in message to Congress in July 1969, which framed it as a response to an increase in heroin addiction and the rising use of marijuana and hallucinogens by students.

However, Nixon’s political focus on white voters, the “Silent Majority,” is well-known. And Nixon’s derision for minorities in private is well-known from his White House recordings.

The comments come as there has been a marked shift in attitudes toward handling drug use — ranging from the legalization of marijuana in various states to White House candidates focusing heavily on treatment as an answer to New Hampshire’s heroin epidemic while they were campaigning across the state.

Ehrlichman died in 1999, but his five children in questioned the veracity of the account.

“We never saw or heard anything from our dad, John Ehrlichman, that was derogatory about any person of color,” wrote Peter Ehrlichman, Tom Ehrlichman, Jan Ehrlichman, Michael Ehrlichman and Jody E. Pineda in a statement provided to CNN.

“The 1994 alleged ‘quote’ we saw repeated in social media for the first time today does not square with what we know of our father. And collectively, that spans over 185 years of time with him,” the Ehrlichman family wrote. “We do not subscribe to the alleged racist point of view that this writer now implies 22 years following the so-called interview of John and 16 years following our father’s death, when dad can no longer respond. None of us have raised our kids that way, and that’s because we were not raised that way.”

Ehrlichman’s comments did not surface until now after Baum remembered them while going back through old notes for the Harper’s story. Baum said he had no reason to believe Ehrlichman was being dishonest and viewed them as “atonement” from a man long after his tumultuous run in the White House ended.

“I think Ehrlichman was waiting for someone to come and ask him. I think he felt bad about it. I think he had a lot to feel bad about, same with Egil Krogh, who was another Watergate guy.” Baum told CNN.

Baum interviewed Ehrlichman and others for his 1996 book “Smoke and Mirrors,” but said he left out the Ehrlichman comment from the book because it did not fit the narrative style focused on putting the readers in the middle of the backroom discussions themselves, without input from the author.

Baum equated Ehrlichman’s admission with traumatic war stories that often take decades for veterans to talk about and said it clearly took time for Ehrlichman and other Nixon aides he interviewed to candidly explain the war on drugs.

“These guys, they knew they’d done bad things and they were glad finally when it was no longer going to cost them anything to be able to talk about it, to atone for it.” Baum said. “Nobody goes in to public service, I don’t think, on either side of the political aisle, to be repressive, to be evil. They go in because they care about the country.”

[3]

[1] This article (Former Nixon Aide Admits War On Drugs Was A Big Lie; Was Never About Drugs) can be republished under a Creative Commons license with  attribution to Brandon Turbeville and Natural Blaze.com.

Brandon Turbevillearticle archive here – is an author out of Florence, South Carolina. He is the author of six books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies,Five Sense SolutionsandDispatches From a Dissident, volume 1and volume 2, The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria, and The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President. Turbeville has published over 600 articles dealing on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s podcast Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.

http://www.naturalblaze.com/2016/03/former-nixon-aide-admits-war-on-drugs-was-a-big-lie-was-never-about-drugs.html

[2] http://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/

Dan Baum is the author of four books, most recently Gun Guys (2013). His most recent article for Harper’s Magazine, “How to Make Your Own AR-15,” appeared in the June 2013 issue.

[3] http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/index.html

Posted under Fair Use Rules.