Comparison Between What Donald Trump Jr. Did With Meeting – And What Hillary Clinton Did In The Ukraine And Podesta In Saudi Arabia.
BY IWB · JULY 23, 2017
Sharing is caring!by Pamela Williams
I want to dedicate this report to the Deep State, as I want to tell them the American people are not stupid, and we are watching them. I think this will be an interesting report as we are going to compare Donald Trump Jr.’s meeting with the Russian lawyer during the 2016 campaign to the facts that the Hillary Clinton campaign hired the firm GP Fusion to dig up dirt on Trump. But, wait, that is only the tip of the iceberg. Not only did her campaign do that, but they also conspired with the Ukraine against Trump.
Now lets look at John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager. He and his brother, Tony, own the Podesta Group. The Podesta Group is on Saudi Arabia’s payroll. In fact, they are listed as a foreign agents for Saudi Arabia. They are tight with Clinton, as they have held fund raisers for her in Tony Podesta’s home….and, of course, everyone knows John Podesta was her campaign manager and her close family friend.
Lets talk first about John Podesta’s situation, and while we are talking, we must ask ourselves, “how Clinton got away with this?” We must also ask ourselves, “what if this were Trump?”
THE PODESTA/SAUDI ARABIA CONNECTION
Democratic Party lobbyist Tony Podesta, whose brother John Podesta chairs Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, is a registered foreign agent on the Saudi government’s payroll.
The lobby firm created by both Tony and John Podesta in 1988 receives $140,000 a month from the Saudi government, a government that beheads nonviolent dissidents, uses torture to extract forced confessions, doesn’t allow women to drive, and bombs schools, hospitals and residential neighborhoods in neighboring Yemen.
The Podesta Group’s March 2016 filing, required under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, shows that Tony Podesta himself oversees the Saudi account. At the same time, Tony Podesta is also a top campaign contributor and bundler for Hillary Clinton. So while one brother runs the campaign, the other brother funds it with earnings that come, in part, from the Saudis.
John and Tony Podesta have been heavyweights in DC insider politics for decades. John Podesta served as President Bill Clinton’s chief of staff, founded the influential DC think tank Center for American Progress (which regularly touts Saudi “reforms”), and was counselor to President Obama. Tony Podesta was dubbed by the New York Times as “one of Washington’s biggest players“ whose clients “are going to get a blueprint for how to succeed in official Washington.”
The brothers seem to have no problem mixing their roles into the same pot. Tony Podesta held a Clinton campaign fundraiser at his home featuring gourmet Italian food cooked by himself and his brother, the campaign chairman. The fundraiser, by the way, came just days after Tony Podesta filed his Saudi contract with the Justice Department, a contract that included an initial “project fee” payment of $200,000.
So I think that is quite something, and I just recently discovered this connection. I knew Clinton accepted money from the Saudis through the Clinton Foundation, but I had no idea that the Podesta Brothers were “Saudi Agents.” I want to know why the Deep State has chosen to overlook this.
CLINTON CAMPAIGN USED UKRAINE TO DIG UP DIRT ON TRUMP.
The media was totally silent on this; in fact, it was silent on the Podestas, too. That goes to show you that the Deep State has bought off mainstream media. If you allow yourself to be bought off by the Deep State, you will be left alone to breaks laws and do as you please. But you got to remember the Deep State gets its marching orders from the Devil, and one day they are going to march all the way into hell.
Alexandra Chalupa was a DNC operative, who has worked in the Clinton White House. The Clinton campaign asked her to work with the Ukrainian government to dig up dirt on Trump and Paul Manafort. Oh, by the way the dirt was Russia-related opposition research on both Manafort and Trump.
“The day after Manafort’s hiring was revealed, she briefed the DNC’s communications staff on Manafort, Trump and their ties to Russia, according to an operative familiar with the situation,” Politico reported.
The Politico report also notes that the DNC encouraged Chalupa to try to arrange an interview with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to talk about Manafort’s ties to the former pro-Russia president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, whom Manafort previously advised.
The embassy declined to arrange the meeting but was nevertheless “helpful,” Chalupa told Politico. “If I asked a question, they would provide guidance, or if there was someone I needed to follow up with,” she said, but added that “There were no documents given, nothing like that.”
Chalupa also told Politico that the Ukrainian embassy worked directly with reporters in uncovering dirt on Manafort and Trump.
OK, lets look at the last thing we have on what Clinton did during her campaign to dig up dirt on Trump. The Clinton campaign hired a firm called Fusion GPS to dig up as much dirt as they could find on Trump. I know you will remember that fake dossier. How could anyone of us forget it and its sleazy contents? The British spy, Christopher Steele, who authored it, had quite the imagination.
Fusion GPS was on the payroll of an unidentified Democratic ally of Clinton when it hired a long-retired British spy to dig up dirt on Trump. In 2012, Democrats hired Fusion GPS to uncover dirt on GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney. And in 2015, Democrat ally Planned Parenthood retained Fusion GPS to investigate pro-life activists protesting the abortion group.
More, federal records show a key co-founder and partner in the firm was a Hillary Clinton donor and supporter of her presidential campaign.
In September 2016, while Fusion GPS was quietly shopping the dirty dossier on Trump around Washington, its co-founder and partner Peter R. Fritsch contributed at least $1,000 to the Hillary Victory Fund and the Hillary For America campaign, Federal Election Commission data show. His wife also donated money to Hillary’s campaign.
WHY IS THE FAKE DOSSIER IMPORTANT?
Because if Fusion created a fake document to launch a fake investigation, they are in big trouble.
However, if Clinton or her operatives commissioned this fake report, we would have the most explosive story of the decade.
Consider the number of left-wing media outlets who chose to run with this story?
The outlets who chose to run this unverified story could be accused of collusion with Clinton. Thus, they would be complicit in interfering in a U.S. election.
As I have written, Democrats had no idea how the Russia farce would play out. They figured they could exert enough influence on public opinion that the truth wouldn’t matter.
A weakened media added to a Democratic Party known for lying killed the strategy. Now leftists up and down the food chain find themselves hanging precariously out to dry.
DONALD TRUMP JR.’S MEETING WITH RUSSIAN LAWYER
Now lets go to the current situation with Donald Trump Jr. Some lawyers are saying he committed “treason,” which in my opinion is ridiculous. However, if he did, Hillary Clinton has treason written all over her! There is no way we can stand by and watch the Deep State let Clinton get away with the above, while President Trump is eventually impeached.
“There’s a strong case that Donald Trump Jr. violated the prohibition on knowingly soliciting a contribution from a foreign national,” said Brendan Fischer of Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan campaign finance reform group.
The relevant statute — 52 U.S.C. 30121, 36 U.S.C. 510 — bars foreign nationals from making any “contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value” in connection with any election. It also says no American “shall knowingly solicit, accept or receive from a foreign national any contribution or donation” in connection with any election.
In an exclusive interview with NBC News, Veselnitskaya denied being linked to the Russian government.
Kremlin officials said Monday that they were unfamiliar with her. But “even if [Veselnitskaya] was not acting on behalf of the government,” Fischer said, “she would still meet the definition of a foreign national.”
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
Richard Painter, who served as chief ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush from 2005 to 2007, said a potential violation of campaign finance law was just one of several legal storms Trump Jr. could face. He said the son of the president might be “legally vulnerable” on questions of espionage, for example.
Democratic lawmakers suggested Tuesday that the scope of the larger Russia investigation had widened after the latest revelations. Clinton’s vice presidential running mate, Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Virginia, went so far as to say the investigation is “moving into perjury, false statements and even into potentially treason.”
If Trump Jr. is found to have knowingly and willfully violated campaign finance law, Fischer said, the Justice Department could issue criminal penalties.
“But I would suspect that, in this instance, where there’s a special prosecutor leading an investigation into all things Russia, that responsibility would probably fall with him,” Fischer said.
Goodman, the NYU professor, said Trump Jr. may have hurt his own case by appearing to have changed his story since Saturday, when The New York Times first reported news of the meeting.
“His lawyers have to be thinking about the shrinking set of options he has,” Goodman said.
OK…I WANT TO MAKE MY POINT VERY CLEAR: IF TRUMP JR. IS GUILTY OF VIOLATION OF CAMPAIGN LAWS, SO IS HILLARY CLINTON!
The following video explains all of this very well, and Richard Spencer is a very intelligent man. He says Donald Trump Jr. Is not guilty of anything, as this type of political research is done all the time. I want to give a shout out to the Deep State! The American people are not stupid, and we refuse to watch Donald Trump Jr. be convicted of something Hillary Clinton has done ten times over.
Published on Jul 12, 2017
Richard Spencer discusses the two central reasons the Deep State is trying to destroy Donald Trump Jr. (who did nothing wrong).
THE CIVIL WAR IS HERE
The left doesn’t want to secede. It wants to rule.
March 27, 2017
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.
A civil war has begun.
This civil war is very different than the last one. There are no cannons or cavalry charges. The left doesn’t want to secede. It wants to rule. Political conflicts become civil wars when one side refuses to accept the existing authority. The left has rejected all forms of authority that it doesn’t control.
The left has rejected the outcome of the last two presidential elections won by Republicans. It has rejected the judicial authority of the Supreme Court when it decisions don’t accord with its agenda. It rejects the legislative authority of Congress when it is not dominated by the left.
It rejected the Constitution so long ago that it hardly bears mentioning.
It was for total unilateral executive authority under Obama. And now it’s for states unilaterally deciding what laws they will follow. (As long as that involves defying immigration laws under Trump, not following them under Obama.) It was for the sacrosanct authority of the Senate when it held the majority. Then it decried the Senate as an outmoded institution when the Republicans took it over.
It was for Obama defying the orders of Federal judges, no matter how well grounded in existing law, and it is for Federal judges overriding any order by Trump on any grounds whatsoever. It was for Obama penalizing whistleblowers, but now undermining the government from within has become “patriotic”.
There is no form of legal authority that the left accepts as a permanent institution. It only utilizes forms of authority selectively when it controls them. But when government officials refuse the orders of the duly elected government because their allegiance is to an ideology whose agenda is in conflict with the President and Congress, that’s not activism, protest, politics or civil disobedience; it’s treason.
After losing Congress, the left consolidated its authority in the White House. After losing the White House, the left shifted its center of authority to Federal judges and unelected government officials. Each defeat led the radicalized Democrats to relocate from more democratic to less democratic institutions.
This isn’t just hypocrisy. That’s a common political sin. Hypocrites maneuver within the system. The left has no allegiance to the system. It accepts no laws other than those dictated by its ideology.
Democrats have become radicalized by the left. This doesn’t just mean that they pursue all sorts of bad policies. It means that their first and foremost allegiance is to an ideology, not the Constitution, not our country or our system of government. All of those are only to be used as vehicles for their ideology.
That’s why compromise has become impossible.
Our system of government was designed to allow different groups to negotiate their differences. But those differences were supposed to be based around finding shared interests. The most profound of these shared interests was that of a common country based around certain civilizational values. The left has replaced these Founding ideas with radically different notions and principles. It has rejected the primary importance of the country. As a result it shares little in the way of interests or values.
Instead it has retreated to cultural urban and suburban enclaves where it has centralized tremendous amounts of power while disregarding the interests and values of most of the country. If it considers them at all, it is convinced that they will shortly disappear to be replaced by compliant immigrants and college indoctrinated leftists who will form a permanent demographic majority for its agenda.
But it couldn’t wait that long because it is animated by the conviction that enforcing its ideas is urgent and inevitable. And so it turned what had been a hidden transition into an open break.
In the hidden transition, its authority figures had hijacked the law and every political office they held to pursue their ideological agenda. The left had used its vast cultural power to manufacture a consensus that was slowly transitioning the country from American values to its values and agendas. The right had proven largely impotent in the face of a program which corrupted and subverted from within.
The left was enormously successful in this regard. It was so successful that it lost all sense of proportion and decided to be open about its views and to launch a political power struggle after losing an election.
The Democrats were no longer being slowly injected with leftist ideology. Instead the left openly took over and demanded allegiance to open borders, identity politics and environmental fanaticism. The exodus of voters wiped out the Democrats across much of what the left deemed flyover country.
The left responded to democratic defeats by retreating deeper into undemocratic institutions, whether it was the bureaucracy or the corporate media, while doubling down on its political radicalism. It is now openly defying the outcome of a national election using a coalition of bureaucrats, corporations, unelected officials, celebrities and reporters that are based out of its cultural and political enclaves.
It has responded to a lost election by constructing sanctuary cities and states thereby turning a cultural and ideological secession into a legal secession. But while secessionists want to be left alone authoritarians want everyone to follow their laws. The left is an authoritarian movement that wants total compliance with its dictates with severe punishments for those who disobey.
The left describes its actions as principled. But more accurately they are ideological. Officials at various levels of government have rejected the authority of the President of the United States, of Congress and of the Constitution because those are at odds with their radical ideology. Judges have cloaked this rejection in law. Mayors and governors are not even pretending that their actions are lawful.
The choices of this civil war are painfully clear.
We can have a system of government based around the Constitution with democratically elected representatives. Or we can have one based on the ideological principles of the left in which all laws and processes, including elections and the Constitution, are fig leaves for enforcing social justice.
But we cannot have both.
Some civil wars happen when a political conflict can’t be resolved at the political level. The really bad ones happen when an irresolvable political conflict combines with an irresolvable cultural conflict.
That is what we have now.
The left has made it clear that it will not accept the lawful authority of our system of government. It will not accept the outcome of elections. It will not accept these things because they are at odds with its ideology and because they represent the will of large portions of the country whom they despise.
The question is what comes next.
The last time around growing tensions began to explode in violent confrontations between extremists on both sides. These extremists were lauded by moderates who mainstreamed their views. The first Republican president was elected and rejected. The political tensions led to conflict and then civil war.
The left doesn’t believe in secession. It’s an authoritarian political movement that has lost democratic authority. There is now a political power struggle underway between the democratically elected officials and the undemocratic machinery of government aided by a handful of judges and local elected officials.
What this really means is that there are two competing governments; the legal government and a treasonous anti-government of the left. If this political conflict progresses, agencies and individuals at every level of government will be asked to demonstrate their allegiance to these two competing governments. And that can swiftly and explosively transform into an actual civil war.
There is no sign that the left understands or is troubled by the implications of the conflict it has initiated. And there are few signs that Democrats properly understand the dangerous road that the radical left is drawing them toward. The left assumes that the winners of a democratic election will back down rather than stand on their authority. It is unprepared for the possibility that democracy won’t die in darkness.
Civil wars end when one side is forced to accept the authority of the other. The left expects everyone to accept its ideological authority. Conservatives expect the left to accept Constitutional authority. The conflict is still political and cultural. It’s being fought in the media and within the government. But if neither side backs down, then it will go beyond words as both sides give contradictory orders.
The left is a treasonous movement. The Democrats became a treasonous organization when they fell under the sway of a movement that rejects our system of government, its laws and its elections. Now their treason is coming to a head. They are engaged in a struggle for power against the government. That’s not protest. It’s not activism. The old treason of the sixties has come of age. A civil war has begun.
This is a primal conflict between a totalitarian system and a democratic system. Its outcome will determine whether we will be a free nation or a nation of slaves.
Senate Republican Suicide
A filibuster deal with Democrats over Gorsuch would be a judicial and political disaster.
01:13 / 03:31
Opinion Journal Video: Editorial Features Editor James Taranto on the Senate Minority Leader’s threat to filibuster a Supreme Court Justice nominee. Photo credit: European Pressphoto Agency.
Updated March 31, 2017 12:10 p.m. ET
House Republicans immolated themselves over health care last week, and now Democrats are hoping the Senate GOP will perform its own kamikaze turn over Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch. If Republicans blink and tolerate Democratic filibusters of High Court nominees, they should hand over their majority to the Democrats now.
Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s strategy is transparent: Stage-manage an unprecedented filibuster against Judge Gorsuch, and then portray Republicans as radicals if they change Senate rules to break it. The gambit is to coax at least three of the 52 GOP Senators to cut a deal with Democrats that hands the minority political leverage over President Trump’s judicial nominees.
Mr. Schumer and other Democrats are trying to lure those Republicans into a deal by preaching a false institutionalism that claims to be acting for the good of the Senate. They want to scare the GOP into believing that breaking a filibuster would somehow break the Senate as a deliberative body that requires 60 votes and bipartisan consensus to act.
But the real radical act is a Supreme Court filibuster. Mr. Schumer wants to use the filibuster to defeat Judge Gorsuch outright, or negotiate a deal that gives the judge a confirmation pass of 60 votes in return for a guarantee that GOP Senators won’t break a filibuster on future nominees during the Trump Presidency.
Kimberley Strassel argues that the health-care bill was the greatest entitlement reform ever attempted in this country.Either result would do great harm to the Senate’s advice and consent role under the Constitution, tilt the Supreme Court to the left, reward the most partisan voices in the Senate on the left and right, further inflame grassroots conservative outrage against political elites, and deal a grievous wound to the Republican Party. Other than that, a great day at the office.
Start with the fact that there has never been a partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee. The elevation of Justice Abe Fortas to become Chief Justice in 1968 failed amid bipartisan opposition due to his policy collaboration with the White House while he was a Justice.
The one cloture vote to end debate on that nomination failed 45-43, well short of the 67 votes required at the time. Nineteen Democrats and 24 Republicans voted against cloture in what was the last year of Lyndon Johnson’s Presidency, and Fortas asked LBJ to withdraw his nomination.
Filibusters were mooted against William Rehnquist and Samuel Alito but never materialized. A cloture vote against Rehnquist failed in 1971, 52-42, but he was later confirmed 68-26. Justice Alito easily won a cloture vote and was confirmed 58-42. Republicans never even attempted to filibuster the four Bill Clinton or Barack Obama nominees who were confirmed. (Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell opposed consideration of any nominee to replace Antonin Scalia before the 2016 election before Mr. Obama nominated Merrick Garland. )
The real break from this tradition began in 2001-2002 when Democrats decided to filibuster George W. Bush’s appellate-court nominees, and this example is politically instructive. After the GOP retook the Senate, a rump group of Republicans and Democrats struck the Gang of 14 deal that agreed to confirm nominees except in “exceptional circumstances.”
But Democrats ended that deal when they regained power. In 2013 they unilaterally rewrote Senate rules to break the filibuster for appellate nominees so Mr. Obama could pack the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Democrats would surely do the same for the Supreme Court the next time they control the White House and Senate, as Senator Tim Kaine explicitly promised to do if Hillary Clinton won the election.
A deal now with Democrats would create a double standard in which GOP nominees are subject to a 60-vote standard but future Democratic nominees aren’t. It would also deny other Senators their constitutional right to offer advice and consent by casting a vote on nominees. A filibuster essentially blocks a vote to confirm, though a nominee like Judge Gorsuch would receive more than 50 votes. He could be denied a seat on the Court on purely procedural grounds, something that has never happened.
If Judge Gorsuch is confirmed, the next opening could come as early as the end of the current Supreme Court term in June and could determine its direction for years. If Democrats know they can block any nominee with a filibuster, they can dictate that no one on Donald Trump’s campaign list of 21 potential nominees can be confirmed.
Democrats could guarantee that no one to the right of Justice Stephen Breyer can be confirmed. This would reward the furthest left Senators for their total resistance, which would in turn empower the most recalcitrant voices in the GOP caucus. Far from empowering moderates, a filibuster deal would reward the likes of Elizabeth Warren and Rand Paul.
This would betray the voters who elected Donald Trump and a GOP Senate in 2016. The Supreme Court wasn’t some political afterthought last year. It was central to the campaign and crucial in motivating millions of Americans to go to the polls. If you think GOP voters are angry now, imagine what they’ll be like if Republicans let Democrats block conservative judges. This would be Senate Republican suicide.
After the health-care fiasco, Republicans need to show Americans they can follow through on their governing promises. If the GOP doesn’t want to squander its Senate majority, it will stay united and confirm Neil Gorsuch, even if it means breaking an unprecedented Senate filibuster.
Appeared in the Mar. 31, 2017, print edition.
How to Think About Vladimir Putin
March 2017 • Volume 46, Number 3 •
Christopher CaldwellSenior Editor, The Weekly Standard
Christopher Caldwell is a senior editor at The Weekly Standard. A graduate of Harvard College, his essays, columns, and reviews appear in the Claremont Review of Books, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times Book Review, the Spectator (London), Financial Times, and numerous other publications. He is the author of Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Immigration, Islam, and the West, and is at work on a book about post-1960s America.
The following is adapted from a speech delivered on February 15, 2017, at a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar in Phoenix, Arizona.
Vladimir Putin is a powerful ideological symbol and a highly effective ideological litmus test. He is a hero to populist conservatives around the world and anathema to progressives. I don’t want to compare him to our own president, but if you know enough about what a given American thinks of Putin, you can probably tell what he thinks of Donald Trump.
Let me stress at the outset that this is not going to be a talk about what to think about Putin, which is something you are all capable of making up your minds on, but rather howto think about him. And on this, there is one basic truth to remember, although it is often forgotten. Our globalist leaders may have deprecated sovereignty since the end of the Cold War, but that does not mean it has ceased for an instant to be the primary subject of politics.
Vladimir Vladimirovich is not the president of a feminist NGO. He is not a transgender-rights activist. He is not an ombudsman appointed by the United Nations to make and deliver slide shows about green energy. He is the elected leader of Russia—a rugged, relatively poor, militarily powerful country that in recent years has been frequently humiliated, robbed, and misled. His job has been to protect his country’s prerogatives and its sovereignty in an international system that seeks to erode sovereignty in general and views Russia’s sovereignty in particular as a threat.
By American standards, Putin’s respect for the democratic process has been fitful at best. He has cracked down on peaceful demonstrations. Political opponents have been arrested and jailed throughout his rule. Some have even been murdered—Anna Politkovskaya, the crusading Chechnya correspondent shot in her apartment building in Moscow in 2006; Alexander Litvinenko, the spy poisoned with polonium-210 in London months later; the activist Boris Nemtsov, shot on a bridge in Moscow in early 2015. While the evidence connecting Putin’s own circle to the killings is circumstantial, it merits scrutiny.
Yet if we were to use traditional measures for understanding leaders, which involve the defense of borders and national flourishing, Putin would count as the pre-eminent statesman of our time. On the world stage, who can vie with him? Only perhaps Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of Turkey.
When Putin took power in the winter of 1999-2000, his country was defenseless. It was bankrupt. It was being carved up by its new kleptocratic elites, in collusion with its old imperial rivals, the Americans. Putin changed that. In the first decade of this century, he did what Kemal Atatürk had done in Turkey in the 1920s. Out of a crumbling empire, he rescued a nation-state, and gave it coherence and purpose. He disciplined his country’s plutocrats. He restored its military strength. And he refused, with ever blunter rhetoric, to accept for Russia a subservient role in an American-run world system drawn up by foreign politicians and business leaders. His voters credit him with having saved his country...(Read More...)
#CNNLeaks: Project Veritas Releases Over 100 Hours of Audio From Inside CNN
The Inside Story on How Trump Dropped the Hammer on James Comey
There are very few crime/mystery novels that approach this true story for compelling drama, intrigue and brinkmanship (with the nation in the balance).Don’t believe the fake-media story that Trump made a mistake or huge gaffe by firing Comey.
Don’t believe the media narrative from the left that it was an attempt to silence Comey from some investigation into Trump.
Don’t believe the RINO narrative that Comey is a good guy just trying to do his job in terrible circumstances and the timing was bad.
Don’t believe the lie that Comey was admired and respected by career FBI investigators and agents.
Don’t believe the lie that Trump’s “tweets” are not professional and have no strategic purpose. His tweets are weaponized and deadly.
James Comey is a poisonous snake of the highest order… a deep-water Swamp Denizen who has been highly paid to deliberately provide cover for high-level corruption by the Clintons and Obama. He is has been central to trying to destroy the Trump campaign and then the Trump administration from the start. He is as dirty as they come in DC. He had highest-level cover (the FBI no less) and was deep into an effort to eliminate Trump. Trump had to move hard, fast, and at exactly the right time to cut the head off the snake without getting bitten by the snake or being finished by the other swamp denizens.
Begin by noticing how the President fired Comey when Comey was 3,000 miles away from his office, that Comey had no inkling he was being cut, that all his files, computers, and everything in his office were seized by his boss Sessions and the justice department. This was not a violation of protocol, it was tactical. Notice how Prez Trump compartmentalized the strike and did not inform any of his White House “staff” to prevent leaks. Notice how he emasculated Comey and the swamp denizens by letting them know in a tweet that the Attorney General got information (surveillance “tapes” from the seizure of Comey’s office) to let Comey and his handlers know that Trump’s DOJ has the goods on them. This was a brilliant, strategic and totally imperative move at exactly the right time against horrible, evil and corrupt powers infesting our government.
The swamp is on notice that the President is on to them, they are sweating bullets because their criminal games of corruption are being pursued and they know it. They are screaming and ranting because they are desperate denizens of the swamp who are beginning to realize they are roadkill.
THIS IS WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE COMEY SCAM. Taken from credible public sources (readily available if you want to look or want me to send them to you), with a few reasonable “fill in the blank” conclusions of my own.
Comey was a minor assistant US attorney in the late 90’s. He only gained power and money by being the DOJ official who “investigated” and cleared Bill Clinton of any wrong-doing in Clinton’s totally corrupt pardon (for huge payoffs) of criminal financier Marc Rich as Clinton was leaving the Presidency. This is how Comey began his career as a creature of the “swamp” years ago, as a servant of the Clintons.
Comey provided “cover” for the Clintons in their gaining incredible power and wealth after leaving office through pardoning a billionaire money-launderer, arms dealer and criminal. Comey was a key piece in how the Clintons upped their corruption game and gained incredible wealth through their foundation after leaving the White House. A huge part of the scheme was giving Marc Rich a free pass when he should have spent life in prison, and that is what Comey covered-up for the Clintons. This set up Comey to be part of the corruption machine, making him powerful and wealthy.
Immediately after doing the Clinton’s dirty work as a DOJ official, Comey resigned from the DOJ and took a position as the head attorney (Counsel) of the Lockheed Martin company, a huge military contractor. While he was in that position Lockheed became a major contributor (millions) to the Clinton Foundation and its fake charity spin-offs. In return for these payment to Clinton Inc., Lockheed received huge contracts with Hillary’s state department. Comey was the chief legal officer of Lockheed throughout this period of contributions to Clinton Inc. in return for State Dept. contracts.
In late 2012, after overseeing Lockheed’s successful relationship with the Hillary State Department and the resulting profits, Comey stepped down from Lockheed and received a $6 million dollar payout for his services.
In 2013, the largest bank of England, HSBC Holdings, was deep into a scandal. Investigations by federal authorities and law-enforcement had revealed that for years HSBC had been laundering billions of dollars for Mexican Drug Cartels, channeling money for Saudi banks who were financing terror, moving money for Iran in violation of the sanctions, and other major criminal activity. HSBC’s criminality was pervasive and deliberate by the Bank and its officials. HSBC was a huge Clinton Foundation contributor (many millions) throughout the “investigation” and Bill Clinton was being paid large personal fees for speaking at HSBC events (while Hillary was Sec of State). Eric Holder and the Obama Justice Department did what they were paid to do, and let HSBC off of the hook for a paltry 1.2 Billion dollar fine (paid by its stockholders), and not one Director, officer or management member at HSBC was fired or charged with any criminal. Exactly when everyone involved with HSBC Bank (including the Clintons and all of their “donors”) were being let off without penalty, and cover had to be provided to HSBC, Comey was appointed as a Director and Member of the Board of HSBC (in the middle of the fallout from the scandal). He was part of the effort to cover up the scandal and make HSBC “respectable” again.
After about a year as HSBC director, despite his lack of any law enforcement experience, no DOJ leadership experience, and no qualifications for the job, Comey was appointed FBI director by Obama. The only qualification Comey had was that the Clintons and their cronies knew Comey was in bed with them, was compromised and was willing to do their dirty work. Comey was appointed to the FBI right when Hillary was leaving the State Department, and was vulnerable to the FBI because she had been using a private-server, mis-handling classified information, selling access to favors/contracts from the State Department to Clinton Foundation Donors (including Comey’s Lockheed Martin), and much more. Remember that this was about the time the Inspector General of the State Department found over 2 billion “missing” from the State Department finances during Hillary’s tenure.
The obvious conclusion is that Comey was appointed to the FBI (along with other reliable Clinton-Obama cronies) to run interference for the Clintons and Obama’s at the nation’s federal law enforcement agency(in conjunction with a corrupt Department of Justice). Comey was and is owned by the Clintons. He owed all of his power and wealth to being part of their machine and providing them with cover.
In late 2015 and early 2016, information began to come out about the Clinton Foundation and its use by the Clintons as a multi-billion dollar slush fund for corruption and political favors. (even Chelsea’s wedding had been paid for by the “charity) This was right as Hillary was beginning her campaign for President. It was revealed that the Foundation had never completed required reports or had an audit. Supposedly the FBI, under Comey, began an “investigation” of the Clinton Funds. A “professional” accounting firm was brought in by the Clintons to do a review, file some reports, make recommendations to the Clinton Foundation Board, and provide a veneer of legitimacy to the Clinton Fund operations. Predictably, one of the partners in the firm that was chosen (and paid lots of money) is the brother of James Comey (FBI Director). This brother owes James Comey $700,000 for a loan James gave him to buy a house, and presumably some of the money from the Clinton Fund was used to make payments to James on the loan. Over 2 years later and nothing has happened as a result of the FBI “investigating” the Clinton Funds under Comey.
No one in congress or federal law enforcement was intending to actually pursue the Clintons, but Judicial Watch and other independent sources obtained information proving that Hillary had been running her own server, sending out classified information, etc. This information began to come out right in the middle of her campaign to be coronated as President. A “show” investigation had to be performed to appear to look into it and clear her. Who to use?…the reliable shill James Comey.
As head of the FBI, Comey (and his lackeys in key positions) deliberately screwed up the investigation into Hillary’s use of a private server and her plain violation of national security law on classified information. The investigation was deliberately mis-handled in every aspect. Comey gave immunity to all of Hillary’s lackeys, did not use subpoenas or warrants, lost evidence, allowed the destruction of evidence, failed to do any searches or seizures of evidence, did not use a grand-jury, did not swear witnesses, did not record testimony, allowed attorneys to represent multiple suspects (corrupting the testimony). Everything that could be done to ruin the FBI investigation and to cover for Hillary was done. A “slam-dunk” case became a mess. Immunity was given every witness even though they provided no help. Maybe more importantly, by focusing the FBI on the email scandal, attention was drawn away from the much bigger scandal of the Clinton Foundation that could bring down a huge number of corrupt politicians, lobbyists, and even governments.
Originally, Comey’s job was simply to totally botch the Hillary investigation and ruin the case against her and her minions within the FBI regarding he emails. At the same time Comey also started work on a parallel assignment to illegally “wiretap” and surveil Donald Trump and every other person involved in the Republican campaign. He was tasked with digging up any dirt or fact that could be used to hurt the Trump campaign later. This included using a fake “dossier” paid for by the Clinton campaign to obtain authorization for the surveillance and to try to associate Trump’s campaign with the Russians. Under Comey’s direction the Trump/republican campaign was monitored and surveilled and all information was provided to the Obama White House and the Clinton camp all during the campaign.
Lorretta Lynch was supposed to complete the coverup for Hillary as Attorney General by issuing a finding that the deliberately botched FBI “investigation” did not justify prosecution of Hillary. But someone screwed up and Bill Clinton was video’d meeting with Loretta Lynch in Arizona shortly before she was supposed to make her decision on Hillary (interference with a federal investigation), and Lynch could no longer credibly squash the Hillary scandal. The solution, give the job to James. The Clintons owned him and he would have to do whatever is necessary to provide cover.
Comey goes on national TV and violates every rule of the FBI, the Justice Department and American law enforcement by revealing some of the FBI’s “evidence” of what Hillary did (enough to make it look like the FBI and Comey did some investigation), then declaring that there was no “intent” and clearing Hillary. He did what he was ordered to do. The Justice Department and Obama backed Comey’s coverup and it looked like Hillary had survived the scandal.
Then, right before the election, the NYPD obtained pervert Anthony Wiener’s laptop and found classified emails from Hillary on the laptop. The NYPD began leaking details to new-media outlets, and the story was about to explode. Comey once again stepped in to cover Hillary. He short-circuited the NYPD leaks by publicly acknowledging the laptop and the emails, but then claimed just days later that hundreds of thousands of emails had all been reviewed and “nothing new” was on the laptop. Once again, he had done his job. Providing cover and FBI “protection” for Hillary on the newest scandal when it broke.
If Hillary had won, Comey would have kept right on providing cover for the corruption of the Clinton machine. He would have kept the FBI paralyzed, prevented the Clinton Fund from being investigated, and continued to do his job as the Clinton’s personal scandal eraser at the FBI.
BUT TRUMP WON.
The Swamp and its bottom-dwelling denizens realize they are at risk from this political outsider who is not connected to the uni-party machines. Before Trump takes office, a “failsafe” plan is implemented to ruin Trump’s administration and try to force him out of the Presidency. The key players committed to the plan are the democrat politicians, the RINO establishment, the media, the Obama-Clinton operatives imbedded throughout the intelligence agencies and the entire bureaucracy, and most importantly, the Obama DOJ and JAMES COMEY. The scheme is to smear Trump with Russian “connections,” through a fake FBI “investigation” and more importantly, to trap him into a charge of criminal interference with the FBI. COMEY IS THE CENTRAL FIGURE IN THE SCHEME TO TAKE DOWN TRUMP.
The surveillance of the Trump campaign is continued after he is elected, all participants are “unmasked” illegally, and the transcripts are leaked throughout the government and to the media. When General Flynn appropriately calls Russian officials on behalf of Trump, they brush off the old fake “dossier” and all of the surveillance of the campaign, and Comey creates the “Russian Conspiracy” investigation. With help by RINO swamp kingpin and warmonger sell-out McCain, the fake “Russian pee dossier” is leaked to the press. There is no actual evidence of any collusion or connection between Trump or his campaign with Russia, but that does not prevent Comey from initiating an “investigation” at the FBI. This provides Comey with protection from Trump firing him immediately. Comey (or his minions) constantly leak news of the “Russia Investigation” to the media, and the media does its scripted part by screaming constantly about “Russia.” The Democrats fill their role and constantly scream about “Russia.” McCain and the RINO establishment do their part by promising to “investigate” how the Russians influenced the campaign.
Immediately after Trump is sworn in, the DOJ Hillary/Obama operatives and Comey start the direct attack. This is before Sessions has been appointed to the Department of Justice and the DOJ is still controlled by Obama operatives. DOJ Obama appointee Sally Yates approaches the White House with news that General Flynn had been in contact with Russia and alleges that he might be compromised. She reveals that there is an FBI “investigation” into the Russia ties (which they are constantly leaking to the media themselves). The White House Counsel (who Yates talks to, not Trump) asks for some more information.
The day before the promised additional information is to be provided by Yates to the White House, Comey sets up a dinner with Trump. If he can get Trump to ask about Flynn or try to intervene regarding Flynn or Russia then Trump can be charged with “interfering with an FBI investigation.” MY OPINION IS THAT COMEY SURVEILLED AND “TAPED” THIS MEETING IN HIS ATTEMPT TO SET UP TRUMP.
This is a two-pronged attack. It protects Comey and DOJ democrat holdovers from being terminated by the new administration because they are involved in an “ongoing investigation” that they control the timetable on(albeit one with absolutely no evidence). If Trump fires Comey then he is “interfering with the investigation” which is itself a federal crime that the FBI could then “investigate.” Alternatively, if they can get Trump to question Comey about Flynn or try to get him to back off of Flynn or the “Russia” investigation, then they again have him “interfering.”
Trump knows it is a set up by Comey and that he is probably being recorded (tips from FBI or DOJ who are not part of the corruption?) Maybe because his phone calls in the White House as President have already been bugged and released to the media. (FBI is in the best position to do this) Maybe because he was used to the Mafia in NY trying to shake him down every time he built a hotel. Comey tells Trump that Trump is not under investigation regarding Russia, but that others involved with the campaign are being investigated. Trump does not take the bait and attempt to intervene about Flynn or the Russia scam. Later, Flynn is cut loose because he is being used by Comey and the Obama-holdover Justice to try to damage Trump. He did nothing wrong, but if he stayed the charge of “interfering with an investigation” might seem to have teeth. Comey verbally tells Trump on two more occasions that he is not being investigated, but refuses to state this fact publicly or when testifying in Congress.
Trump knows everything I have gone through above about Comey. But he has to move carefully. He has to get his Attorney General and Deputy AG in place, get enough leverage on the Russia narrative, and ideally get rid of Comey in a way that allows him to obtain all the information that Comey has been accumulating (if he is taping Trump he is taping others). Comey, and others testify in Congress. Under oath, both Sally Yates and Intelligence officials from the Obama administration state that there has been no actual evidence of any collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. More importantly, Comey, while refusing to say that Trump is not under investigation, testifies that he has informed the Senate Intelligence Committee heads who exactly is under investigation regarding Russia.
Trump tells almost no one at the White House that he is moving against Comey (so no leaks… no listening in on his conversations) Trump somehow contacts Sen. Grassley (the Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee) and confirms that Comey told the Senator that Trump was not under investigation personally. Trump gets both the Attorney General and the new Deputy Attorney General to legitimately review Comey’s unprofessional actions at the FBI and to recommend in writing that Trump terminate Comey. Somehow Comey goes to California (at the request of AG Sessions or already scheduled and someone at FBI telling Trump?).
Trump seizes the moment and acts. While Comey is in California, 3000 miles away and 7 hours from his office, Trump prepares a letter firing him (with Sessions and the Deputy AG recommendations attached). In the letter Trump states that he had been told 3 times by Comey that he (Trump) was not under investigation. The letter is hand-delivered to the FBI headquarters by DOJ officials to lock-down and seize everything in Comey’s office, including all surveillance files (“tapes”) of Trump and others. All of Comey’s files, docs, computers and “tapes” are taken to Sessions at DOJ. They are not taken to the White House or Trump, but to Sessions, who has every right to have them. Sessions can tell Trump that Comey had surveillance tapes of Trump that contradict what Comey has been telling Trump, and perhaps tapes of conversations with other swamp “conspirators.” But Trump does not have them personally or at the White House.
Comey learns he has been fired when the media broadcasts it in California. He had no idea it was coming and he is ticked. On cue, the Democrat politicians and media begin screaming about Trump’s “interference with the Russia investigation” in accordance with the plan to set up Trump for that charge. The Swamp wants to blow up the Russia narrative using Comey, and Comey is set to testify before Congress to try to hurt Trump by saying he was interfering with the FBI investigation. Comey intends to follow through with the plan to take down Trump.
But because of his brilliant timing on this, Trump has Comey’s files, documents and information safely with Sessions at DOJ. Trump sends out a “crazy” tweet that says: “James Comey better hope that there are no “tapes” of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press.”
The media and the politicians go crazy about the “inappropriateness” of this tweet. They accuse Trump of “taping” everyone at the White House (forgetting that the Presidents phone calls with foreign leaders have been “taped” without his knowledge.)
Notice that Trump did not say he taped anyone, or that he has any tapes at the White House. It seem apparent that Trump is telling Comey that the DOJ (who has every legal right to possess it) has the surveillance information and files from Comey’s office, the “tapes” obtained and kept by Comey. Comey and all the Swamp Creatures understand the clear message… their plan has failed and Trump’s DOJ is now holding all the cards.
The whole Russia interference scheme crashes and burns. While the mouthpiece media, Hollywood and the insane fringe continue to scream about Russia and Comey being fired, the politicians who will soon be in the crosshairs of a legitimate (and ticked) FBI and DOJ are starting to fall strangely silent. Comey realizes all the leverage is with Trump and that he will be lucky if he is not added to the Clinton Death List because of his knowledge (better not take any baths near an electrical outlet or get on any airplanes).
Comey tells Congress he will not testify and writes a public letter to the FBI accepting his firing and telling them he does not want to discuss why or how he was terminated. Senator Grassley and Senator Feinstein (she must be covering her butt in fear …) issue public statements confirming that Comey told them that the “Russia Investigation” does not involve President Trump personally.
AG Sessions and his Deputy AG use the Comey trove of information to determine who has been part of the Comey Syndicate at the FBI. They will be appointing an “interim” Director of the FBI shortly who has not been compromised by Comey, Clinton or Obama. That “interim” Director does not have to be approved by Congress or anyone, and can immediately begin cleaning house at the FBI of all Comey/Clinton/Obama minions, initiating investigations of the Clintons, Clinton Fund, violations of intelligence confidentiality laws by Susan Rice and Obama, human trafficking in DC, political corruption… draining the Swamp. Using the Comey files they can be fairly certain they are not getting another Comey as an “interim”, and they do not have to wait for the circus of appointing a new permanent “Director” through Congressional approval. Most of the heavy lifting on rooting out FBI corruption and starting investigations into the swamp will be done by the “interim” before a new director is appointed. I suspect the Trump administration hopes the approval FBI Director process will be slow and tedious, so there is no political interference with the housecleaning that is starting.
In one masterstroke, Trump has eliminated a truly toxic and dangerous enemy to his administration and our country, dealt a horrendous blow to the Clinton/Obama and deep state machines, begun the restoration of the integrity of the FBI and the DOJ, and gained incredible ammunition to begin hunting the foul creatures in the swamp.
— Lisa Frank
Happy Hunting President Trump… and God Bless!
President Trump Wisely Recognizes The Time To Be Vigilant Is Upon Us
Feb 10, 2018
Read More Articles by Ms. Smallback
Calling All Storm Troopers
If we’re going to fight, we have to be armed. If we’re armed, we have to know how to employ our particular weapon with strategic precision. Everyone has something they can bring into the fight. Just bring what you can.
Just like an army, there are a multitude of positions. And just like an army, every position matters. The Generals may be strategizing, while officers may be positioning, and infantry alternately waiting and advancing. Just as special teams have their place, so do things like communications, mapping, engineering, artillery, armor, legal specialists, electronic warfare, intelligence (gathering, processing, assimilating, briefing, etc.), chaplains, chemical warfare, transportation, etc. This means that wherever you are, whoever you are, and whatever you do, matter. You have an area of knowledge, skill and influence that you can work for the cause. Every single piece and player matters to the whole.
It helps to know what the Generals are planning, but they do not give their strategy in full form. They part it out to the specialists so the teams can move in their areas of expertise. We have to learn how to wait when it’s a planning time, or special teams are moving into position, and we have to learn when to engage.
If you don’t know where to start, start here: What’s your area of knowledge, skill and influence? That’s your role. Now find someone with a little more knowledge than you have and position yourself under them to learn. If you bypass them in your learning or skill, look for someone else to replace them with that you can learn from. This means you have to find people over you to follow, in part. So if it’s a youtube channel, a strategist, an author, a website, just figure it out. If it’s as simple as gathering information from a couple facebook posts, then researching them yourself, start there. But start.
Who do you influence? Start there. Is it your children? Your family, friends, co-workers, or a bigger audience? Start where you are. Begin using your knowledge to inform and couple it with your skills to be effective. Talk about what you know with those who will listen. What are your avenues of influence? Do you have facebook, twitter, a blogsite, a group of people who get together regularly, your church, co-workers break areas, an email list? Start there. Meme truths, post credible sources and sites, ask questions to get people to think.
Never stop learning. There’s so much we don’t know, so much that has been hidden. Keep gathering information. When a source proves to be faulty, drop it and find a more credible one. Keep your eyes open and your ears listening. You don’t have to understand everything you’re seeing or hearing, just pay attention. Sometimes it takes awhile to make sense. (Sometimes it never makes sense.) Double agents are scattered throughout. Try to confirm your research by multiple sources.
Simplify the current issues, and lead people to the details that fill in the blanks. Just pick an area you’re familiar with and can both simplify (for general understanding) and expound on (to prove your assertions).
Familiarize yourself with pedogate/pizzagate, the Podestas and their connections with DC elites like the Clintons and Obamas. This is a core issue and a primary target for the Storm; this needs to be brought down. The Executive Order [EO] of 12/21 was a beginning step for this. The 13,605 sealed indictments from October 30, 2017 – January 26, 2018 play a huge part in this.
Only watch the mainstream media to understand what the Deep State is trying to do. (They are run by the Cabal controlled CIA in large part, and the CIA feeds them their information.) Recognize this and you won’t be fooled. Help other people recognize this. Follow people like Sarah Carter or John Solomon. Check in on Hannity, cross reference with some Jerome Corsi work. Keep updated with Q here. Get and stay informed, and help others be informed.
Because of the 12/21 EO, a lot of people have disappeared, whether it be from their positions of leadership [see the list in the third bulleted point] or from life, or just a huge shaking of the tree – but these are things that show us the strategies of the Storm to bring down the wicked players are working. Eric Schmidt (Google) was the first resignation after the EO. Recall that Schmidt was Hillary’s “main outside advisor”, overseeing and running HRC’s computer technology and funding.
[Have you noticed how many assets Rothschilds are selling lately? Rushbrooke estate (England), St. Barts estate (Carribbean), an Austrian estate, five Geneva Switzerland properties [being sold by the bank], over 31% of its shares in Apache, and they cut their investments with Home Depot and Revlon – these all in the last year, most of them in the last two months. (To the tune of over $293 million in real estate alone.) What could be motivating the sale of so many assets? And at fire sale prices??]
Underscore the treasonous activities going on. The DNC and Hillary paid for a (fake) dossier to falsely accuse their opponent. They and BO weaponized the DOJ and FBI to bring their opponent down. These are not just scandals, this is treason. This is an attack on the foundations of our nation! This is illegal, unethical and immoral activity, and blatant disregarding the rule of law. This should be accounted for at every level. We are not a banana republic. We have a Constitution to enforce the rule of law at the upper echelon. The 5,000 text messages off the phones that went missing are gross negligence of duty on the surface, but really it’s tampering with evidence and obstructing justice. [Just like the “missing” emails off HRC’s illegal server.]
These things are anti-American. They are counter to our laws, our foundations, our Constitution. They are acts of war against American itself. They are treason. We have a responsibility to our Republic. If the highest offices in the land are not held to the same standard of our laws, our laws are powerless. If our laws are powerless, they are worthless.
When President Trump spoke at his inauguration, he said:
Today’s ceremony, however, has very special meaning. Because today we are not merely transferring power from one Administration to another, or from one party to another – but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to you, the American People.
This is how it should be. This is why we, the American people, must stand for what’s right and good in our government. We have to hold their feet to the fire and require that those in political power uphold the law. But this is not as it has been, as President Trump pointed out:
For too long, a small group in our nation’s Capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost.
Washington flourished – but the people did not share in its wealth.
Politicians prospered – but the jobs left, and the factories closed.
The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country.
Their victories have not been your victories; their triumphs have not been your triumphs; and while they celebrated in our nation’s Capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land.
That all changes – starting right here, and right now, because this moment is your moment: it belongs to you.
It belongs to everyone gathered here today and everyone watching all across America.
This is your day. This is your celebration.
And this, the United States of America, is your country.
What truly matters is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people.
January 20th 2017, will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again.
The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer.
Everyone is listening to you now.
You came by the tens of millions to become part of a historic movement the likes of which the world has never seen before.
At the center of this movement is a crucial conviction: that a nation exists to serve its citizens.
On January 20, 2017, President Donald J. Trump gave the rule of the nation back to its citizens. We have a responsibility with that if we want to reap the rewards of the liberty that come with it. Trump and many, many others have set a plan to expose the illegal activities of the usurpers of the nation of America. And they have enlisted our help. If we do not help now, and they fail in their mission, it will be on our shoulders and we will bear the cost.
So take up your positions! If we don’t respond, the nation that our President gave back to its citizens, the nation that he defined as existing to serve YOU and me and future generations of Americans, that nation will morph into the socialist, communist, treacherous and tyrannical nation that its usurpers have plotted it to be.
When Trump ran for President, he wisely recognized the time that was upon us that Samuel Adams warned about: “If ever a time should come when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.” This is the time experienced patriots are needed. This is the time to respond.
July 22, 2017
A New Look at the Death of Europe
By Rael Jean Isaac
With the publication of The Strange Death of Europe, Douglas Murray has made a significant contribution to a crucially important, if still niche genre: the Islamization of Europe. A small number of writers (given the huge impact of this development) have focused on the issue: Bat Yeor, Oriana Fallaci, Mark Steyn, Christopher Caldwell, Bruce Bawer, Soeren Kern, Giulio Meotti, Guy Milliere, Ingrid Carlqvist. This small band is all that confronts the blatant and pervasive coverup by politicians and mainstream media.
Murray’s contribution takes several forms. He brings the story of Europe’s civilizational suicide up to date. He provides a chronological tale of the debacle from the post-World War II importation of what were imagined at the time to be temporary workers from Muslim countries needed to fill labor shortages to the disastrous decision by Angela Merkel in August 2015 to throw open Germany’s borders without limits, with the slogan “We can do it.” He sets forth Muslim terrorist actions in Europe in punctilious sequence, including those targeting individuals, like the murder of Theo van Gogh and the Charlie Hebdo staff; the attacks against Jews, and the terror aimed at the general public, for example, the Bataclan massacre and the mowing down at random of people celebrating Bastille Day at the Nice beach. He describes the broader challenge to European society posed by Muslims who do not resort to terror, but espouse values wholly at variance with those of their host countries. Most important, he seeks to explain Europe’s “strange” behavior, why Europe is committing suicide with its elites leading a reluctant but passive public over the cliff.
In part, Murray’s explanation does not differ much from that advanced by several of those cited above. In Murray’s words, “The world was coming into Europe at precisely the moment that Europe has lost sight of what it is.” It was a Europe that had lost faith in its beliefs, traditions, its very legitimacy. But Murray is especially good in focusing on the importance of guilt, what he calls Europe’s “unique, abiding, and perhaps fatal sense of and obsession with guilt” in shaping its behavior. While not ignored by others, the role of guilt has not been given the attention it deservedly gets here.
To this reviewer, that the Holocaust should shake Europe’s faith in its civilization is only right and fitting. In the current issue of Commentary Terry Teachout points out how Europe’s great orchestras dutifully fired Jewish members and banned music by Jewish composers even as the music-loving Hitler in 1938 declared “Germany has become the guardian of European culture and civilization.” It can be no surprise if Europeans ask, “How could what Hitler conceived himself as zealously guarding be worth preserving?”
But as Murray sees it, guilt has become a “moral intoxicant” -- Europeans have become “high” on it. They cannot fall back on their Christian faith because their “foundational story” was fatally weakened in the nineteenth century by the combination of Biblical higher criticism and Darwinism. The replacement beliefs in multiculturalism (and Murray quotes Samuel Huntington’s apt observation that multiculturalism is essentially an anti-Western ideology), tolerance, diversity, and “human rights” (as those who have seized control of the issue define them) are no substitute for the fervent divinely-grounded convictions of Islam.
Murray addresses the puzzling question: why there has been so little pushback from Europeans as they have been inundated by millions committed to ideologies anathema to their own? One reason is that the penalties for speaking out are high. Murray writes that those who have shouted fire over the years have been treated as arsonists. They have been “ignored, defamed, prosecuted or killed.” The media has been swift to silence those among them who dared to so much as raise the issue. Murray cites the fate of Erik Mansson, editor-in-chief of the Swedish paper Expressen, who as far back as 1993 published the results of an opinion poll showing 63% of Swedes wanted immigrants to return to their countries of origin. Noting the difference between those in power and public opinion, Mansson said he thought the subject should be discussed. The only result was that the paper’s owners promptly fired Mansson.
Being fired is the least of it. Those who are deemed to have “blasphemed” against Islam, whether cartoonists or filmmakers or forthright politicians, are hunted down by Islamists. All the government does in response is put them in hiding, provide guards or force them out of the country. The last is what the government of Holland did to Ayaan Hirsi Ali by taking away her citizenship. As far as government elites are concerned these people are not heroic champions of free speech but nuisances who have brought their troubles on themselves. Indeed the government is likely to join in the persecution, as Tommy Robinson of the English Defense League discovered in Britain and Geert Wilders in Holland, where he has twice been prosecuted by the state for “inciting discrimination and hatred.”
And the Holocaust again intrudes. When movements or political parties form to challenge the establishment parties on immigration, they are promptly labeled “racist” and “anti-Semitic” by the media and as a result neo-Nazis flock to them, making them off-limits to decent people. Murray points out that Geert Wilders is the only member of his party for precisely this reason. He fears that if he makes it a membership party skinheads will join and although he forfeits state funding (which depends on party size), he sees it as a necessary price to prevent neo-Nazis from possibly ruining the party.
The leadership of a few EU countries (all of them in Eastern Europe) have dared to confront the majority on Muslim immigration. Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, and now, the Czech Republic, have all refused to take in what the EU has determined is their “quota” of immigrants. The most articulate member of the dissidents, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, has been defiant and blunt, saying the immigrant wave masquerades as a humanitarian cause but its true nature is occupation of territory. And he reminds the EU (although Murray surprisingly does not mention this) that Hungary was dominated by Islam for 150 years -- and knows far better than Western elites what it is like to live with Muslim communities. The response of EU leaders is to treat Orban as a moral pariah and to punish the rebellious countries financially in the hope of forcing them to back down.
Murray is not optimistic about the future. He offers reforms -- for example, finding ways to settle would-be migrants closer to their home countries, processing asylum requests abroad, evicting those whose claims to asylum have been rejected (most remain after they have been ordered to leave), ceasing and desisting the automatic demonization as “racists” of any party that raises objections to existing policy, among others.
But Murray sees scant chance of the reforms he suggests being enacted. Instead he sees the gap between political leaders and public opinion becoming more explosive. Murray reports on a survey of public opinion in 10 European countries released by the British think tank Chatham House in February 2017. In eight out of the ten (including Germany) a majority agreed with the statement “All further migration from Muslim countries should be stopped.” In Britain, one of the two where the majority disagreed, “only” 47% were in favor of halting all Muslim immigration. Ignoring public opinion as morally deficient, the governing elite go on its merry way. Murray offers a telling anecdote from the small city of Kassel in the state of Hesse. Eight hundred immigrants were due to be deposited on Kassel and residents organized a meeting to ask questions of their politicians. A video of the meeting shows calm, polite but concerned citizens. At one point, the district president Walter Lubcke tells them that anyone who does not agree with the policy “is free to leave Germany.” Like those assembled who gasp and then hoot in anger, Murray is astounded: “A whole new population is being brought into their country and they are told to leave if they don’t like it?”
Thus far politicians have been able to beat back all challenges to their policies by tarring political parties that rise to oppose them as “racist,” “neo-Nazi,” or fascist. Murray fears precisely because of this success in marginalizing even those parties that seek to bar extremist elements, when the reaction finally comes it will be ugly. His last words: “Prisoners of the past and of the present, for Europeans there seem finally to be no decent answers to the future. Which is how the fatal blow will finally land.”
There are a few omissions in this excellent book. Murray does not sufficiently emphasize the coming together of Islamic elements with the far left, despite the huge differences between them on social issues. It is the radical left that passes out flyers telling failed asylum seekers how to outwit the system. Claiming the moral high ground, it is the radical left that organizes the boats that hug the Libyan shore, so that traffickers don’t even have to bother filling gas tanks on the miserable receptacles loaded with humanity they push out to sea. Murray refers to the way elites ignore the deep-seated anti-Semitism of the Muslim arrivals, even as they are quick to discredit anti-immigration parties with automatic charges of anti-Semitism. But Murray fails to point out the huge irony: largely on the basis of a sense of guilt for the Holocaust, Europe’s elites are embracing a population which in short order will make it impossible for the Jewish communities of Europe, rebuilt since the Holocaust, to remain there.
Lamenting the vacuum left by the retreat of Christianity, Murray writes that it is unlikely anyone is going to be able to invent an entirely new set of beliefs. He overlooks completely the movement that has provided a substitute set of beliefs to a significant part of the European public. That movement is environmentalism, a resurgence of paganism (with the earth as mother goddess) which has the great advantage of being antagonistic to Western culture -- for its sin of despoiling the earth. The global warming apocalypse is the most recent environmental dogma. Professor emeritus of atmospheric sciences at MIT Richard Lindzen, who unlike most of those who hold forth on the climate, is an expert on the subject, compares the pseudoscience of global warming to Lysenkoism. Lindzen writes: “A surprisingly large number of people seem to have concluded that all that gives meaning to their lives is the belief that they are saving the planet by paying attention to their carbon footprint.”
Europe hangs in the balance. For all the chatter about terror by politicians and media (with caveats that this has nothing to do with the religion of peace, of course), the seismic changes, including the population replacement by proponents of a sharply different culture, are all but ignored. Murray’s clear and humane exposition of the seismic changes and the abject failure of political elites to face up to them gives those not willfully blind an opportunity to see.
Saturday, 25 February 2017
Some of Trump's Picks Have Troubling Links to Globalism, CFR
Written by Alex Newman
After crushing the establishment and delivering a series of blows to globalism, President Donald Trump's winning spree against the powerful forces that opposed him appears to be slowing down. In fact, with his recent selection of Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster as National Security Adviser and Judge Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court — both of whom have been listed as members of the establishment globalist swamp known as the Council on Foreign Relations(CFR) — concerns are growing even among Trump supporters and grassroots conservative activists. There were already several CFR-linked officials before the latest additions — the very same forces that viciously libeled and attacked him in their failed bid to stop the swamp draining.
The controversial CFR group's agenda is rarely discussed openly in the media, despite the fact that much of the establishment media is actually listed as “corporate” members of the CFR. The outfit's membership is often quoted as supposedly dispassionate sources in the media, too. But evidence of the organization's agenda — global governance, open borders, Big Government, surrendering sovereignty, attacking self-government, and more — is hardly difficult to find.
Indeed, prominent patriotic Americans, including CFR members, have been sounding the alarm for generations. The late U.S. Admiral Chester Ward, for example, who served as the Judge Advocate of the U.S. Navy, was a CFR member for 16 years before resigning in disgust. “In the entire CFR lexicon, there is no term of revulsion carrying a meaning so deep as America First,” said Admiral Ward, whose comments on the CFR shed light on why the group would be entirely hostile to Trump's central promise as a pro-America, anti-establishment political candidate.
But it's even worse than that. “The main purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty and national independence, and submergence into an all-powerful one-world government,” the admiral warned, adding that “this lust to surrender the sovereignty and independence of the United States is pervasive throughout most of the membership.” In other words, not everyone in the CFR is a fanatical globalist determined to sell out America's sovereignty, but most are.
That sinister agenda becomes clear from reading the CFR's own magazine, known as Foreign Affairs. In April 1974, for example, Richard Gardner, former deputy assistant Secretary of State, explained how the agenda for world government would be pursued. “In short, the ‘house of world order’ will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down,” he wrote. “An end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old fashioned assault.” The magazine also regularly promotes regional government, war, and attacks on national sovereingty.
For some additional perspective, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted in a speech that the CFR gives her instructions on “what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.” Bush's Vice President Dick Cheney once bragged: “I've been a member [of the CFR] for a long time, and was actually a director for some period of time. I never mentioned that when I was campaigning for re-election back home in Wyoming.” Countless similar statements exist acknowledging the CFR's deceptive practices, its dangerous agenda, and its hijacking of U.S. policy.
And yet, on the campaign trail, Trump blasted what he described as a “cabal” seeking “global government” and vowed to put an end to such machinations. “Americanism, not globalism, will be our credo,” Trump said, adding that “America First” would become U.S. policy across every sphere of government activity including foreign policy, economic policy, trade policy, national security, immigration, and much more.
Of course, it is true that Trump's administration and cabinet has less establishment globalists and CFR members than any White House in recent memory, of either party — Obama, Clinton, and both Bushes have each installed hundreds of CFR members in top positions within their administrations. But with some of Trump's most recent appointments, the trend toward adding more and more CFR members has raised questions and concerns even among some of his most ardent supporters.
Did the so-called Deep State find a way to get to Trump? Is Trump simply unaware of the CFR's well-documented agenda to undermine U.S. sovereignty, liberty, and prosperity? Are there globalist CFR operatives who have burrowed their way into senior positions in the administration, and are now working to bring in more swamp creatures to mislead and sabotage Trump? The months and years ahead should make that more clear.
First, Gorsuch. Trump's nominee to the Supreme Court, assuming he is confirmed, will have immense influence on the future of America — far more than America's founding fathers ever intended. As soon as the announcement was made, many well-known conservative and establishment voices sprang into action to support the nomination. Some prominent voices expressed hesitation — both on pro-life issues and gun rights — but overall much of the Republican Party was pleased, ranging from constitutionalists and conservatives to the neocon and establishment wing of the GOP.
A number of concerns ended up being raised about him, though. And more than a few liberals, including some far-left pseudo-journalists, have applauded the choice. The headline at the anti-Trump hysteria factory known as the Washington Post, for example, reads: “Simply stated, Gorsuch is steadfast and surprising. The Supreme Court nominee resides on the right, listens intently to the left and often finds a homespun truth somewhere in between.” An opinion piece at The Hill, meanwhile, suggested approvingly that Gorsuch might even be a secret liberal.
However, one crucial point on his résumé has flown largely under the radar, even among many usually well-informed voices that would have promptly sounded the alarm. That is the fact that Gorsuch was listed as a term member of the CFR in the organization's 2008 Annual Report Membership Roster. He was also listed as a member in his 2006 nomination by President George W. Bush. And aside from Internet commentators in comment sections, the only major analyst who seems to have noticed is Kelleigh Nelson.
CFR operatives must have noticed, too, though, recently calling Gorsuch “well qualified” for the spot — while perhaps inadvertently sending out a major warning sign for conservatives and constitutionalists. “Trump arguably had one good day in his first two weeks, on Jan. 31, when he rolled out the nomination of the well-qualified Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court,” the CFR's warmongering neoconservative Max Boot wrote in an oped published in Foreign Policy viciously attacking Trump and his agenda. Boot and other globalist neocons, often called RINOs (Republicans In Name Only), viciously smeared Trump during his campaign, too, abandoning the GOP for Hillary Clinton.
Then there is Lieutenant General McMaster, Trump's new national security adviser who took over after non-CFR member Mike Flynn resigned amid what appeared to be a well-orchestrated hit job by the so-called Deep State. By all accounts, McMaster is a superb soldier, officer, and military man. He has received a wide array of awards, medals, and recognition for his service in the U.S. Army. His insights into the failures of U.S. military leadership in Vietnam have received widespread praise, too.
However, McMaster is listed as a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, too — and his membership is current as of February 24, according to the CFR's online roster. And while there are undoubtedly some non-globalists who have joined the CFR over the years for reasons other than believing in its anti-American, anti-freedom agenda, McMaster's record suggests he may not be among that small group.
A decade ago, he joined the globalist-minded International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) in London as a “Senior Research Associate.” According to the organization itself, his mandate was described as “conduct[ing] research to identify opportunities for improved multi-national cooperation and political-military integration in the areas of counterinsurgency, counter-terrorism, and state building.”
There are a number of terms and phrases there that are cause for alarm — including standard globalist rhetoric such as “multi-national cooperation” and “political-military integration,” which sounds a lot like sovereignty-stealing schemes such as NATO and the European Union. There was also the term “state building,” which critics pointed out resembles the “nation building” that Trump specifically vowed to stop under his administration following costly and deadly failures by Obama and Bush.
The New American's Warren Mass reported on the developments this week. “One would have expected an interventionist, neoconservative CFR member such as John McCain to have appointed a man such as McMaster to his inner circle,” Mass wrote. And indeed, true to form, globalist neocon McCain, who has expressed nothing but contempt for Trump and his supporters, was very pleased with McMaster, calling him “an outstanding choice for national security advisor — man of genuine intellect, character and ability.”
McMaster and Gorsuch are only the two most recent CFR additions to the Trump Team. Others have already been documented in the pages of The New American. And a regular commentator in the comments section of this magazine's online portal, who goes by the username St_Robert_Bellarmine, has compiled a significant list of Trump's senior CFR-linked and globalist-tied appointees, some of whom have attended the globalist Bilderberg summit or have ties to globalist billionaire David Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission, a CFR-type body focusing on America, Europe, and Japan.
Among them are Robert Lighthizer, the U.S. trade representative, who is listed as a current member of CFR, despite the globalist outfit's key role in imposing the very multilateral “free-trade” regimes that Trump has opposed for harming America and undermining U.S. sovereignty. Another is Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, a CFR member with troubling links to the Communist Chinese dictatorship. She also happens to be married to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and may have been a bargaining chip in getting other nominees approved by establishment Republicans in Congress.
Then there are a number of non-members who nevertheless have troubling ties to the CFR and other globalist organizations. Exxon-Mobil, of course, is a “founder” corporate member of the CFR. And despite not being an official member himself, Rex Tillerson boasted to CFR members in a speech that he shared their views on globalism. “Like the Council’s founders, I believe we must choose the course of greater international engagements,” Tillerson said in a 2007 event at the CFR.
Another controversial figure is Steven Mnuchin, Trump's treasury secretary and a former executive with “vampire squid” international bank Goldman Sachs. Like Exxon-Mobil, the globalist bank is also listed as a “founder” corporate member of the CFR. And Mnuchin, while not listed publicly as a member of CFR, was a member of the secret “Skull and Bones” society at Yale that has been exposed for being involved in dark and deeply disturbing rituals. George W. Bush and John Kerry were also members, though both refused to talk about it while running against each other for president.
Then there are at least two cabinet members in the Trump administration who have attended the annual Bilderberg summit, where top globalists, politicians, bankers, communists, royalty, and crony capitalists meet once a year to plot policy behind closed doors and recruit useful idiots to their globalist cause. The first is former Texas Governor Rick Perry, a Republican who serves as Trump's energy secretary. The other is Secretary of Defense James Mattis, a military man who attended the 2015 Bilderberg meeting in Austria as a “distinguished fellow” of the Hoover Institution.
The name Rothschild — the unfathomably wealthy banking dynasty — often pops up in connection with Bilderberg, billionaire George Soros, and other organs and individuals associated with the globalist establishment and the central banking cartel. And it just so happens that Trump's commerce secretary, Wilbur Ross, was a senior managing director at Rothschild, Inc., before joining Trump's team. Soros, the extreme left-wing agitator, was also a Rothschild protege.
Of course, hoping for a cabinet entirely devoid of people with links to the establishment swamp — at least for now — might be a bit unrealistic. After all, the nominees had to get through Senate confirmation, and there are more than a few CFR operatives and globalist shills still haunting the halls of Congress. And to be fair, on the campaign trail, Trump did say he had “respect” for CFR boss Richard Haass, a leading globalist operative who has publicly grumbled about Trump and his agenda. Trump's team has also said publicly that all cabinet members agreed to go along with the president's America First agenda.
However, at this point, it is starting to seem like there are too many swamp creatures in the White House for comfort. His supporters have expressed hope the president will keep them on a short leash, and utter the famous “you're fired” phrase from his TV days if any of the appointees get out of line. And to be fair, again, Trump has taken a number of actions that clearly upset the globalist establishment and the CFR, ranging from dismantling Obama regulations to withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership. But being surrounded by globalists and establishment operatives gives them the chance to mislead Trump, sabotage his agenda, and more.
He does have many excellent people working for him, many of whom have been highlighted in these pages. To avoid becoming another victim of the establishment, though, Trump should probably exercise extreme caution when getting advice or information.
Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, politics, and more. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU.
Council On Foreign Relations Exposed
Trump Picks CFR Member for New National Security Advisor
Trump’s Supreme Court Pick Neil Gorsuch: An “Originalist”
Obama Picks Come From Same Old CFR Roster
Trump's First 100 Days
Is “Trumpism” Really “Bircherism”?
Trump Names ExxonMobil Chief Rex Tillerson Secretary of State
Trump Picks Elaine Chao for Transportation Secretary
Rick Perry's Islamist Connections
Trump VP Pence: Globalist Neocon or Solid Conservative?
Bilderberg: Where Big Business and Big Government Plot Globalism
Trump Picks Former Goldman Sachs Banker for Treasury Secretary
Trump Victory Proves “Mainstream” Media Is Globalist Fringe
Neocons, Warmongers, and Globalists Abandon GOP for Hillary
Mike Flynn Was Picked Off by the Shadow Government
10:00AM EST 3/2/2017 Thomas Ertl/News With Views
On Jan. 13, 1964, 53 days after the deep state's involvement in the assassination of an American president, Bob Dylan released his famous album, "The Times They Are a Changin'."
Though Dylan was promoting a '60s style radicalism of social and political upheaval, the album title and lyrics to the theme song run true to these epic times of American history in which we live.
I write after the politically eventful week of Feb. 12-18, and following President Trump's Friday-afternoon tweet that the media is "the enemy of the American people."
He, in classic Trump form, lays down another gauntlet to the establishment-controlled media after Wednesday's total beat-down press conference of the same media. A theologian and friend in Switzerland who viewed the entire press conference writes:
I was enthralled.
I found it amazing for its simplicity, familiarity, forthright speaking of the truth and extraordinary frankness and its non-moralizing manner. The concern for the good of the nation (and even that of the media) was manifest at every moment.
One very remarkable thing in the whole press conference is that Trump was berating his enemies in their very presence and before that immense grand jury of the whole American nation.
Of course, not forgotten at Saturday's rally in Melbourne, Florida, was the first lady of the United States leading America in praying the Lord's Prayer. Who can remember something similar by any other first lady?
The first three weeks of the Trump presidency have been daily doses of conservative political bliss. One great move after another has had the Establishment spinning. Then came the Monday of Feb. 13 and the resignation of General Flynn as national security adviser. This was a painful turn of events, considering that Flynn was a favorite of many patriots. In his resignation, Trump lost an irreplaceable adviser who was well-aware of the CIA and the Bush/Obama duplicity in the promotion of failed Middle East conflicts, not to mention the fed's aiding of Al-Qaeda and ISIS forces.
Next to Steve Bannon, General Flynn was probably Trump's most important appointment. Soon after the story broke of Flynn's resignation, triggered by a conversation he had with the Russian ambassador, the news and discussion shifted to the questions of who surveilled and taped Flynn's phone conversation, and how The Washington Post and The New York Times obtained the written phone record.
In his article for Bloomberg on Feb. 14, Eli Lake stated that General Flynn "did nothing illegal nor improper." He later used the phrase, "creepy authoritarianism" concerning intelligence operatives entrusted with national secrets who would dare disclose them to the press to undermine an elected president and his administration.
Others made similar claims of these rogue United States operatives, using the words "terrifying" and "unnerving." Even the anti-Trump press of Bloomberg and the Wall Street Journal sounded the alarm over "the spooks," secretly planning to destroy the Trump presidency through illegal intelligence activity. Even the establishment media can occasionally see the evidence of a police state.
Then, as Monday passed into Tuesday, another news shift occurred. Monday's lamenting by conservatives on the loss of General Flynn, and the Trump administration being put on the defensive, turned to discussion aimed at the legitimacy and credibility of all U.S. intelligence agencies. Trump went on the attack and declared that the leak to the press was a "criminal act."
By Tuesday, from noon all the way to 6 o'clock, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity went on the attack against the U.S. intelligence agencies, even verbalizing the words forbidden in respectable conservative circles: "deep state," "shadow government" and "police state." It didn't stop there. For the rest of the week, almost every political article and commentary took their lead and started talking about these supposedly conspiratorial and extreme categories.
To my amazement, the "deep state" was the talk of the week in American politics, dominating the establishment and conservative media. Those who understood globalism have tried in vain for five decades to awaken American conservative and Christians to the great threat of the shadow government and deep state. Now, in the course of one day, these terms have become mainstream conservative talking points. Who could have seen this coming?
The New Narrative
During the 2016 campaign, Trump changed the conservative talking points from the old and tired left vs. right paradigm and the false Republican vs. Democrat polemic. He created the new political discussion points of Americanism vs. globalism. Trump's attack on globalism has served as a base of all future conservative political narratives.
Building on that base, now, is the additional narrative of the deep state, shadow government and police state. For the first time, the American public is learning about the dark side of the Central Intelligence Agency and other U.S. intelligence agencies. In the process, globalism's use of these agencies as private secret police has been exposed to the world as the internal enemy of this country.
Previously, the average American naively viewed the CIA and other intelligence agencies as departments of government set up to keep America safe. Their naiveté has been shattered with last week's revelation of the intelligence community's attempt to take down an elected president who has a pro-American agenda.
The Limbaugh/Hannity Factor
The 12 to 6 p.m. radio time is the key 6 hours for the modern American middle class to develop its political worldview. Through the many years since Rush Limbaugh has ascended to the top of radio commentary, both he and Hannity have shied away from conspiratorial talk—until last week, which became a monumental week for conservative talk radio.
They finally stepped over the "first-base line" into the reality field of the deep state, the shadow government and the police state, and they did it with great energy. In fact, Hannity's preaching against the deep state last week was so intense that, at one point in his broadcast, he had to catch himself and say, "I'm not talking about a conspiracy theory." (But, of course, the deep state is a conspiracy.)
So, as the week of Feb. 13 commenced, American talk conservative radio has finally gone into the conspiratorial realm by reporting on the dark side of the shadow government. They have a ways to go, but it is an encouraging development.
Globalist elites have been in control of American intelligence agencies for decades and have used these agencies and the American military for regional destabilization and regime change—all done in stealth, unabated, with American tax dollars and hidden from public scrutiny.
The deep state can only operate in stealth, pushing their criminal agenda, with the cooperation of the mainstream media. For years, the deep state has shaped public opinion, through media, academia and Hollywood, but their influence over the middle class has been greatly eroded because of talk radio and the immense volume of documented information on the internet.
Trump has furthered the media's demise by calling them out as liars. This has never been done by a modern U.S. president. Trump's huge success against the media also facilitates the defeat of the globalists in the information war.
Patriots who, in times past, dared to address the tyranny of global shadow government were often tossed into the "conspiracy theory" briar patch. This has been going on at least since 1967, when the CIA first created the term "conspiracy theory" to mute all JFK assassination inquiries. It has been a tremendously effective psychological tool to quell investigations of the government by its citizens.
Consent of the Governed
Fundamental to the governing concept of the American republic is that the government must not infringe on the people's rights and that the people allow the government to operate by consent.
When the dark side of the US intelligence has to resort to deception and coercion as a means to conduct their shadow government, they lose their legitimacy and eventually lose the consent to govern entrusted to them by the people. For them, the open attack on a sitting president, withholding intelligence from him and working to destroy his presidency are all acts of treason. This will not sit well with America's citizens.
All the recent developments of these shadowy agencies have now opened them up for daily discussion in the new conservative narrative with the hope of eliminating the some of these rogue agencies combined with a major house cleaning in the others.
Globalism's Naked Run
There is an old phrase patriots have used for years about the final establishment of global government and its New World Order: "They will have to run naked the last 100 yards." This means that, nearing the final stage of setting up their one-world government, globalists will have to come clean and openly announce their plan for tyranny.
Yet, on the journey to this New World Order, Western resistance movements have become so aggressive and successful that, in order to maintain their gains, globalists are starting their naked run prematurely.
In the States, the outgoing CIA director, John Brennan, has instructed the new president: "Watch your mouth." New York Senator Schumer has, on national TV, threatened Trump saying, "the CIA has six ways to Sunday to retaliate." Bill Kristol, neo-con and former editor of the Weekly Standard, tweeted this week: "I prefer the Deep State to the Trump State."
Globalism is being exposed and outed by Trump, and its plans disrupted. Picture with me the symbolism of 5-foot-9-inch, 97-year-old Henry Kissinger, 88-year-old Zbigniew Brzezinski and Bill Kristol on a 100-yard naked dash to the finish line of their New World Order. This is the ugly future picture of globalism. I can hardly tolerate Kristol fully clothed.
Last week, there was a major meeting of the global elites in Dubai. Alex Newman of the New American magazine titled his article on the confab, "At 'World Government Summit,' Top Globalists Drop the Mask."
The U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres lamented that "people no longer trust their rulers and globalist organizations they established." Then came Elon Musk with his Huxleyite technocratic dreams of men merging with machines.
Despite the growing public revolt against globalism and statism across the West—most recently seen in Brexit and Trump's election—the globalist establishment clearly has no plans to let up or even slow down, as evidenced by the speeches offered at the World Government Summit this week by top peddlers of global governance. If liberty and self-government are to survive and thrive, then, the agenda for technocratic planetary rule must be exposed and halted as quickly as possible. But with globalists increasingly dropping the mask when it comes to their true intentions, the time to do that has never been better.
In Europe, most every member country of the European Union has a thriving exit movement. The E.U. leadership is running so scared that they have recently threatened their rebellious member nations with the E.U army. The suggested use of military force is a true sign of their loss of legitimacy—and prophetic of their eventual defeat.
Last week, the shadow government of American intelligence picked off one of our heroes, General Michael Flynn. But along with that casualty came an exposure of America's rogue dark side, federal agencies, along with a backlash against them.
If Flynn's loss was the cause of the deep state's exposure, and the launch of a new political narrative, then it was well worth it. The new narrative will serve the American people well in the ongoing battle against the Establishment and their globalist plans.
Yes, we are in a battle for who controls America: the American people or the global elite, who for 100 years have planned and schemed for global governance and the loss of American sovereignty. The times are epic and the political narratives have changed to deal with the severity of the situation and the protracted battle that lies ahead for us.
The difference in our day is that the people finally have a true American leader in Donald Trump: one of their own, a real man who has the ability and the courage to take on the leviathan. And, as is often the case, one man's courage begets courage in the many.
Dylan's lyrics to his "The Times They Are a Changin'" so fit our present national battle. Below are three of the verses:
Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won't come again
And don't speak too soon
For the wheel's still in spin
And there's no tellin' who that it's namin'
For the loser now will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin'.
Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside ragin'
It'll soon shake your windows and rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'.
The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is rapidly fadin'
And the first one now will later be last
For the times they are a-changin'.
Deep State, Mainstream Media, And The Established Order Will Stop At Nothing To Prove The Unprovable
Mar 12, 2018 Read More Articles by Roger Stone
TRUTH ABOUT WIKILEAKS AND RANDY AND ME
When I spoke of a back channel to WikiLeaks in a rousing Tea Party rally in 2016, I was probably over dramatizing the role of progressive talk show host, comic, impressionist, and activist Randy Credico.
I first met Credico when I was advising billionaire Tom Golisano in his 75-million-dollar independent bid for Governor of New York against Governor George Pataki, who governed conservatively in his first term but mortgaged controlled of state finances to the municipal unions in return for their endorsement in his re-election and Carl McCall the elected African-American State Comptroller.
Golisano, a maverick billionaire from Rochester, had proposed the legalization of medicinal marijuana as the candidate of New York’s Reform Party affiliate, the New York Independence Party who backed his message with millions from the fortune he made as the founder and CEO of PAYCHEX. It shows how far ahead of his time the billionaire philanthropist entrepreneur Tom Golisano was.
Credico pitched me on Golisano’s calling for reform of New York’s Draconian drug laws name for New York Governor Nelson “Rocky” A. Rockefeller. Rocky, who began as a liberal Republican needed to move to the right, along with a rapidly changing Republican party. Rockefeller rebranded himself as tough on drugs and crime to win back Republican voters outraged with his tax and spending policies. Rockefeller’s pollsters told him in his 1970 bid for a third term, he had to join the “Law and Order” brigade of Nixon and Agnew.
Although I was pro- marijuana legalization based on my mostly Libertarian views, I was really obtuse about our expensive, ignominious, and racist drug laws and the outrageous mandatory sentences for non-violent people in possession of small amounts of drugs which has created an upstate cottage industry of prison guards and purveyors of services to upstate prisons. Judges were restricted from any discretion, being compelled to mete out harsh punishment for first time offenders, despite the absence of any previous criminal record.
The Rockefeller drug laws were ruining lives, destroying families and rehabilitating no one, while tax payers paid through the nose for the long-term incarceration of an enormous disproportionate African-American and Latino prison population. Because of the less than valiant use of the pardon power by Governor Andrew Cuomo, people remained lost in New York’s broken system.
Randy Credico opened my eyes to all of this and arranged for me and Tom Golisano appear at a “countdown to justice” rally with the Reverend Al Sharpton, hip hop entrepreneur Russell Simmons and then Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, calling for reform of the Rockefeller Laws. Ultimately Simmons would hijack the negotiations in the state legislature to reform the law in the face of the wide spread criticism, but Simmons agreed to modest reforms that have not helped those still trapped in the corroded rectum of the New York State penal system
Credico is an engaging character with a deep sense of history, a great sense of humor, and a sometimes-deadly ability as an impressionist. Credico’s “Richard Nixon” is dead on. Credico actually had two Nixon impressions, the “relaxed” Nixon, worldly Statesman which is uncanny in its accuracy, and an “over the top cartoonish” Nixon, dropping catch phrases like “let me make this perfectly clear” and “I am not a crook.”
Credico had a stunning star-turn as a comic impressionist who ran afoul of Johnny Carson on The Tonight Show and was banished. By Credico’s own admission, this successful comedian’s career spiraled out of control because of drug abuse. Randy would grapple with his demons but reinvented himself as a one man advocate for drug law reform and prison law reform helping found the New York Mothers of the Disappeared, black and Latino mothers whose sons and daughters had disappeared into the halls of New York State penal system. Credico would travel to Albany dressed as Diogenes in his efforts to shame the Legislature and the Governor into drug law reform and broader use of the pardon system.
Credico’s talents as an impressionist were such that during Tom Golisano’s campaign Randy called the campaign manager as “Tom” and fired the young man. Golisano’s temperament made the gag believable. I continued to maintain that Credico, who has heard me rant over martinis and cigars can be heard in the voice message to Governor Elliot Spitzer’s father, warning him that his sons corruption would soon bring him down. Credico’s impression of me is incredible.
It was Randy Credico who first brought to my attention in mid-July 2016, the public claim of WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange that he had significant material on the Democrats and Hillary Clinton and would publish those documents. Up until this time, I had not been paying much attention to WikiLeaks and was not following the WikiLeaks or Assange feeds on Twitter.
I knew that Randy had a long association with the William Kunstler Foundation and was particularly close to Kunstler’s wife, Margaret, the radical lawyer’s widow and a most able attorney herself. Randy was competing with hundreds of other journalists to land Julian Assange as a guest on his radio show at WBAI, a legendary progressive station in New York City, where Credico had seemed to have found his niche as a talk show host. Assange would subsequently give Credico extraordinary interviews that are well worth listening to. I figured Credico knew what he was talking about.
I asked Randy to confirm that the Australian journalist had credible information on Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Assange is held a virtual captive in a cramped embassy in London where he is being persecuted for doing what all real journalists do, sometimes obtaining classified information from whistle blowers that embarrasses governments and publishing it. The intelligence agencies repeated insistence that Assange is a Russian agent and that WikiLeaks is a Russian front is as phony as their certitude that the DNC’s mail servers were hacked by “Russians.”
It is important to note that Credico never said from whom he gained this confirmation, or the source, or the content of whatever was coming. He told me it would be released October 1st. I consider him a confirming source and little else despite my hype of calling him a back channel.
From the end of July through August until the end of September, Credico insisted that Assange was about to publish this material on the Democrats which Randy described as “devastating” to Hillary, on October 1st. When Assange scheduled a press event on October 1st, I was among those predicting the impact on Hillary Clinton even though I did not know the source or the content of the disclosures. Credico speculated that the material pertaining to the Clinton Foundation, a prediction that turned out to be only partially right, with those emails lacking the “devastating” facts revealed in the DNC email traffic.
When Assange made no disclosures on October 1st, Alex Jones was among those publicly motherfucking Assange for losing his nerve. Credico told me that Assange had demurred on October 1st because of the concerns of one of his lawyers, Daniel Ellsberg, about threats to Assange’s life if he went forward with the disclosures. Remember, Hillary Clinton actually advocated the use of a drone strike to kill Assange in London, in order to prevent the disclosure of what she knew he had. Credico told me that Secretary of State John Kerry had astonishingly gone to British Prime Minister Teresa May and asked that Britain rescind its diplomatic recognition of Ecuador for one day, stripping Assange of his asylum, so that US and British authorities could storm the Embassy and seize Assange.
Credico also told me that Kerry had convened a conference call of the heads of state of the Latin American countries surrounding Ecuador to demand they assert pressure on the Ecuadorian government to turn over the embattled journalist, warning that there would be harsh treatment for those nations that did not help the US government in this regard.
Credico predicted that Assange “would do the right thing” and in fact Assange announced the schedule of a serious of forthcoming disclosures in his October 1st remarks, which was little noticed by the press. He would follow this schedule to devastating effect.
To make an important point, Credico never mentioned anything about the emails of John Podesta, nor did I publicly predict that his emails would be hacked and published by WikiLeaks or anyone else. Acutely aware of Podesta’s not-so-subtle hand in pushing stories regarding the Ukrainian business activities of Paul Manafort, I was well aware of Podesta’s extensive business dealings with the oligarchs around Vladimir Putin, having read about it in the Panama papers published in April of 2016. I had also read a devastating opposition research memo by the investigative journalist Dr. Jerome Corsi which outlined Podesta’s involvement in Russian banking, uranium, and gas interests. I didn’t need a heads up from WikiLeaks to tell me that Podesta’s business dealings would prove controversial and “his time in the barrel” would come. I specifically never made any reference or prediction about Podesta’s emails, and the assertion that I was involved in obtaining them for WikiLeaks is categorically false. Many media outlets reported on the Podesta brothers’ dealings, including a piece I wrote based entirely on public sources.
Attention Aaron Blake; I never had advance notice or knowledge of the hacking of any emails by anyone. Twist that one.
While I testified to the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Intelligence about all of this, I initially declined to supply Credico’s name to the Committee for fear of professional reprisal against Credico whose life seemed to have stabilized with his WBAI gig and he was getting big ratings for provocative interviews. At the urging of Rep. Trey Gowdy and other members of the Committee I decided to supply Credico’s name to the Committee in a letter from my attorneys to the Committee’s attorneys. As a I feared, Credico was fired at WBAI when his name leaked.
To be absolutely clear, neither Credico, nor WikiLeaks, nor Julian Assange, nor the Russians, or anybody else sent me any of the documents ultimately published by WikiLeaks. As Assange himself said, I never Tweeted or predicted anything that Assange and WikiLeaks had not already publicly disclosed. I was a keen reader of Assange’s Twitter feed and picked up significant interviews through a constant Google News search. I had no advanced knowledge of the content, source or ultimate timing of any of the WikiLeaks disclosures including the infamous DNC emails. I did carefully mirror Julian Assange’s own disclosures, but only after he made them.
Equally false is the irresponsible claim by Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin who extrapolated from the House Democrats Russian collusion memo that the Russians gave advance copies of the hacked material to Trump insiders and her assertion was that it included me. This is categorically false! There is no evidence to support this assertion, yet Rubin has refused a request from my attorney for a correction. When I said this on MTP Daily with Chuck Todd, Michelle Goldberg of the New York Times said this story did not exist. Goldberg falsely claimed that I said the memo itself inferred that I received such documents when I clearly ascribed this false report to the Washington Post. Here it is.
When the House Select Committee on Intelligence sought to question Credico regarding what he considered to be perfectly legal activity, well within his scope of operating as a journalist, the veteran comic asserted his 5th Amendment Rights. I on the other hand testified for 4 and a half hours, under oath explaining my comments.
Sadly Credico, having dodged under oath testimony in front of the Congress, is now having amnesia regarding what really transpired. Perhaps the out of work comedian is embarrassed that he was “talking out of school” prior to his landing Assange as a “big get” on his radio show.
Fortunately, Credico bragged about his role in educating me as to Assange’s claims that he had the “motherlode” on Hillary and would disgorge it, to another journalist.
Since I never received any material whatsoever from WikiLeaks or the Russians, or any other source, the charge that I provided those documents to either Donald Trump or anyone in the Trump Campaign is patently false. You can’t give what you never got. I can honestly say that I never discussed the WikiLeaks DNC material with candidate or President Donald J Trump before, during or after the election. This dog won’t hunt.
The Atlantic magazine recently published a truncated, doctored screenshot of a direct message exchange between me and WikiLeaks, which has long since been turned over to the House Intelligence Committee in its true and complete form months ago. Only in the current, highly charged atmosphere can a leaked document which is entirely exculpatory and proves that I was not collaborating with WikiLeaks, provoke an “AHA” moment.
The tragic meltdown of Sam Nunberg brought new attention to the issue of the WikiLeaks disclosures, when Nunberg in a wild a contradictory series of interviews said he would not cooperate or honor a subpoena for documents of any email between Nunberg and numerous officials of the Trump Campaign including Corey Lewandowski, Hope Hicks, Steve Bannon, Steven Miller and myself.
Sam Nunberg was not speaking at my behest or direction. Nunberg was however correct when he said I haven’t done anything wrong.
Vultures in the main stream media including the Washington Post, Salon, and Vice jumped to the immediate conclusion that my indictment was imminent because there was evidence that I had received a heads up and copies of the DNC documents and provided them to Donald Trump and the Trump Campaign. This is wishful thinking by my political enemies. There is no evidence to support such a charge.
The only possible impropriety of contacts or dialog with WikiLeaks, is based on a premise that Assange is acting for a foreign power, namely the Russians a mantra repeated endlessly by our politicized intelligence agencies, but unsubstantiated by any evidence they can cite. All the while, they push their ridiculous claims of being “highly confident” in their “assessment” of WikiLeaks and Assange. Julian Assange is a heroic journalist. As Sean Hannity who has interviewed Assange points out, WikiLeaks’ track record of accuracy and authenticity is unblemished after 11 years.
When I made this point in my MSNBC interview their legal analyst Ari Melber said I was “moving the goal post” in my declaration that Assange was not a Russian agent. He asserted that I did so to essentially absolve myself of treason because of the perpetuated lie that I trafficked documents from WikiLeaks, an activity in which I never engaged. What hole does Mr. Melber live in? I have asserted my belief that Assange is being persecuted simply because WikiLeaks has disclosed information embarrassing to the established order and the Obama Administration, as well as our overreaching intelligence agencies. For months, I have repeated my belief that Assange is being wrongly labeled as a Russian asset, including in this op-ed piece I wrote in for a newspaper in England. No Ari this is not something new that I have been saying.
And now, who should help Credico peddle the crap that he was not my connection to WikiLeaks, but Mike Isikoff, who the FBI fed the phony dossier to “place” a story they would then cite in court to support their politically motivated and illegal spying. A deep state shill, he beseeched me to disclose Credico’s name to him “for his book” and I wouldn’t spit it up.
© 2018 Roger Stone – All Rights Reserved
September 25, 2017
Angela Merkel's Pyrrhic Victory
By Alex Alexiev
As expected, Angela Merkel has convincingly won her fourth term as chancellor of Germany and unofficial, but no less real, leader of the European Union. The mainstream media will again erupt into an orgy of adulation for the new leader of the free world; the slayer of populism; and last, but most, the anti-Trump. While the adulation-cum-E.U. triumphalism is a given, few will notice that it is taking place as both Merkel and the E.U. enter a period that will bring ruin to Merkel's reputation and the fantasy of an E.U. super-state that will finally prove the superiority of Europe over Trump's America. For her reputation is built on the fake assumptions of the European socio-political model, which is doomed.
An inkling of what's coming was revealed a day before the elections, when jurists of the German parliament issued a Gutachten (expert opinion) accusing Merkel of never providing legal arguments for opening the borders in 2015 and doing so without parliamentary approval as required by law. In short, she broke the law – and not just German law, because she opened not just Germany's borders, but those of the E.U. as well. She then compounded her error by having the subservient and unelected European Commission force reluctant Eastern European nations to take migrants in what was perceived as a German diktat. This serious misdeed is unlikely to be swept under the rug, since two of the parties that have now entered the Bundestag (FDP and AfD) insist on a parliamentary investigation.
Nor is this Merkel's only big political misjudgment. After persuading her party to extend the life of German nuclear power plants in Nov. 2010, she then did an about-face in June 2011 and ordered them phased out by 2022 on the absurd assumption that, like Japan, Germany can also suffer a catastrophic earthquake and a tsunami. There was neither a scientific nor an economic rationale for this hasty decision. In between, one of the taxes she imposed on the nuclear industry has already been declared unconstitutional by Germany's highest court.
The nuclear phase-out, which will take decades to resolve in the courts, pales in comparison to the enthusiastic support Merkel provided to having Germany, a country not well endowed with either much sun or wind, transition fully to renewable energy and, in the process, become a paragon of international environmental virtue to the left-wing ecological claque. Alas, it is already clear that the Energiewende is a recipe for disaster, and a hugely expensive one at that. It has already made it impossible to achieve not just German, but E.U. global warming targets. The officially promised 40% German cut in greenhouse gases (GHG) by 2020 has fallen by the wayside, as has Brussels's mandate to source 18% of energy from renewable sources. It is easy to see why. The much ballyhooed German progress to date was achieved because of huge subsidies paid by the rate payer and disproportionately by the poor, which forced the subsidies' dismantling. Frau Merkel has also been busy protecting the disingenuous German automobile industry from its disastrous Dieselgate cheating scandal that may yet devastate this vital German industry.
In the meantime, Merkel's foolish migrant policies are wreaking havoc in German society, as it was all too easy to predict. Crime by migrants, much of it sexual in nature, spiked by 52.7% in 2016 compared to 2015, despite efforts by the government to hide it. Worse is to come. In the first six months of 2017 alone, Berlin issued 230,000 visas for family members of the migrants, and another 390,000 are expected. Moreover, a recent Pew Foundation study shows that no more than 3% of the migrants are ever sent back, while European Commission boss Jean-Claude Juncker claims that 720,000, or nearly three fourths, have received asylum even though few of them have been persecuted. Official German figures show that by 2020, the government will have spent 93.6 billion euros on migrant welfare, proving yet again the wisdom of Milton Friedman, who long ago warned that open borders and the welfare system do not mix. And cost may not be the worst of it. The counter-terrorism coordinator of the E.U., Gilles de Kerchove, stated in a recent interview that 50,000 jihadists have entered Europe under the guise of migrants.
So what has Mrs. Merkel accomplished that has made German voters so enamored in her? To answer this probably requires an expert in German mass psychology, but here are some of the relevant facts. During her 12 years as chancellor, Merkel has moved the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) sharply to the left and has run the country in a way barely distinguishable from her socialist coalition partners. This probably explains the rise of the populist right-wing party Alternative for Germany (AfD). The legendary Bavarian politician Franz-Joseph Strauss once said that the conservatives should never allow a legitimate party to the right of themselves if they want to stay in power. Merkel has now done that and will sooner or later suffer the consequences.
This apart, the German political landscape is full of parties (SPD, Greens, Die Linke) that are openly pro-Russian and anti-American, in stark contrast to Eastern Europe. Indeed, German media are so stridently anti-American as to prompt a comparison with Nazi propaganda of yesteryear. Merkel herself has sided with Putin on the key issue of European energy independence from Russia and the Nord Stream 2, a project she quite disingenuously calls "commercial." This new and growing fault line between Germany and Eastern Europe may be the real threat to NATO, apart from the fact that Germany refuses to seriously boost its defense capabilities.
On the positive side, Germany is prosperous and enjoys a huge surplus with all its partners in the E.U. This one-sided relationship was ushered in by the euro, and it may not be long before Germany's Eurozone partners realize that and demand change.
Alex Alexiev is chairman of the Center for Balkan and Black Sea Studies (cbbss.org). He tweets on national security at twitter.com/alexieff and can be reached at email@example.com.
New World Order Plan to Militarise, Patrol and Enslave the World
June 9, 2017 SatyaRaj
New World Order Plan to Militarise, Patrol and Enslave the World:
The coming World Empire requires the destruction of all sovereign nations and the world carved up into military zones of control whose boundaries have no relation to ancient established borders or to ethnic homelands.
The coming World Tyranny requires total control over people’s thoughts and movements from the cradle to the grave and to do this the Occult Hierarchy behind the World Revolution will use all the dark occult knowledge they possess and every technological invention available to enslave mankind.
The coming World Empire will be of such a dark and terrible nature its effects will dwarf every other tyranny and human outrage in history in its application, scale and intensity.
Those who do not recognise that there is a plan to create a One World Government by destroying the sovereignties of all nations are either poorly informed fools or well informed liars who desire to conceal their knowledge and complicity in this unholy alliance of like-minded people.
There is a conspiracy, a plot if you will, for World Empire and it is as old as Methuselah. Today, the people behind this plot for a “New World Order” are heir to an ancient agenda whose terrible impress in the historical process can be easily seen by those with eyes to see.
These modern overlords of the New World Order are referred to by such names as Globalists, Internationalists, International Bankers, the Financial Global Elite, the Invisible Money Power, etc. and much of their dark works are carried out in great secrecy because they do not wish to alert the sleeping masses to this work –the “Great Work of the Ages”- and so alert them to the great danger they are in. But, gentle reader, behind these men of great power and influence lays a much greater power.
This power resides in the occult network of secret societies whose leaders are the Occult Hierarchy. And reader, understand, that this occult power is an ancient power and the Occult Hierarchy are its human representatives on Earth who are the Black Adepts from the Cult of Evil.
These modern conspirators are immensely powerful because they are heir to many centuries of conspiratorial work that has gifted this generation of master conspirators their unique position in the historical process. That is, as the Lords of Power whose power and influence transcends national boundaries and the constraints of personal destinies and lifetimes. Their occult power is passed onto others by succession –i.e. a chain of intergenerational Satanists spanning the ages – and so this power transcends the constraints of time. And by doing, inexorably amplifies itself and thus gaining more and more control over the temporal affairs of the world.
Hitherto, these Lords of Power worked very secretly. Their dark work, this Ancient Evil Agenda, sometimes referred to by insiders as the “Great Work,” was a Closed Conspiracy known only to the initiated and enforced by terrible blood oaths to secrecy that were enforced mercilessly if broken. For, they knew that if too many people awoke and learned the truth about what has been happening they would be moved to do something about it. Moreover, they also understood the danger of a large number of these awakened souls finding out who their enemy really is, and how this enemy does its work and for what end, and that these people may rise up and destroy those who are behind this diabolical plot. So the Evil Agenda for World Empire was a great secret among the occult underworld known only to the favoured few. However, in recent times the Occult Hierarchy decreed that the time was ripe for their “Great Work” to be revealed for those with eyes too see, for, know they believe that there preparations are so complete that nothing can stop them and so they now boast of their works. And so the Closed Conspiracy for World Empire under the sway of the secret societies is now an Open Conspiracy.
The Open Conspiracy for World Empire has now many followers working assiduously in all spheres of human society. Their collective efforts have been described by many names, such as the “Aquarian Conspiracy”, but it is largely a product of the Humanist Agenda to reduce the world to a godless place. Thus, in a mundane sense these foot soldiers of the Evil Agenda are the so-called “liberals” and “progressives” who work to bring moral and spiritual chaos into the lives of individuals and in the affairs of nations by working to destroy Natural Moral Order on Earth. They are thus the humanists, socialists, communists, atheists, feminists, homosexuals, hedonists, bureaucrats, environmental extremists, blasphemers, Satanists and pagans: who work individually to satiate their personal weaknesses and exercise peculiar enmities and hatreds but whose collective efforts combine in a fearful assault on Natural Moral Order on Earth. And, by doing so, they set their faces against God because Natural Moral Orderis His Will in His Creation.
However, behind these “liberals” and “progressives,” these foolish, selfish people, are those who understand the true nature of what they do and for what ultimate purpose. These are the initiates of the New World Order who are the movers and shakers, the wealthiest and the most influential people in the world who live on the pinnacles of fabulous wealth and exercise real power as change agents of the New World Order. Moreover, the most elevated of these powerful men visible to the world are the international usurers, and specifically Jewish International Bankers. That is why the baneful presence of the Jew moneychanger and usurer in the dark history of banking is so prominent. But behind these, wielding immense power from the shadows, are the true Lords of Power … the Occult Hierarchy, which control the secret societies, and who are the Black Adepts from the Cult of Evil.
For many centuries a small but immensely powerful cabal –the Cult of Evil– has been working towards the day when they will be able to force the sovereign nations of the world to submit to a One World Government under their direct control. They have long-planned for the day when they will come out of the shadows and declare themselves masters of the world and all things in it. A prerequisite for this World Empire is a world bank and a world currency and so great efforts have been made to compel the nations of the world to accept a one world monetary system, which this Cabal of Evil will control. That is why control of gold, money, banking and credit are integral to this agenda to create conditions necessary for the inauguration of the New World Order. Those in control of the New World Order, the Lords of Power, have been orchestrating this wicked and evil plan for centuries and they have shrewdly understood that control of the monetary systems of all nations is the key to implementing an iron-fist control over the nations of the world. The other main mechanism of control is the establishment of a World Army and World Police Force whose power will be almost limitless in their task of controlling all people, everywhere, totally from the cradle to the grave. And crucial to this is a cashless society and a micro-chipped population.
This is why the world has been redrawn according to the imperatives of this ancient dream of the Secret Societies for a World Empire under their sway. A World Empire with a World Government and World Religion in which everyone, everywhere is identified, tracked and traced in an instant in a total surveillance grid spanning the globe. That is, everyone everywhere is controlled totally from the cradle to the grave. That is why the architects of the New World Order has demarcated the world into military regions and a version of this posited global tyranny deliberately leaked into the public arena. Such is the way of things today since the hitherto very secret, very dark conspiracy for World Empire has now become an Open Conspiracy.
Human history is replete with numerous empires and kingdoms, emperors and kings, presidents and republics that have all wax and waned. Every one of them have endured but for a short time. Every personal ambition, every selfish desire and Will-to-Power has exhausted itself with the demise of the individual. Superficial analysis of history concludes that this haphazard process, this step by step progress and seemingly arbitrary destruction of the “old” and its replacement with the “new” with no apparent pattern of improvement, is the only pattern in history. That is, the destruction of old things without putting better ones in their place. In short: no rising of a Brotherhood of Man or universal peace and prosperity emerging from it all. However, the proper student of history will disagree with this superficial analysis and recognise that history is not accidental. That nothing happens in history by accident and that everything occurs by design.
Furthermore, that human history is linear, progressive and illustrates the unfolding design of Higher Hidden Hands towards preordained Ends. By understanding this, the proper student of history also understands that beneath the thin veneer of orthodox history lays the hidden stream of objective history in which these designs can be seen. And one of these designs, like a threadrunning through the disorderly process, is the ancient ambition of secret societies for World Revolution leading to despotic World Government. This is the World Empire under the sway of the Lords of Power, the Black Adepts from the Cult of Evil, theOccult Hierarchy who are leaders of the secret societies. And this, gentle reader, the establishment of World Government by World Revolution, is the very ancient ambition of Secret Societies whose dark consequences can be seen by those with eyes to see. In short: this ancient ambition has been responsible for most of the suffering and degradation endured by humans throughout history, but especially in the last three hundred years.
This thread, this dreadful ambition for World Empire, is woven into the fabric of human history and all proper students of history who have examined this matter soon find that their researches take them back into very ancient times. Furthermore, any proper analysis of the situation leads the researcher to conclude that the plan for World Revolution and the establishment of the New World Order did not spring, as by demonic birth, from the mind of one man. Nor is it the progeny of collective human minds. The ultimate source and inspiration for the establishment of the New World Order is a non-human intelligence of immense power. It is demonic and comes from the two principalities of Evil –Luciferic and Ahrimanic (Satanic) – that seek to supplant God’s rule on Earth. It is from this dark, dark source that the plan for World Empire and World Tyranny comes and its impress upon history is effected by humans who, witting or unwitting, carry out the designs of this plan by offering themselves as agencies, or vehicles, by which the Will of Evil is made manifest on Earth. The intricate, infinitely complex agenda for World Empire operating throughout time and in all aspects of the human condition is not the product of human minds but is the progeny of Evil acting through human agents. Moreover, what is now unfolding on Earth today has a long history of organisation and conspiracy preceding it. This is the history of the Secret Societies and until recent times this was a Closed Conspiracy enforced by blood oaths, fear of revenge and murder. However, a point was reached where this Closed Conspiracybecame visible to all and this occurred in our recent world, in Germany in the 18th Century.
The Organised Evil that is the occult underworld of the Secret Society has had a devastating influence upon human history. And, when any proper study of history is carried out, this baneful influence can easily be seen. This organised Evil has been a perennial presence in human history and has largely carried out its dark work from the shadows. However, occasionally this malignant work is uncovered and the perpetrators exposed to a publicity they assiduously work to avoid. A salient example when the work of Evil became manifest was in 1787 with the chance discovery by the Royal Bavarian Government of the documents of a ruthless secret society, supposedly controlled by Adam Weishaupt, a university professor. This was the Illuminati.
These secret documents proved, for the first time, the existence of the revolutionary conspiracy which today -it has had various other names- manifests as Communism. The aims of the Illuminati, clearly stated in their lost papers, were the abolition of religion, family, nations and the establishment of World Government. To this end, the Illuminati played a large part in the secret societies behind the evil of the French Revolution and then extended their baleful influence to America, such that George Washington expressed himself:
“… fully satisfied that the doctrines of the Illuminati have spread to the United States”.
However, this brief exposure ended and the ancient revolutionary conspiracy again went underground guarding itself with the entire sinister armoury at its disposal especially that of lies, deceit, fear, intimidation, blackmail, murder and bribery . Yet, the subversive movement for World Revolution because of its over-arching ambition cannot remain totally hidden and its adherents often make this dark dream known to the public, albeit in more palatable forms. The subversive work comes in many forms but they are all characterised by the desire of “One-Worlders” to dissolve the sovereignty of nations and set up super-national dictatorship be it by stealth or via “World Revolution.”
Chief amongst these was the establishment of the United Nations in 1945 to promote international peace and security and ushered into being by the proven Communist traitor Alger Hiss. However, although Hiss was indeed a traitor to America his allegiance was not to Communism per se, to Soviet Russia and the monster tyrants who ruled the Russian people with an iron fist, but to the New World Order and the Global Elite who are behind it, and ultimately to the secret societies and the Occult Hierarchywho command it all from the shadows. Thus, Hiss not only betrayed the American people to the New World Order and its immensely powerful and uniquely wealthy sponsors waiting, vulture-like, in the shadows, but the entire people of the world.
At this time the Closed Conspiracy had now become an Open Conspiracy for the Occult Hierarchy had commanded that the final push for World Empire must accelerate towards its final establishment. They now satisfied that their plans were so advanced and so nearly completed that nothing now can stand in the way of its fulfillment. And so, today, they gloat and boast of their ancient and current works content that their Great Work of the Ages, the “Great Plan,” is near its fulfillment.
The horrors and travails of World War 2 had just finished and in the immediate aftermath these events still haunted the world, moreover, the Atom Bomb had been dropped on Japan and the atomic age had dawned. The architects of World War Two gloated that their agenda for World Empire had been more than satisfied by the catastrophe of the war, especially the promotion of the idea of World Government, which had many, many supporters at the time galvanised by their slogan of “one world or none.” There arose many organizations, activists, groups and “think tanks” around the world bent on creating a new world order that could “prevent” another global war. However, the movement towards World Empire has a very ancient lineage and its footprints are everywhere in the historic record and easily observed by those with eyes to see but it truly came out of the shadows in the 20th Century and even those without the requisite sight for deep historical research can observe its presence.
Thus, the exoteric expressions of this secret, clandestine and ancient agenda came into being, yet, when the thin veil of liberal, egalitarian, internationalist, pacifist and federalist rhetoric is pulled aside one immediately uncovers the true nature of these entities. That they are front organisations for a network of power and manipulation, a grid of concentrated power girthing the Earth, whose centre lies in the shadowy world, the invisible empire, of the Secret Society. But, especially, in the Occult Hierarchy of this invisible empire who is the Black Adepts from Cult of Evil, leaders of the most ancient religion on Earth. And gentle reader; understand this, this Cabal of Evil is truly the Lords of Power on this Earth.
The horrors of World Wars I & II had convinced many that by creating a world order, a New World Order, another global war could be prevented. Briefly, some of the more significant front groups were The Campaign for World Government, the first world federalist organization launched in 1937. the Federal Union organised in the United Kingdom in 1938, and in 1939, in the U.S., the Federal Union (now Association to Unite the Democracies) was established calling for a federation of the Atlantic democracies. in 1940, The Mouvement Populaire Suisee en Favor d’une Federation des Peuples was created in Geneva. In 1945, the Committee to Frame a World Constitution convened at the Rockefeller creature, the University of Chicago, and drafted a “Constitution for the World.” While in 1947, in Asheville, North Carolina, five small world federalist organisations came together and agreed to merge as the United World Federalists or World Federalist Association.
In August 1947, in Montreux, more than 51 organizations from 24 countries came together at the Conference of the World Movement for World Federal Government and produced the “Montreux Declaration” to create a worldwide federalist organisation –World Federalist Movement– pushing for a Pro-World Government. At its second congress in 1948 in Luxembourg the World Federalists Movement voiced its intent when the 350 participants at the Congress laid the groundwork for an association of parliamentarians for world government. This came into being in 1951 in England calling itself “The World Association of Parliamentarians for World Government” whose members were predominantly socialist and so sympathetic to the idea of World Revolution albeit by the Fabian Socialist route rather than by violent revolution.
Thus, by 1951, the Federalists, the One-Worlders, the Internationalists and Globalists, believing that with the great instrument of the United Nations now available to them, their great day was at hand. In that year, that part of the Open Conspiracy dealing with geo-politics emerged showing the full shape of the Grand Design, the Master Plan for World Tyranny. The published agenda does not use vague talk of some “league” or “united nations” to enforce something, but informs in great detail the tyranny that awaits mankind such that any honest man can see exactly the nature of the Evil about to descend on the people of the world. This evil plan came from a body calling itself “The World Association of Parliamentarians for World Government” (WAPWG) founded in London. This group arose from two groups founded by Labour MP Henry Usborne who was by: “… far the most effective leader of the British movement for world government.” (Lawrence L Wittner: One World or None: A History of the World Nuclear Disarmament Movement Through 1953). the first of Usborne’s groups was “The Parliamentary Group for World Government” founded in 1945 the other was the “All-Party Parliamentary Group for World Government” (PGWG) formed in 1947, which worked:
“… to advance the idea of federal administration in Britain by persuading official opinion within government circles and by influencing public opinion by propaganda.”
” … to act in whatever way it deems effective, as the focus in the House [House of Commons in the British Parliament] for study and action on world government”.
Thus, these two pressure groups sought to introduce the ideas of federalist thinkers (“Federalist,” “One-Worlders,” “Internationalists” and “Globalists”) into the practical business of national politics. In 1951, the PGWG established the One World Trust (OWT) as its “charitable arm” apparently to promote research and “educational programmes” and “modern studies” into the:
” … facts, principles and methods of planning and organising on a world basis to the greatest advantage of the human species.”
The mission statement of the One World Trust is to promote:
” … education and research into the changes required within global organisations in order to achieve the eradication of poverty, injustice and war. It conducts research on practical ways to make global organisations more responsive to the people they affect, and on how the rule of law can be applied equally to all. It educates political leaders and opinion-formers about the findings of its research. [One World Trust’s] guiding vision is a world where all peoples live in peace and security and have equal access to opportunity and participation.”
In 1951, the PGWG organised the first London Conference on World Government, and from a resolution of this meeting sprang the World Association of Parliamentarians for World Government (WAPWG); receiving its constitution and first officers from the second London Conference on World Government in 1952. In 1958, WAPWG adopted a revised constitution and changed its title to “World Parliament Association” whose avowed aim was to pursue the objectives of the “All-Party Parliamentary Group for World Government” (PGWG) and to act as an agency for centralising and coordinating the activities of various national federalist groups working to federate Europe as well as those working to federate the world. The front group concerned itself with all things pertaining to World Federalism, World Government,World Empire and World Tyranny. It arranged a series of international conferences, formulated and issued numerous statements of policy on World Government, disarmament, the revision of the United Nations charter and on related subjects such as sustainability and other trappings of tyranny. Its regular official journal, in conjunction with Parliamentary Association, is World containing much flim flam Federalists are happy to share with those they want to control via World Government.
All-Party Parliamentary Group for World Government (PGWG) and World Association of Parliamentarians for World Government (WAPWG) are two of the innumerable “front” bodies working towards the revolutionary end that is World Government by World Tyranny. What marks these “fronts” different was that for the first time the Master Plan for the militarisation of the world was released into public arena when, at its second conference in 1952, WAPWG published its manifesto in which the blueprint for “The World Organization” as given. A broad outline of this global rearrangement given in the World Organization’s charter is this: the “The World Organization … will take over the existing facilities of the United Nations” and once this was done “The World Organization” would set up a directorate composed of a “World Director;” 8 “Zone Directors;” 5 “Commanders;” and 51 “Regional Directors.”
The World Organization’s charter would also “effect World Security so that the people of the World may live in freedom from fear of war” and to ensure this substantial military forces –The World Army– would be stationed around the globe. Moreover, the World Organization would not only control the production and distribution of basic foodstuffs, raw and strategic materials but also only allow what national governments allowed to exist:
“… the maximum freedom of action within the understanding of World achievement”.
This world map (republished in 1960 by the National Economic Council of New York) was very revealing of the totalitarian mindset of the Federalists. apart from the audacious demarcating of the world into military regions the map also showed that the military in each region would be alien to that area. That is, when the World Government became a reality no indigenous army will be allowed to control its own nation and people. What was left of any national army would be stationed in different parts of the globe: in short, a defunct nation’s military force would be policing the people of another defunct nation. Thus, the map illustrates the dissolution of all national sovereignties and all national borders redrawn into military regions, each of which is to be patrolled by forces foreign to that region. Why is this so? The World Association of Parliamentarians for World Government convened in London under the auspices of the pervasive dark power working to establish a World Empire on Earth. Those assembled took it upon themselves to redraw the map of the world according to their wishes by erasing ancient borders and enduring boundaries and sectioning the world into artificial regions wholly devoid of historical relevance. This re-drawing of the world was the product of the totalitarian mindset of those working for World Government, whose secret sponsors are Illuminati. The artificial boundaries demarked the military regions after the One-World Government has been established.
The seemingly strange requirement of foreign troops guarding indigenous populations was an imperative of the tyranny planned for the world. In the early 1920’s, Lenin and his fellow Bolshevik leaders learned a very valuable lesson in tyranny by recognising the reluctance of troops – even hardened and calloused veterans- to terrorise their own people. That is, troops could not be depended upon to be brutalising to their own kind. Therefore, the wicked and evil Bolshevik leaders devised a plan whereby ethnic troops would be stationed amongst different races so that any moral disquiet or reluctance to use violence was easily overcome by a simple expedient, exploiting an enduring pervasive aspect of the human condition: racism. By this expedient, the reign of terror under Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin, the tyranny and mass murder of the Russian people by the alien Bolshevik regime, was made less problematic by the use of ethnic troops –especially Jews and Muslims- on the indigenous Christian Russian people. Thus, a valuable lesson in tyranny was soon learned by the Bolsheviks: that troops have no difficulty oppressing, gaoling and murdering people not their own. Moreover, a wicked plan whose lessons apply worldwide and at all times. A wicked, evil plan adopted by the socialist schemers in the West behind the movement for World Federalism, World Government, World Empire and World Tyranny. And because the magnitude and intensity of the reign of terror in the coming New World Order is perforce planned to be much greater than the Bolshevik reign of terror it made sense that the technique in tyranny, terror and control be developed on a global scale. And, gentle reader, the map of the world envisioned and published by the World Association of Parliamentarians for World Government is an illustration of this global plan by socialist schemers wishing the world and its people into absolute slavery.
Article Credits: Overlords of Chaos
WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE: COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
December 8, 2016 by James Perloff
During his presidential campaign, Barack Obama consistently promised Americans “change.” Such promises aren’t new to the voting public.
When Jimmy Carter ran for president, he said: “The people of this country know from bitter experience that we are not going to get … changes merely by shifting around the same group of insiders.” And top Carter aide Hamilton Jordan promised: “If, after the inauguration, you find a Cy Vance as Secretary of State and Zbigniew Brzezinski as head of National Security, then I would say we failed. And I’d quit.” Yet Carter selected Vance as Secretary of State and Brzezinski as National Security Adviser; the “same group of insiders” had been shifted around; and Jordan did not quit.
Carter’s administration was dominated by members of the Trilateral Commission, which had been founded by Brzezinski and David Rockefeller. In 1980, when Ronald Reagan was campaigning against Carter, he protested:
I don’t believe that the Trilateral Commission is a conspiratorial group, but I do think its interests are devoted to international banking, multinational corporations, and so forth. I don’t think that any Administration of the U.S. Government should have the top nineteen positions filled by people from any one group or organization representing one viewpoint. No, I would go in a different direction.
Yet after his election, President Reagan picked 10 Trilateralists for his transition team, and included in his administration such Trilateralists as Vice President George Bush, Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, U.S. Trade Representative William Brock, and Fed Chairman Paul Volcker. Yet the entire North American membership of the Trilateral Commission has never numbered much over 100.
The reason that presidential candidates’ promises of “change” go largely unfulfilled once in office: they draw their top personnel from the same establishment groups — of which the Trilateral Commission is only one.
Chief among these groups is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the most visible manifestation of what some have called the American establishment. Members of the council have dominated the administrations of every president since Franklin D. Roosevelt, at the cabinet and sub-cabinet level. It does not matter whether the president is a Democrat or Republican. As we will later see, Barack Obama is no exception to CFR influence.
Power Behind the Throne
In theory, America’s government is supposed to be “of the people, by the people, for the people.” While this concept rang true in early America, and many individuals still trust in it, the last century has seen the reality of power increasingly shift from the people to an establishment rooted in banking, Wall Street, and powerful multinational corporations. Syndicated columnist Edith Kermit Roosevelt, granddaughter of Teddy Roosevelt, explained:
The word “Establishment” is a general term for the power elite in international finance, business, the professions and government, largely from the northeast, who wield most of the power regardless of who is in the White House. Most people are unaware of the existence of this “legitimate Mafia.” Yet the power of the Establishment makes itself felt from the professor who seeks a foundation grant, to the candidate for a cabinet post or State Department job. It affects the nation’s policies in almost every area.
Roosevelt added that this group’s goal is “a One World Socialist state governed by ‘experts’ like themselves.”
David Rockefeller, the longtime chairman (and now chairman emeritus) of the CFR, acknowledged the role of the establishment in trying to lead America in the one-world direction in his 2002 book Memoirs:
For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as “internationalists” and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.
Two major means the establishment employs for controlling government policy: (1) through its influence within the two major parties and the mass media, it can usually assure that both the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates will be its own hand-picked men; (2) by stacking presidential cabinets with CFR members at key positions — especially those involving defense, finance, foreign policy, and national security — it can assure that America will move in the direction it wants. Since the council’s founding in 1921, 21 secretaries of defense or war, 19 secretaries of the treasury, 17 secretaries of state, and 15 CIA directors have hailed from the Council on Foreign Relations.
Prior to the CFR’s founding, what Congressman Charles Lindbergh, Sr. (the father of the famous aviator) called the “Money Trust” — a cabal of international bankers including the houses of Rockefeller, Morgan, and Rothschild — conspired to create the Federal Reserve System. Their agents, such as Paul Warburg and Benjamin Strong, who had secretly planned the Fed at a nine-day meeting on Jekyll Island, were then put in charge of the system itself. This gave them control of American interest rates, and, by virtue of this, control of the stock market, as well as the capacity to have the U.S. government spend without limit by having the Fed create money from nothing. The result has been decades of inflation and skyrocketing national debt. (For full details, see the April 13, 2009 New American or Our Monetary Mayhem Began With the Fed.)
Not just an accumulation of wealth, but a consolidation of political power was involved. The Money Trust had backed Woodrow Wilson in the presidential elections, and then controlled him through their front man, Edward Mandell House, who lived in the White House. The trust recognized how the power of government could be used to advance their own interests.
Wilson, surrounded by the bankers, traveled to the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, which was settling the aftermath of World War I. His chief proposal there, of course, was the League of Nations — a first step toward world government. However, although the League was established by the Versailles Treaty, the United States did not join because the Senate refused to ratify the treaty.
In response to this rejection, the bankers’ circle, still in Paris, held a series of meetings and proposed to establish a new organization in the United States, whose purpose would be to lead America into the League. This organization was incorporated in New York City two years later as the Council on Foreign Relations.
Architects of a New World Order
The CFR’s goal was formation of an incrementally stronger world government. Admiral Chester Ward, former Judge Advocate of the U.S. Navy, was a CFR member for 16 years before resigning in disgust. He stated: “The main purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty and national independence, and submergence into an all-powerful one-world government.”
After World War II, the League’s successor, the United Nations, was born. Contrary to what the public is commonly told, the UN was not founded by nations who had tired of war. The UN was conceived by a group of CFR members in the State Department calling themselves the Informal Agenda Group. They drafted the original proposal for the UN, and secured the approval of President Roosevelt, who then made establishing the UN his highest postwar priority. When the UN held its founding meeting in San Francisco in 1945, 47 of the American delegates were CFR members.
Though the UN was not initially set up as a world government, the intent was that it would develop into one over time. John Foster Dulles (CFR), an American delegate to the UN founding meeting who later became Secretary of State under Eisenhower, acknowledged as much in his book War or Peace: “The United Nations represents not a final stage in the development of world order, but only a primitive stage. Therefore its primary task is to create the conditions which will make possible a more highly developed organization.”
Two other postwar institutions, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, were technically created at the 1944 Bretton Woods Conference. But the initial planning was done by the CFR’s Economic and Finance Group, part of their wartime War and Peace Studies Project. The World Bank and IMF act as a loan-guarantee scheme for multinational banks. When a loan to a foreign country goes awry, the World Bank and IMF step in with taxpayer money, ensuring that the private banks continue to receive interest payments. Furthermore, the World Bank and IMF dictate conditions to the countries receiving bailouts, thus giving the bankers a measure of political control over indebted nations.
Despite what Americans were told, the postwar Marshall Plan was not invented by General George Marshall, though he did announce it in a 1947 Harvard commencement speech. The Marshall Plan was dreamed up at a CFR study group with David Rockefeller as its secretary. Marshall was simply selected to announce the plan because, as a general, he would be perceived as politically neutral and help garner bipartisan congressional support for the plan. Unknown to the public, Marshall Plan funds were circuitously rerouted by John J. McCloy — appointed U.S. High Commissioner to Germany — to Jean Monnet, founder of the Common Market, which evolved into today’s European Union, a microcosm of world government. McCloy returned home to become chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations in 1953.
The tragic Vietnam War was run almost entirely by CFR members. William P. Bundy (CFR) drafted the Tonkin Gulf Resolution before the now-discredited Tonkin Gulf Incident even took place. Bundy’s father-in-law, Dean Acheson (CFR), as leader of a senior team of advisers nicknamed “the Wise Men,” persuaded Lyndon Baines Johnson to dramatically escalate the war beginning in 1965. And Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara (CFR) helped develop the “rules of engagement” (e.g., preventing the Air Force from attacking critical targets) that guaranteed the war’s disastrous prolongation. This generated a huge slide to the left among American college students. When Bundy left the State Department, David Rockefeller appointed him editor of the CFR’s journal Foreign Affairs. And McNamara, one of the leading architects of the Vietnam War debacle, became president of the World Bank.
Broadening the Scheme
The CFR is not a uniquely American phenomenon. It has counterpart organizations throughout the world — e.g., the Royal Institute of International Affairs in England, the French Institute of International Relations, etc.
To help coordinate policy on an international scale, CFR chairman David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski founded the Trilateral Commission in 1973. “Trilateral” refers to the coordination of three global regions: North America, Europe, and Asia. The commission’s meetings allow the gathering together of heads of state, banks, multinational corporations, and media. Republican Senator Barry Goldwater called the commission “David Rockefeller’s newest cabal,” and said, “It is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States.” The commission, like the annual secretive meetings of the Bilderbergers and the notorious Bohemian Grove, enables the international power elite to privately assemble and plan our destiny.
Jimmy Carter was a member of the commission, hand-picked to be president after meeting with Brzezinski and Rockefeller at the latter’s Tarrytown, New York, estate. Carter filled his administration with CFR members and Trilateralists. Indeed, Brzezinski noted in his memoirs that “all the key foreign policy decision makers of the Carter Administration had previously served in the Trilateral Commission.” Carter then embarked on a destructive course of foreign policy that included betraying the Shah of Iran, leading to the installment of Ayatollah Khomeini and the U.S. hostage crisis; betraying President Anastasio Somoza of Nicaragua, resulting in a Marxist dictatorship under the Sandinistas; and betraying Taiwan in order to recognize Communist China — a move previously set up by Richard Nixon’s overtures to China, dictated by his own CFR advisers.
Under Bill Clinton (a CFR member who selected 12 CFR members for his cabinet), the United States enacted NAFTA, an economic alliance with Mexico and Canada. This arrangement was created by the establishment, not by the American people, who did not suspect the game being played on them. Not only did NAFTA swamp us with cheap, job-destroying imports, but it was designed to be the foundation for a continental economic union leading to political union. Robert Pastor (CFR), a key architect of North American integration, acknowledged in the January/February 2004 issue of Foreign Affairs: “NAFTA was merely the first draft of an economic constitution for North America.” And Andrew Reding of the World Policy Institute said: “NAFTA will signal the formation, however tentatively, of a new political unit — North America. With economic integration will come political integration. By whatever name, this is an incipient form of international government. Following the lead of the Europeans, North Americans should begin considering formation of a continental parliament.” [Emphasis added.]
A similar stratagem had been used against the peoples of Europe — by first deceptively hooking them into an “economic” alliance called the Common Market, which then, requiring common laws to regulate trade, transformed via a series of steps into the European Union, the super-national government of Europe that is swallowing up national sovereignty.
Following the initial step enacted under Clinton, President George W. Bush, whose father was a CFR director, moved toward politicizing the NAFTA alliance. On March 23, 2005, he met Mexican President Vicente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin to launch the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), the rudiments of a North American Union. CNN’s Lou Dobbs said of it: “President Bush signed a formal agreement that will end the United States as we know it.”
Furthermore, regional alliances such as the European Union and proposed North American Union are not ends, but only steppingstones to world government. As CFR/Trilateralist Zbigniew Brzezinski stated: “We cannot leap into world government in one quick step. The precondition for genuine globalization is progressive regionalization.”
In furtherance of this, on April 30, 2007, President Bush stood at the White House beside Angela Merkel, president of the European Council, and José Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, and announced the signing of a new agreement to “strengthen transatlantic economic integration.” It called for “joint work in the areas of regulatory cooperation, financial markets, trade and transport security, innovation and technological development, intellectual property rights, energy, investment, competition, services, and government procurement,” and various other steps toward economic integration. But as usual, “economic integration” is the predecessor of political integration. CFR members have dreamed of a political union between the United States and Europe since the 1950s, when the CFR-dominated Atlantic Union Committee promoted a merger they called “Atlantica.”
Candidate Barack Obama revealed he would proceed with the Bush initiatives. In a speech in Berlin on July 24, 2008, he stated:
That is why the greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another. The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down…. Yes, there have been differences between America and Europe. No doubt, there will be differences in the future. But the burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together…. In this new century, Americans and Europeans alike will be required to do more — not less. Partnership and cooperation among nations is not a choice; it is the one way, the only way, to protect our common security and advance our common humanity.
Obama had only been president for a little over two months when he traveled to Europe for a series of meetings with European leaders. He attended the G20 Summit, which ended with a tentative agreement to launch a new global financial system, using as the rationale for this major step toward global government the recent Fed- and government-spawned financial meltdown.
Henry Kissinger — foreign policy mouthpiece of the establishment for four decades — wrote an article for the January 12, 2009 issue of the International Herald Tribune entitled “The Chance for a New World Order.” He stated:
As the new U.S. administration prepares to take office amid grave financial and international crises, it may seem counterintuitive to argue that the very unsettled nature of the international system generates a unique opportunity for creative diplomacy….
Even the most affluent countries will confront shrinking resources. Each will have to redefine its national priorities. An international order will emerge if a system of compatible priorities comes into being….
The alternative to a new international order is chaos.
Kissinger also stated on CNBC’s “Squawk on the Street”: “The president-elect is coming into office at a moment when there is upheaval in many parts of the world simultaneously…. His task will be to develop an overall strategy for America in this period when, really, a new world order can be created. It’s a great opportunity, it isn’t just a crisis.”
Past statements reveal that the establishment wants a single currency for the world, just as the EU has consolidated its currencies into the “euro.” As far back as the 1944 Bretton Woods Conference, John Maynard Keynes proposed a world currency he dubbed bancor. Richard L. Gardner (CFR) wrote in the Fall 1984 Foreign Affairs: “I suggest a radical alternative scheme for the next century: the creation of common currency for all the industrial democracies and a joint Bank of Issue to determine that Monetary Policy.”
In March of this year, Obama and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown met with reporters at the White House. Brown announced that “there is the possibility in the next few months of a global new deal that will involve all the countries of the world in sorting out and cleaning up the banking system.” Obama added that
Globalization can be an enormous force for good…. But what is also true is … we still have a 1930s regulatory system in place in most countries designed from the last great crisis, that we’ve got to update our institutions, our regulatory frameworks, so that the power of globalization is channeled for the benefit of ordinary men and women.
If trends continue, however, the changes can be expected to benefit a tiny handful of the global elite, not “ordinary men and women.” Further evidence that Obama’s administration will simply continue the globalist agenda is indicated by his appointments.
CFR Domination Continues
During his campaign, Obama selected the ubiquitous Zbigniew Brzezinski (CFR), promoter of the “regional” approach to world government, as one of his top foreign policy advisors. Obama called Brzezinski “one of our more outstanding thinkers” and “somebody I have learned an immense amount from.” Presumably Brzezinski’s teachings included the world government he advocates.
For Treasury Secretary, Obama chose Timothy Geithner: Senior Fellow in International Economics at the CFR, Bilderberger, former head of the New York Federal Reserve, and former employee of both the IMF and Kissinger Associates. One doesn’t get more establishment than that! It is Geithner who is managing the bailout of Wall Street with taxpayer dollars. Assisting Geithner at Treasury in overseeing the auto industry bailout is fellow CFR member Stephen Rattner.
For Director of the National Economic Council — a U.S. government agency created by a Bill Clinton executive order — Obama selected Lawrence Summers (CFR, Bilderberger). Former Chief Economist at the World Bank, his last position was at the investment firm of D. E. Shaw & Co, where he earned $5.2 million in one year while working one day per week. Henry Kissinger had said Summers should “be given a White House post in which he was charged with shooting down or fixing bad ideas.”
For Defense Secretary, Obama elected to continue with Bush pick Robert Gates (CFR, Bilderberger). During the Carter administration, Gates served as a special assistant to Zbigniew Brzezinski. In 2004, he co-chaired a CFR Task Force on Iran with Brzezinski, who lauded Gates in Time in 2008. Joining Gates in the Defense Department are fellow CFR members Michele Flournoy (Under Secretary of Defense for Policy), Jeh C. Johnson (Defense Department General Counsel), and Kathleen Hicks (Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Strategy, Plans and Forces).
For Secretary of State, Obama chose Hillary Clinton, who has attended the top-secret Bilderberger meetings. Hillary is not a CFR member, but husband Bill is, and her State Department is laden with CFR members, including James B. Steinberg (Deputy Secretary of State), William J. Burns (Under Secretary for Political Affairs), Susan Rice (U.S. Ambassador to the UN), Jacob J. Lew (Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources), Todd Stern (Special Envoy for Climate Change), and many others.
The Department of Homeland Security, which many Americans fear may turn our country into an Orwellian surveillance society, was conceived before 9/11 by a task force called the U.S. Commission on National Security, nine of whose 12 members belonged to the CFR. The administration of the department under Obama is particularly heavy with CFR members, including Janet Napolitano (Secretary), Jane Holl Lute (Deputy Secretary), Juliette Kayyem (Assistant Secretary, Office of Intergovernmental Programs), and Alan Bersin (Assistant Secretary, Office of International Affairs).
Thus the CFR continues to dominate our government’s key areas: finance, defense, foreign policy, and security. To this may be added various other Obama CFR appointees, such as Mona Sutphen (White House Deputy Chief of Staff), Paul Volcker (Chairman, Economic Recovery Advisory Board), Peter Cowhey, (Senior Counsel, Office of U.S. Trade Representative), and Eric Shinseki (Secretary of Veterans Affairs).
The idea that Barack Obama became president from a “grass-roots” movement is illusory. American government policy continues to be largely dictated by the rich and the few. This is generally unknown to the public — not because it is a bizarre conspiracy theory, but because the same power elite who run our government, mega-banks, and multinational corporations also run the major media, as an inspection of the CFR membership roster would reveal.
Membership in the CFR, of course, is not an automatic condemnation. A few people are added as “window dressing” to give the group distinction and a veneer of diversity. An example is movie star Angelina Jolie. No one suspects Jolie knows much about foreign affairs or is a conspirator for world government. But within the CFR are hardcore globalists who, linked with their foreign counterparts through the Bilderbergers and Trilateral Commission, head the drive for one-world government.
Though numerically small (less than 1,000 members during the Kennedy years, less than 4,500 today), this organization has dominated every administration for over seven decades.
As long as the CFR controls our government, we can anticipate more of the same: diminishing national sovereignty; free flow of immigration (which confuses national identity and weakens national loyalties); increasing jobs losses through multinational trade agreements; further internationalization of law (Law of the Sea Treaty, Kyoto Protocol, World Court, global taxation, etc.); increasing loss of freedoms in a “surveillance society”; progressive organization of the United States, Mexico, and Canada into a North American Union; and ultimately, broader merger into a world government where all power will be concentrated in the hands of the elite.
Eternal vigilance continues to be the price of freedom.
Source: The New American
Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal
By JO BECKER and MIKE McINTIRE
APRIL 23, 2015
The headline on the website Pravda trumpeted President Vladimir V. Putin’s latest coup, its nationalistic fervor recalling an era when its precursor served as the official mouthpiece of the Kremlin: “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.”
The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.
But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.
Continue reading the main story
At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.
Frank Giustra, right, a mining financier, has donated $31.3 million to the foundation run by former President Bill Clinton, left.CreditJoaquin Sarmiento/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.
And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.
At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control of the company’s assets to the Russians. Those promises have been repeatedly broken, records show.
The New York Times’s examination of the Uranium One deal is based on dozens of interviews, as well as a review of public records and securities filings in Canada, Russia and the United States. Some of the connections between Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation were unearthed by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institution and author of the forthcoming book “Clinton Cash.” Mr. Schweizer provided a preview of material in the book to The Times, which scrutinized his information and built upon it with its own reporting.
Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown. But the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation’s donors.
In a statement, Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign, said no one “has ever produced a shred of evidence supporting the theory that Hillary Clinton ever took action as secretary of state to support the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation.” He emphasized that multiple United States agencies, as well as the Canadian government, had signed off on the deal and that, in general, such matters were handled at a level below the secretary. “To suggest the State Department, under then-Secretary Clinton, exerted undue influence in the U.S. government’s review of the sale of Uranium One is utterly baseless,” he added.
American political campaigns are barred from accepting foreign donations. But foreigners may give to foundations in the United States. In the days since Mrs. Clinton announced her candidacy for president, the Clinton Foundation has announced changes meant to quell longstanding concerns about potential conflicts of interest in such donations; it has limited donations from foreign governments, with many, like Russia’s, barred from giving to all but its health care initiatives. That policy stops short of Mrs. Clinton’s agreement with the Obama administration, which prohibited all foreign government donations while she served as the nation’s top diplomat.
Continue reading the main storyGRAPHIC Donations to the Clinton Foundation, and a Russian Uranium Takeover Uranium investors gave millions to the Clinton Foundation while Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s office was involved in approving a Russian bid for mining assets in Kazakhstan and the United States.
Either way, the Uranium One deal highlights the limits of such prohibitions. The foundation will continue to accept contributions from foreign sources whose interests, like Uranium One’s, may overlap with those of foreign governments, some of which may be at odds with the United States.
When the Uranium One deal was approved, the geopolitical backdrop was far different from today’s. The Obama administration was seeking to “reset” strained relations with Russia. The deal was strategically important to Mr. Putin, who shortly after the Americans gave their blessing sat down for a staged interview with Rosatom’s chief executive, Sergei Kiriyenko. “Few could have imagined in the past that we would own 20 percent of U.S. reserves,” Mr. Kiriyenko told Mr. Putin.
Now, after Russia’s annexation of Crimea and aggression in Ukraine, the Moscow-Washington relationship is devolving toward Cold War levels, a point several experts made in evaluating a deal so beneficial to Mr. Putin, a man known to use energy resources to project power around the world.
“Should we be concerned? Absolutely,” said Michael McFaul, who served under Mrs. Clinton as the American ambassador to Russia but said he had been unaware of the Uranium One deal until asked about it. “Do we want Putin to have a monopoly on this? Of course we don’t. We don’t want to be dependent on Putin for anything in this climate.”
A Seat at the Table
The path to a Russian acquisition of American uranium deposits began in 2005 in Kazakhstan, where the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra orchestrated his first big uranium deal, with Mr. Clinton at his side.
The two men had flown aboard Mr. Giustra’s private jet to Almaty, Kazakhstan, where they dined with the authoritarian president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev. Mr. Clinton handed the Kazakh president a propaganda coup when he expressed support for Mr. Nazarbayev’s bid to head an international elections monitoring group, undercutting American foreign policy and criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, his wife, then a senator.
Within days of the visit, Mr. Giustra’s fledgling company, UrAsia Energy Ltd., signed a preliminary deal giving it stakes in three uranium mines controlled by the state-run uranium agency Kazatomprom.
Ian Telfer was chairman of Uranium One and made large donations to the Clinton Foundation.CreditGalit Rodan/Bloomberg, via Getty Images If the Kazakh deal was a major victory, UrAsia did not wait long before resuming the hunt. In 2007, it merged with Uranium One, a South African company with assets in Africa and Australia, in what was described as a $3.5 billion transaction. The new company, which kept the Uranium One name, was controlled by UrAsia investors including Ian Telfer, a Canadian who became chairman. Through a spokeswoman, Mr. Giustra, whose personal stake in the deal was estimated at about $45 million, said he sold his stake in 2007.
Soon, Uranium One began to snap up companies with assets in the United States. In April 2007, it announced the purchase of a uranium mill in Utah and more than 38,000 acres of uranium exploration properties in four Western states, followed quickly by the acquisition of the Energy Metals Corporation and its uranium holdings in Wyoming, Texas and Utah. That deal made clear that Uranium One was intent on becoming “a powerhouse in the United States uranium sector with the potential to become the domestic supplier of choice for U.S. utilities,” the company declared.
Still, the company’s story was hardly front-page news in the United States — until early 2008, in the midst of Mrs. Clinton’s failed presidential campaign, when The Times published an article revealing the 2005 trip’s link to Mr. Giustra’s Kazakhstan mining deal. It also reported that several months later, Mr. Giustra had donated $31.3 million to Mr. Clinton’s foundation.
(In a statement issued after this article appeared online, Mr. Giustra said he was “extremely proud” of his charitable work with Mr. Clinton, and he urged the media to focus on poverty, health care and “the real challenges of the world.”)
Though the 2008 article quoted the former head of Kazatomprom, Moukhtar Dzhakishev, as saying that the deal required government approval and was discussed at a dinner with the president, Mr. Giustra insisted that it was a private transaction, with no need for Mr. Clinton’s influence with Kazakh officials. He described his relationship with Mr. Clinton as motivated solely by a shared interest in philanthropy.
As if to underscore the point, five months later Mr. Giustra held a fund-raiser for the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative, a project aimed at fostering progressive environmental and labor practices in the natural resources industry, to which he had pledged $100 million. The star-studded gala, at a conference center in Toronto, featured performances by Elton John and Shakira and celebrities like Tom Cruise, John Travolta and Robin Williams encouraging contributions from the many so-called F.O.F.s — Friends of Frank — in attendance, among them Mr. Telfer. In all, the evening generated $16 million in pledges, according to an article in The Globe and Mail.
“None of this would have been possible if Frank Giustra didn’t have a remarkable combination of caring and modesty, of vision and energy and iron determination,” Mr. Clinton told those gathered, adding: “I love this guy, and you should, too.”
But what had been a string of successes was about to hit a speed bump.
Bill Clinton met with Vladimir V. Putin in Moscow in 2010. CreditMikhail Metzel/Associated Press Arrest and Progress
By June 2009, a little over a year after the star-studded evening in Toronto, Uranium One’s stock was in free-fall, down 40 percent. Mr. Dzhakishev, the head of Kazatomprom, had just been arrested on charges that he illegally sold uranium deposits to foreign companies, including at least some of those won by Mr. Giustra’s UrAsia and now owned by Uranium One.
Publicly, the company tried to reassure shareholders. Its chief executive, Jean Nortier, issued a confident statement calling the situation a “complete misunderstanding.” He also contradicted Mr. Giustra’s contention that the uranium deal had not required government blessing. “When you do a transaction in Kazakhstan, you need the government’s approval,” he said, adding that UrAsia had indeed received that approval.
But privately, Uranium One officials were worried they could lose their joint mining ventures. American diplomatic cables made public by WikiLeaks also reflect concerns that Mr. Dzhakishev’s arrest was part of a Russian power play for control of Kazakh uranium assets.
At the time, Russia was already eying a stake in Uranium One, Rosatom company documents show. Rosatom officials say they were seeking to acquire mines around the world because Russia lacks sufficient domestic reserves to meet its own industry needs.
It was against this backdrop that the Vancouver-based Uranium One pressed the American Embassy in Kazakhstan, as well as Canadian diplomats, to take up its cause with Kazakh officials, according to the American cables.
“We want more than a statement to the press,” Paul Clarke, a Uranium One executive vice president, told the embassy’s energy officer on June 10, the officer reported in a cable. “That is simply chitchat.” What the company needed, Mr. Clarke said, was official written confirmation that the licenses were valid.
The American Embassy ultimately reported to the secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton. Though the Clarke cable was copied to her, it was given wide circulation, and it is unclear if she would have read it; the Clinton campaign did not address questions about the cable.
Continue reading the main storyAmong the Donors to the Clinton Foundation Frank Giustra
$31.3 million and a pledge for $100 million more
He built a company that later merged with Uranium One.
Mining investor who was chairman of Uranium One when an arm of the Russian government, Rosatom, acquired it.
$1 million to $5 million
Adviser on 2007 UrAsia-Uranium One merger. Later helped raise $260 million for the company.
$250,000 to $500,000
Chief Executive of U.S. Global Investors Inc., which held $4.7 million in Uranium One shares in the first quarter of 2011.
$50,000 to $100,000
Adviser to Uranium One. Founded Endeavour Mining with Mr. Giustra.
GMP Securities Ltd.
Donating portion of profits
Worked on debt issue that raised $260 million for Uranium One.
What is clear is that the embassy acted, with the cables showing that the energy officer met with Kazakh officials to discuss the issue on June 10 and 11.
Three days later, a wholly owned subsidiary of Rosatom completed a deal for 17 percent of Uranium One. And within a year, the Russian government substantially upped the ante, with a generous offer to shareholders that would give it a 51 percent controlling stake. But first, Uranium One had to get the American government to sign off on the deal.
The Power to Say No
When a company controlled by the Chinese government sought a 51 percent stake in a tiny Nevada gold mining operation in 2009, it set off a secretive review process in Washington, where officials raised concerns primarily about the mine’s proximity to a military installation, but also about the potential for minerals at the site, including uranium, to come under Chinese control. The officials killed the deal.
Such is the power of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. The committee comprises some of the most powerful members of the cabinet, including the attorney general, the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy, and the secretary of state. They are charged with reviewing any deal that could result in foreign control of an American business or asset deemed important to national security.
The national security issue at stake in the Uranium One deal was not primarily about nuclear weapons proliferation; the United States and Russia had for years cooperated on that front, with Russia sending enriched fuel from decommissioned warheads to be used in American nuclear power plants in return for raw uranium.
Instead, it concerned American dependence on foreign uranium sources. While the United States gets one-fifth of its electrical power from nuclear plants, it produces only around 20 percent of the uranium it needs, and most plants have only 18 to 36 months of reserves, according to Marin Katusa, author of “The Colder War: How the Global Energy Trade Slipped From America’s Grasp.”
“The Russians are easily winning the uranium war, and nobody’s talking about it,” said Mr. Katusa, who explores the implications of the Uranium One deal in his book. “It’s not just a domestic issue but a foreign policy issue, too.”
President Putin during a meeting with Rosatom’s chief executive, Sergei Kiriyenko, in December 2007.CreditDmitry Astakhov/Ria Novosti, via Agence France-Presse — Getty Images When ARMZ, an arm of Rosatom, took its first 17 percent stake in Uranium One in 2009, the two parties signed an agreement, found in securities filings, to seek the foreign investment committee’s review. But it was the 2010 deal, giving the Russians a controlling 51 percent stake, that set off alarm bells. Four members of the House of Representatives signed a letter expressing concern. Two more began pushing legislation to kill the deal.
Senator John Barrasso, a Republican from Wyoming, where Uranium One’s largest American operation was, wrote to President Obama, saying the deal “would give the Russian government control over a sizable portion of America’s uranium production capacity.”
“Equally alarming,” Mr. Barrasso added, “this sale gives ARMZ a significant stake in uranium mines in Kazakhstan.”
Uranium One’s shareholders were also alarmed, and were “afraid of Rosatom as a Russian state giant,” Sergei Novikov, a company spokesman, recalled in an interview. He said Rosatom’s chief, Mr. Kiriyenko, sought to reassure Uranium One investors, promising that Rosatom would not break up the company and would keep the same management, including Mr. Telfer, the chairman. Another Rosatom official said publicly that it did not intend to increase its investment beyond 51 percent, and that it envisioned keeping Uranium One a public company
American nuclear officials, too, seemed eager to assuage fears. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission wrote to Mr. Barrasso assuring him that American uranium would be preserved for domestic use, regardless of who owned it.
“In order to export uranium from the United States, Uranium One Inc. or ARMZ would need to apply for and obtain a specific NRC license authorizing the export of uranium for use as reactor fuel,” the letter said.
Still, the ultimate authority to approve or reject the Russian acquisition rested with the cabinet officials on the foreign investment committee, including Mrs. Clinton — whose husband was collecting millions in donations from people associated with Uranium One.
Uranium One’s Russian takeover was approved by the United States while Hillary Rodham Clinton was secretary of state. CreditDoug Mills/The New York Times Before Mrs. Clinton could assume her post as secretary of state, the White House demanded that she sign a memorandum of understanding placing limits on the activities of her husband’s foundation. To avoid the perception of conflicts of interest, beyond the ban on foreign government donations, the foundation was required to publicly disclose all contributors.
Continue reading the main storyRECENT COMMENTSNancy Miller 1 hour ago"Oh, what a tangled web we weaveWhen first we practice to deceive."
Ana Espinosa 1 hour agoPerhaps this is the perfect moment to consider our choice in the next presidential election.Do we want the Koch brothers picking our next...
nobrainer 1 hour agoThe colloquial shell game. It makes for interesting reading. You really are not supposed to fallow the pea. in this case money, or the...
To judge from those disclosures — which list the contributions in ranges rather than precise amounts — the only Uranium One official to give to the Clinton Foundation was Mr. Telfer, the chairman, and the amount was relatively small: no more than $250,000, and that was in 2007, before talk of a Rosatom deal began percolating.
But a review of tax records in Canada, where Mr. Telfer has a family charity called the Fernwood Foundation, shows that he donated millions of dollars more, during and after the critical time when the foreign investment committee was reviewing his deal with the Russians. With the Russians offering a special dividend, shareholders like Mr. Telfer stood to profit.
His donations through the Fernwood Foundation included $1 million reported in 2009, the year his company appealed to the American Embassy to help it keep its mines in Kazakhstan; $250,000 in 2010, the year the Russians sought majority control; as well as $600,000 in 2011 and $500,000 in 2012. Mr. Telfer said that his donations had nothing to do with his business dealings, and that he had never discussed Uranium One with Mr. or Mrs. Clinton. He said he had given the money because he wanted to support Mr. Giustra’s charitable endeavors with Mr. Clinton. “Frank and I have been friends and business partners for almost 20 years,” he said.
The Clinton campaign left it to the foundation to reply to questions about the Fernwood donations; the foundation did not provide a response.
Mr. Telfer’s undisclosed donations came in addition to between $1.3 million and $5.6 million in contributions, which were reported, from a constellation of people with ties to Uranium One or UrAsia, the company that originally acquired Uranium One’s most valuable asset: the Kazakh mines. Without those assets, the Russians would have had no interest in the deal: “It wasn’t the goal to buy the Wyoming mines. The goal was to acquire the Kazakh assets, which are very good,” Mr. Novikov, the Rosatom spokesman, said in an interview.
Amid this influx of Uranium One-connected money, Mr. Clinton was invited to speak in Moscow in June 2010, the same month Rosatom struck its deal for a majority stake in Uranium One.
The $500,000 fee — among Mr. Clinton’s highest — was paid by Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin that has invited world leaders, including Tony Blair, the former British prime minister, to speak at its investor conferences.
John Christensen sold the mining rights on his ranch in Wyoming to Uranium One.CreditMatthew Staver for The New York Times Renaissance Capital analysts talked up Uranium One’s stock, assigning it a “buy” rating and saying in a July 2010 research report that it was “the best play” in the uranium markets. In addition, Renaissance Capital turned up that same year as a major donor, along with Mr. Giustra and several companies linked to Uranium One or UrAsia, to a small medical charity in Colorado run by a friend of Mr. Giustra’s. In a newsletter to supporters, the friend credited Mr. Giustra with helping get donations from “businesses around the world.”
Renaissance Capital would not comment on the genesis of Mr. Clinton’s speech to an audience that included leading Russian officials, or on whether it was connected to the Rosatom deal. According to a Russian government news service, Mr. Putin personally thanked Mr. Clinton for speaking.
A person with knowledge of the Clinton Foundation’s fund-raising operation, who requested anonymity to speak candidly about it, said that for many people, the hope is that money will in fact buy influence: “Why do you think they are doing it — because they love them?” But whether it actually does is another question. And in this case, there were broader geopolitical pressures that likely came into play as the United States considered whether to approve the Rosatom-Uranium One deal.
If doing business with Rosatom was good for those in the Uranium One deal, engaging with Russia was also a priority of the incoming Obama administration, which was hoping for a new era of cooperation as Mr. Putin relinquished the presidency — if only for a term — to Dmitri A. Medvedev.
“The assumption was we could engage Russia to further core U.S. national security interests,” said Mr. McFaul, the former ambassador.
It started out well. The two countries made progress on nuclear proliferation issues, and expanded use of Russian territory to resupply American forces in Afghanistan. Keeping Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon was among the United States’ top priorities, and in June 2010 Russia signed off on a United Nations resolution imposing tough new sanctions on that country.
Two months later, the deal giving ARMZ a controlling stake in Uranium One was submitted to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States for review. Because of the secrecy surrounding the process, it is hard to know whether the participants weighed the desire to improve bilateral relations against the potential risks of allowing the Russian government control over the biggest uranium producer in the United States. The deal was ultimately approved in October, following what two people involved in securing the approval said had been a relatively smooth process.
Moukhtar Dzhakishev was arrested in 2009 while the chief of Kazatomprom.CreditDaniel Acker/Bloomberg, via Getty Images Not all of the committee’s decisions are personally debated by the agency heads themselves; in less controversial cases, deputy or assistant secretaries may sign off. But experts and former committee members say Russia’s interest in Uranium One and its American uranium reserves seemed to warrant attention at the highest levels.
“This deal had generated press, it had captured the attention of Congress and it was strategically important,” said Richard Russell, who served on the committee during the George W. Bush administration. “When I was there invariably any one of those conditions would cause this to get pushed way up the chain, and here you had all three.”
And Mrs. Clinton brought a reputation for hawkishness to the process; as a senator, she was a vocal critic of the committee’s approval of a deal that would have transferred the management of major American seaports to a company based in the United Arab Emirates, and as a presidential candidate she had advocated legislation to strengthen the process.
The Clinton campaign spokesman, Mr. Fallon, said that in general, these matters did not rise to the secretary’s level. He would not comment on whether Mrs. Clinton had been briefed on the matter, but he gave The Times a statement from the former assistant secretary assigned to the foreign investment committee at the time, Jose Fernandez. While not addressing the specifics of the Uranium One deal, Mr. Fernandez said, “Mrs. Clinton never intervened with me on any C.F.I.U.S. matter.”
Mr. Fallon also noted that if any agency had raised national security concerns about the Uranium One deal, it could have taken them directly to the president.
Anne-Marie Slaughter, the State Department’s director of policy planning at the time, said she was unaware of the transaction — or the extent to which it made Russia a dominant uranium supplier. But speaking generally, she urged caution in evaluating its wisdom in hindsight.
“Russia was not a country we took lightly at the time or thought was cuddly,” she said. “But it wasn’t the adversary it is today.”
That renewed adversarial relationship has raised concerns about European dependency on Russian energy resources, including nuclear fuel. The unease reaches beyond diplomatic circles. In Wyoming, where Uranium One equipment is scattered across his 35,000-acre ranch, John Christensen is frustrated that repeated changes in corporate ownership over the years led to French, South African, Canadian and, finally, Russian control over mining rights on his property.
“I hate to see a foreign government own mining rights here in the United States,” he said. “I don’t think that should happen.”
CONTINUE READING THE MAIN STORY
Mr. Christensen, 65, noted that despite assurances by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that uranium could not leave the country without Uranium One or ARMZ obtaining an export license — which they do not have — yellowcake from his property was routinely packed into drums and trucked off to a processing plant in Canada.
Asked about that, the commission confirmed that Uranium One has, in fact, shipped yellowcake to Canada even though it does not have an export license. Instead, the transport company doing the shipping, RSB Logistic Services, has the license. A commission spokesman said that “to the best of our knowledge” most of the uranium sent to Canada for processing was returned for use in the United States. A Uranium One spokeswoman, Donna Wichers, said 25 percent had gone to Western Europe and Japan. At the moment, with the uranium market in a downturn, nothing is being shipped from the Wyoming mines.
The “no export” assurance given at the time of the Rosatom deal is not the only one that turned out to be less than it seemed. Despite pledges to the contrary, Uranium One was delisted from the Toronto Stock Exchange and taken private. As of 2013, Rosatom’s subsidiary, ARMZ, owned 100 percent of it.
Correction: April 23, 2015
An earlier version of this article misstated, in one instance, the surname of a fellow at the Hoover Institution. He is Peter Schweizer, not Schweitzer.
Significant Dates in the Creation of the New World OrderPerhaps the best way to relate a brief history of the New World Order, would be to use the words of those who have been striving to make it real throughout the ages. You will be amazed at how far back this grand plan has extended, and how many similarities there are in early Century 21 compared to the 1990's, with two Presidents from the Bush family in power....(Read More...)