Why Supreme Court opinions are not the 'Law of the Land,' and how to put federal judges in their place
By Publius Huldah
November 15, 2018
Central to the silly arguments made by the "Convention of States Project" (COSP) is their claim that 200 years of Supreme Court opinions have increased the powers of the federal government (as well as legalized practices such as abortion); that all these opinions are "the Law of the Land"; and we need an Article V convention so we can get amendments to the Constitution which take away all these powers the Supreme Court gave the federal government.
But the text of Article V contradicts COSP's claim. Article V shows that our Constitution can be amended only when three fourths of the States ratify proposed amendments. The Supreme Court has no power to amend our Constitution. And it's impossible for an amendment to take away powers our Constitution doesn't grant.
1. First Principles
Let's analyze COSP's silly argument. We begin by looking at First Principles:
and as a mere "creature" of the Constitution, it may NOT change the Constitution under which it holds its existence! 4
2. Supreme Court Opinions are not "the Law of the Land"
Article VI, cl.2, US Constit., the "supremacy clause," defines "supreme Law of the Land" as the Constitution, and acts of Congress and Treaties which are authorized by the Constitution. Supreme Court opinions aren't included!
Furthermore, Art. I, §1, US Constit., vests all law-making powers granted by the Constitution in Congress. Our Constitution doesn't grant any lawmaking powers to the Judicial Branch.
So why does everybody say, as we heard during the Kavanagh confirmation hearings, that Roe v. Wade is "the Law of the Land"? Because Americans have been conditioned to believe that the Supreme Court is superior to our Constitution; that their opinions about our Constitution are "law," and we are bound by them unless and until they issue new opinions which release us from their previous opinions.
3. Organic & statutory law and the totally different "common law" precedent followed in courts
Americans have been conditioned to ignore the huge distinctions between organic and statutory law, on the one hand; and the common law which is embodied in the precedents followed by judges in litigation.
Black's Law Dictionary defines "organic law" as "The fundamental law, or constitution, of a state or nation, written or unwritten; 5 that law or system of laws or principles which defines and establishes the organization of its government."
The organic laws of the United States are
Do you see how absurd is the claim that the Supreme Court, a mere "creature" of the Constitution of 1787, has the power to change the Organic Law of the United States?
Black's Law Dictionary defines "statute law" as the
The "common law" applied in courts in the English-speaking countries came from the Bible.7 The Bible has much to say about our relations with each other: don't murder people, don't maim them, don't steal, don't bear false witness, don't tell lies about people, don't be negligent, don't cheat or defraud people, and such. The Bible provides for Judges to decide disputes between people and empowers Judges to require the person who has violated these precepts to pay restitution to the person whom he harmed. So, e.g., the Biblical prohibitions against bearing false witness and slandering people became our modern day concepts of slander, libel, and defamation. These principles were applied in the English courts from time immemorial, and are applied in American Courts. Modern day American attorneys litigate these common law concepts all the time. So if I am representing a client in an action for say, fraud, I look at the previous court opinions in the jurisdiction on fraud, and see how the courts in that jurisdiction have defined fraud – i.e., I look for "precedents" – the courts' previous opinions on the subject – and I expect the Judge on my case to obey that precedent. 8
THIS is the "common law." It is "law" in the sense that it originated with God's Word; and from "time immemorial" has been applied in the Courts of English speaking countries. But this precedent is binding or persuasive only on courts.9 As precedent for judges to follow, it is never "the law of the land"!
So, keep these three categories – organic, statutory, and common law – separate, and do not confuse court precedent with the "Law of the Land." The latter is restricted to the Organic Law, and statutes and treaties authorized by the Organic Law.
Now let's look at the constitutional jurisdiction of the federal courts.
4. What kinds of cases do federal courts have constitutional authority to hear?
The ten categories of cases the Judicial Branch has authority to hear are enumerated at Art. III, §2, cl. 1, US Constit. 10
The first category is cases "arising under this Constitution." In Federalist No. 80 (2nd para), Hamilton shows these cases concern "provisions expressly contained" in the Constitution. He then points to the restrictions on the authority of the State Legislatures [listed at Art. I, §10], and shows that if a State exercises any of those prohibited powers, and the federal government sues the State, the federal courts would have authority to hear the case (3rd & 13th paras).
So if a State enters into a Treaty, or grants Letters of Marque & Reprisal, or issues paper money, or does any of the other things prohibited by Art. I, §10, the controversy would "arise under the Constitution" and the federal courts have constitutional authority to hear the case.
Likewise, if a State passed a law which violated the Constitution – say one requiring candidates in their State for US Senate to be 40 years of age – instead of the 30 years prescribed at Art. I, §3, cl. 3 – the federal courts have constitutional authority to hear the case.
So the purpose of this category is to authorize the Judicial Branch to enforce the Constitution – not re-write it!! 11
Now let's look at one way the Supreme Court butchered our Constitution in order to strike down State Laws they didn't like.
5. How the Supreme Court violated the "arising under" clause to hear casesthey have no constitutional authority to hear
Let's use "abortion" to illustrate the usurpation. Obviously, "abortion" is not "expressly contained" in the Constitution. So abortion doesn't "arise under" the Constitution; and the constitutionality of State Statutes prohibiting abortion doesn't fit into any of the other nine categories of cases federal courts have authority to hear. Accordingly, federal courts have no judicial power over it. The Supreme Court had to butcher words in our Constitution in order to usurp power to legalize abortion. This is what they did:
The original intent of §1 of the 14th Amendment was to extend citizenship to freed slaves and to provide constitutional authority for the federal Civil Rights Act of 1866. That Act protected freed slaves from Southern Black Codes which denied them God-given rights. 12
Now look at §1 where it says, "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"
That's the "due process" clause. As Professor Berger points out [ibid.], it has a precise meaning which goes back to the Magna Charta: it means that a person's life, liberty or property can't be taken away from him except by the judgment of his peers pursuant to a fair trial.
But this is how the Supreme Court perverted the genuine meaning of that clause: In Roe v. Wade (1973), they looked at the word, "liberty" in the due process clause and said, "liberty" means "privacy," and "privacy" means "a woman can kill her unborn baby." 13
And they claimed they had jurisdiction to overturn State Laws criminalizing abortion because the issue arises under the Constitution at §1 of the 14th Amendment! [ibid.]
The Supreme Court redefined words in Our Constitution to justify the result theywanted in the case before them.
The Supreme Court didn't "enforce" the Constitution – they butchered it to fabricate a "constitutional right" to kill unborn babies.
And the lawyers said, "It's the Law of the Land"; the People yawned; and the clergy said, "the Bible says we have to obey civil government – besides, we don't want to lose our 501 (c) (3) tax exemption!"
6. What are the remedies when the Supreme Court violates the Constitution?
The opinions of which the convention lobby complains constitute violations of our Constitution. 14 The three remedies our Framers provided or advised for judicial violations of our Constitution are:
1 "Creature" is the word our Founders used – e.g., Federalist No. 33 (5th para) & Jefferson's draft of The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 (8th Resolution).
2 Art. VII, cl. 1, US Constit., sets forth ratification procedures for our Constitution.
3 Madison's Virginia Report of 1799-1800 (pp 190-196).
4 Madison's Journal of the Federal Convention of 1787 shows that on July 23, 1787, the Delegates discussed who was competent to ratify the proposed new Constitution. Col. Mason said it is "the basis of free Government" that only the people are competent to ratify the new Constitution, and
5 It is said England doesn't have a written constitution.
6 Acts of Congress which are not authorized by the enumerated powers are void.They are not made "in Pursuance" of the Constitution and have supremacy over nothing. Federalist No. 27 (last para) says:
7 John Whitehead mentions the Biblical origin of the common law in The Second American Revolution.
8 Art. III, §2, cl.1 delegates to federal courts power to hear "Controversies between Citizens of different States." Much of the litigation conducted in federal courts falls into this category. These lawsuits aren't about the Constitution. Instead, they involve the range of issues people fight about in State Courts: personal injury, breach of contract, business disputes, fighting over property, slander & libel, etc. In deciding these cases, federal judges are expected to follow the "common law" precedents.
9 In Federalist No. 78 (next to last para), Hamilton discusses how judges are bound by "precedents" which define and point out their duty in the particular cases which come before them.
10 In Federalist No. 83 (8th para), Hamilton says:
13 In Roe v. Wade (1973), the Supreme Court said under Part VIII of their opinion:
© Publius Huldah
Cindy McCain, John’s Choice As His Replacement
Aug 31, 2018
Read More Articles by Kelleigh Nelson
I am concerned for the security of our great Nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within. —General Douglas MacArthur
A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims… but accomplices. —George Orwell
John McCain spent five and one-half years in a prisoner of war camp in Viet Nam. McCain and 19 other jets were commissioned to destroy a power plant in Hanoi. Shot down in his Skyhawk dive bomber on Oct. 26, 1967, Navy flier McCain was taken prisoner. When John ejected his right knee slammed into something and broke, and the force of shooting from the craft and hitting the air snapped his arms. He lost years of his life because he chose to serve his country. Let’s not forget that. Pray for his family.
Senator John McCain is pulled out of a Hanoi lake by North Vietnamese army soldiers and civilians on Oct. 26, 1967.
Many are glad McCain is gone from the Senate. Personally, I wouldn’t wish this glioblastoma brain cancer on my worst enemy, and I pray that John McCain had a “come to Jesus” moment before he succumbed to his illness. Nevertheless, McCain may have once again put one over on his Arizona electorate and the rest of America.
Senator Cindy McCain?
This report calls it McCain’s final act of revenge and vengeance against America. Had McCain resigned his seat when he received his diagnosis, we would be holding an election this November for his replacement. But he had other plans, the resignation deadline was June 1st and he did not resign. The Hill reported that last May 30th, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey, a close friend of the McCain’s, met with them at the McCain home outside Sedona, Arizona.
By refusing to resign and allowing the folks in AZ to vote on his replacement, McCain will effectively hold his senate seat until Jan. 2021, even in death. The replacement for John McCain won’t be on the ballot again until Nov. 2020 and the newly elected senator won’t be sworn in until Jan. 2021. McCain allies in Arizona and Washington have been pushing for Cindy McCain to be appointed to her husband’s seat.
Ducey has the power to appoint someone to the Senate seat. I have long believed the replacement for McCain’s seat is his wife, Cindy McCain, and that they planned it this way. Whoever replaces McCain will be his ideological clone, aka a ferocious enemy of Trump and his agenda.
John’s wife Cindy not only illegally used drugs but walked away from criminal charges. In 1994, Mrs. McCain admitted that she had solicited prescriptions for painkillers from physicians who worked for an international charity that she founded, the American Voluntary Medical Team. She then filled the prescriptions in the names of her staff. She was investigated by the Drug Enforcement Agency, after one of her staff reported her. Cindy received no charges or prison time, and she entered a diversion program.
Obamacare and Planned Parenthood
Americans were angry at the Senator’s betrayal when he failed to vote for the “skinny repeal” of Obamacare, and not just with McCain, whose conservative vote rating was 49%. Alaska’s Murkowski gets a 65.1% conservative rating and Maine’s Collins gets a 46.3% conservative rating. All three of these leftist Republicans voted to keep Obamacare and voted against defunding Planned Parenthood. The bill would only have eliminated the mandate to purchase insurance (which is now gone thanks to President Trump) and the medical device tax, yet they wouldn’t vote for it.
Collins, who did not vote for Trump, thought the salvation of the abortion provider was more important than cost-effective health insurance provided in a free market for all Americans. Link McCain and Murkowski had pledged repeatedly to repeal Obamacare when running for re-election, whereas Sen. Collins consistently voted against any Obamacare repeal proposed by the Senate.
McCain’s betrayal with a no vote when he campaigned to repeal it, was a slap in the face of our President. The Senator took pleasure in joining with Democrats to screw the American taxpayers. He broke seven years of promises to the American people, greeted Democrats with big smiles and issued hugs to Senators Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinstein.
In early June of 2017, McCain told a left-leaning overseas newspaper that Barack Obama provided better leadership for America than Trump. McCain even sent a courier to Great Britain to obtain the phony Trump dossier and then gave it to Comey, when everyone in DC knew it was fictional rubbish and wouldn’t touch it.
Comey allowed Hillary to walk free. And John McCain was not only a friend of Hillary but like her he promoted amnesty for illegal aliens. Their reasoning is clear, abortion has murdered 60 million American children, and we are replacing them with Democrat Mexican and Muslim voters. McCain said Hillary was a great Secretary of State, “I think Hillary did a fine job, she’s a rock star.”
Senator McCain wanted Congress to pass the Gang of Eight’s comprehensive amnesty bill when he returned to the Senate after getting treatments for brain cancer. He reportedly spoke to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer about joining forces again to pass the “Gang of Eight” bill. This is a massive amnesty bill, totally anathema to Trump’s policies and would give a path to citizenship to most illegals.
Soros and the McCain Institute
In 2008, Jerome Corsi reported that McCain had been funded by Soros since 2001.
Like former National Security Advisor, H.R. McMaster, McCain was closely tied to Soros. They reportedly became friends after the senator was exposed as a member of the “Keating Five political scandal” regarding the Savings and Loan industry scandal during former President George H. W. Bush’s administration.
The bank chairman, Charles Keating, paid $1.3 million to bribe five members of Congress to interfere with government regulators on behalf of the savings bank. McCain was one of the most reprehensible in this scandal, and the American taxpayers had to again pick up the bill.
In 2012 McCain turned over nearly $9 million in unspent funds from his failed 2008 presidential campaign to a new foundation bearing his name, the McCain Institute for International Leadership. It is a tax-exempt non-profit foundation with assets just over $8 million and associated with Arizona State University.
The institute has accepted contributions of as much as $100,000 from billionaire liberal activist-funder George Soros and from Teneo, a for-profit company co-founded by Doug Band, former President Bill Clinton’s “bag man.” Teneo had long helped enrich Clinton through lucrative speaking and business deals.
Bloomberg reported in 2016 on a $1 million Saudi Arabian donation to the institute, a contribution the McCain group refused to explain publicly, but this is just one of many questionable donations. Link
McCain’s Foundation bears a striking resemblance to the corrupt Clinton family Foundation, including funds accepted from Soros. Link The Institute has refused to release the names of other big donors.
Libya and Benghazi
In 2005 Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi had dismantled his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program and was lauded by the international community. Thus, relations between Libya and the US were improving. However, in 2011, Rubio hoped to polish his foreign policy credentials for his eventual president campaign, and so he thoroughly backed Hillary Clinton’s War on Libya. Following the murder of Gaddafi, Rubio, McCain and Graham celebrated with the rebels they helped to arm, just a year before these rebels attacked the embassy in Benghazi. We know the rest of the story.
McCain’s Unsavory Past
The “tributes” to veteran and politician McCain started the moment his death was announced. Even Fox News has lauded the history of this often vindictive and vengeful Senator.
According to Colonel Ted Guy, John McCain’s commander as a POW, McCain collaborated with the enemy. Others totally deny that McCain was traitorous in any way. One must remember he had severe injuries from ejecting from his plane, and humans can take only so much before they break. McCain conceded other POWs performed better.
In his memoir Faith of My Fathers, McCain admitted to being a lousy midshipman at the naval academy and a flier who lost four or five planes. (The time he decided to hug the ground in Spain for the hell of it and flew into some power lines the plane may have survived–it’s not clear from his account.)
The following links reveal far more.
McCain and the POW Coverup by Sidney Schanberg
The Real John McCain Vietnam Story
McCain Nearly Sunk Aircraft Carrier
John McCain is No Hero
Neither a Good Man, Nor a Public Servant
Betrayal of America’s Missing POWs
McCain and John Kerry were the bipartisan betrayal of MIAs and POWs. Link
American POWs from Vietnam were the bloody flag Richard Nixon wrapped himself in, on the advice of Henry Kissinger which included his unfulfilled agreement with North Vietnam that let them keep and later execute hundreds of American POWs. According to records recovered at the end of the Cold War, 1,205 American POWs were kept by North Vietnam.
U.S. President Richard Nixon announced that all U.S. servicemen taken prisoner had been accounted for. At that time, the U.S. listed 2,646 Americans as unaccounted for, including about 1,350 prisoners of war or missing in action and roughly 1,200 reported killed in action and body not recovered.
McCain fought against the release of classified Vietnam POW records and insisted they be sealed. He and John Kerry buried the evidence. He also voted against a Senate Select Committee recommendation to investigate possible POWs left behind that were classified as MIAs. He agreed with the lazy DOD at time who did not want the workload of investigating this possibility. Soldiers who had died were never brought home, and American prisoners of war died in captivity because of Kerry and McCain. You can add Henry Kissinger to this atrocity. Watch the stunning short video…
McCain purposely suppressed information about what happened to American soldiers missing in action in Vietnam. Throughout his Senate career, he quietly sponsored and pushed into federal law a set of prohibitions that keep the most revealing information about these men buried as classified documents. Thus, the war hero who people would logically imagine as a determined crusader for the interests of POWs and their families became instead the strange champion of hiding the evidence and closing the books.
Jerome Corsi reported that this POW case haunted and helped destroy McCain’s image as a war hero. Read the mass of evidence of our men left behind by this Senator.
President Trump might now be able to find a way to release the sealed POW documents, and bring those men home.
It is possible McCain did some sort of heroic type effort survival things like living through torture as did so many others during their capture–but he sure as hell is not a hero. Being a POW is not being a hero.
Escaping and then leading an attack back on his captures as Army Special Forces Lt. Colonel (then Lieutenant) James N. (Nick) Rowe did the next day after his escape and helicopter discovery and rescue all after being held in a tiny cage (and tortured) and having to live in far worse conditions than Hanoi Hilton for five years in the jungle of Viet Nam. Rowe, while racked with near death dysentery and weighing just 125 pounds of his original 180, barely able to walk did just that–he insisted on boarding a chopper to lead an attack against his former keeper’s camp deep in enemy territory before they could move to another location. Now that is pretty damn heroic–and he got nothing for that. [Link]
Before the phony tearful tributes to John McCain, like those of Ted Kennedy, be sure you remember the facts about this self-proclaimed Maverick. The facts do not always agree with that portrait of a heroic patriot and great American. He even dissed his former running mate, Sarah Palin who is not invited to his memorial.
I don’t hold his military service as a POW against him. Every POW endured different horrors, and reacted in varying ways. McCain was significantly injured and required extensive medical treatment. And many POWs were exploited in different ways against their will by the North Vietnamese and Cuban interrogators. According to McCain, he was allegedly offered an early release from the Hanoi Hilton after a year, but refused and stayed with fellow veterans.
The only part of McCain’s military career I’ve been very critical of, was his absolute insistence that there were no live POWs left behind after the 1973 release of the Hanoi POWs, when we know for a fact that a good number were left behind, and were alive and still trying to signal friendly forces, as well as seen by witnesses, for more than a decade after.
The White House flag flew at half-mast for two days for Senator McCain, and flags are lowered by presidential proclamation, so the president decides who receives the honor. The recent tradition for senators who die in office has been to have flags lowered in their honor from their death until their burial. President Trump raised the flag after two days of having it lowered, and then under pressure again lowered it until McCain’s burial.
When Obama was president, the flag was lowered for the drug induced death of addict Whitney Houston, but not for Shirley Temple Black who was an American artist beloved by her generation and an Ambassador to Ghana and to Czechoslovakia, and also served as Chief of Protocol of the United States. But nothing was said against his failure to honor this wonderful American citizen, yet a drug addled singer was honored.
In McCain’s last act before his death, he made a film that will denigrate our President and those of us who voted for him…even in death, he spews hate. [Link]
John McCain may be gone, but I don’t believe we’ve seen the last of the McCains.
© 2018 Kelleigh Nelson – All Rights Reserved
E-Mail Kelleigh Nelson: Proverbs133@bellsouth.net
DARK AGENDA BEHIND THE “MARCH FOR OUR LIVES”
On March 24, between a realistic 200,000 and a claimed 800,000 people marched on Washington, DC under the banner of “March for Our Lives.” The theme was chosen to evoke the image of saving children and school safety, but the reality was otherwise. This was an event planned and paid for by the professional Left pushing a virulent gun ban message. Had the promoters been honest they would have been targeting the abysmal failures of the school board, local law enforcement, and the FBI to follow up on and prosecute a known threat to the school. They should also have been targeting the use of mood altering drugs being foisted upon teens which have severe and sometimes violence-inducing side effects. But despite this latest wave of anti-gun hysteria and propaganda by unthinking youth—brandishing threats to lawmakers—Congress has so far been unwilling to ban military style weapons from law-abiding citizens. They well remember the last time Democrats passed an assaults weapons ban and saw many of their members unelected as a result.
As Mark Levin said this week: Congratulations to the media for an outstanding job taking advantage of children participating in the “March for Our Lives” protest to push gun-control propaganda. The march was a joke and funded by leftists with millions of dollars. Just because people march doesn’t mean they are right, it happens all the time. Gun control is a theory that says if you have no guns you have no killings, but there’s no evidence for that. The shooting in Parkland, FL wasn’t because of a lack of gun control, it had everything to do with failure of government at the Federal and local level. We won’t save school children with any of these Federal laws. Local school districts can save kids by protecting them, yet many refuse to do what’s necessary. They believe security in airports is more important than security in schools.
Even bigger than the march itself, was the propaganda machine that continues to parade before the public the false notion that these teens are representative of the majority of high school students. Not only are anti-gun teens in a minority, they represented less than 10% of the protesters throughout the nation last Saturday. The rest were adults, as Fox News reports:
“Contrary to what’s been reported in many media accounts, the D.C. March for Our Lives crowd was not primarily made up of teenagers,” Fisher wrote. “Only about 10 percent of the participants were under 18.”
Neither was it spontaneous nor organized by the high school radicals showcased by the media, as
Hayden Ludwig of Capital Research found out. He first points out the constant hypocrisy of the protestors in being surrounded by guns for protection:
Ensuring the safety of the “March for Our Lives” rally were heavily armed D.C. National Guard units and police protection carrying semi-automatic handguns and standard-issue AR-15-style semi-automatic rifles (better known to protesters as “assault weapons” or “full semi-automatic rifles”) most certainly packed with “machine gun magazines” and “automatic bullets.”
Nevertheless, despite the proliferation of firearms at the anti-firearm rally, to this writer’s knowledge no one fell victim to gun violence.
So, obviously, the presence of guns is not the problem, nor is banning guns the solution. Ludwig also researched the sources of funding for this massive event:
Besides coordinating the D.C. rally in conjunction with Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun group, Everytown for Gun Safety, as of this month, March for Our Lives now sports a 501(c)(4) lobbying nonprofit of its own—the March for Our Lives Action Fund. Filings with the D.C. Department of Consumer & Regulatory Affairs shows registration in Delaware, with an Encino, California, business address shared by Wishnow Ross Warsavsky & Company, an accountancy. Those filings also reveal the group’s treasurer: Jeri Rhodes, former Greenpeace CFO and currently an associate executive secretary at the Friends Committee on National Legislation (a left-of-center Quaker group).
Filings obtained by the Huffington Post reveal more of the organization’s board. Listed as directors are Aileen Adams, a former deputy mayor for Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa; George Kieffer, chair of the University of California system board of regents; Melissa Scholz, a nonprofit lawyer who was involved with a redistricting group called Play Fair Wisconsin (itself a project of the left-leaning High Ground Institute); Nina Vinik, program director for the Joyce Foundation (whose board formerly included Barack Obama) and former legal director of the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence; board secretary Vernetta Walker, a lawyer and Planned Parenthood board member formerly employed by the National Council of La Raza and Alliance for Justice; and board president Deena Katz, executive director of the Los Angeles Women’s March Foundation.
March for Our Lives’ board is well-connected, if eclectic; but it paints a broader picture of the group as yet another cog in the machine of the professional Left. The group’s finances reveal just how intricate its web of influence is.
Early funding for March for Our Lives came from a number of celebrity donors. Steven Spielberg, Jeffrey Katzenberg, George Clooney, Oprah Winfrey, [Make them pay at the box office by not patronizing their films] and the fashion company Gucci reportedly donated $500,000 each to the group. Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff pledged another $1 million. The ride-sharing company Lyft offered free rides to the march. Americans for Responsible Solutions, a gun control group founded by former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, also supported the march.
To date, online crowdfunding for March for Our Lives has raised roughly $3.5 million, and fundraising through the liberal donation platform Action Network has raised an additional undisclosed amount. (Action Network provides a similar service to many other prominent left-wing nonprofits and labor unions, including the AFL-CIO, New Economy Coalition, and Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation.)
Considering its millions of dollars in donations from the usual slew of liberal funders, it’s hard to see March for Our Lives as anything more than just another gun control group bought and paid for by the professional Left. After all, the same activists who were quick to use victimized high school students like David Hogg to push gun control legislation “snubbed” conservative survivors of the same attack.
NO pro-gun students are showcased by the mainstream media anywhere, and they never will be.
Two such students—Kyle Kashuv and Hunter Pollack, whose younger sister Meadow was shot nine times while shielding her classmate from bullets—say they were denied a chance to speak at the March for Our Lives in D.C. “It paints a bad light on our entire generation,” the 16-year-old Kashuv said. “Guns aren’t the issue. It’s everything surrounding acquiring a weapon…. Where was the call for no more failures by law enforcement?”
Are We Heading Towards a New Hitler Youth Movement?
A few on the Right, including Mike Adams (The Health Ranger), see parallels in the unthinking mass hysteria of teens shouting gun control slogans to Hitler’s mass youth movement, which I will quote from below. It’s true that mass indoctrination and raised fist slogans do match the Hitler Youth pattern, but we’re still a far cry from Hitler’s government mandated membership in the Hitler Jugend (Youth) organization. As one History site noted,
Movements for youngsters were part of German culture and the Hitler Youth had been created in the 1920’s. By 1933 its membership stood at 100,000. After Hitler came to power, all other youth movements were abolished and as a result the Hitler Youth grew quickly. In 1936, the figure stood at 4 million members. In 1936, it became all but compulsory to join the Hitler Youth. Youths could avoid doing any active service if they paid their subscription but this became all but impossible after 1939...
To the outside world, the Hitler Youth seemed to personify German discipline. In fact, this image was far from accurate. School teachers complained that boys and girls were so tired from attending evening meetings of the Hitler Youth, that they could barely stay awake the next day at school. Also by 1938, attendance at Hitler Youth meetings was so poor – barely 25% – that the authorities decided to tighten up attendance with the 1939 law making attendance compulsory.
As for the robotic reputation of the Hitler Youth shouting fanatical statements with arms outstretched in a Sieg Heil salute, that became common once membership and participation became mandatory—which hasn’t yet happened here. Without government mandates, the organization of radical youths in the US will still be populated by a minority of unthinking followers guided by foul mouthed teen radicals like media ordained march leader David Hogg. Adams has more on this rabid teen:
People resist thinking logically [especially in large groups]. They think and react emotionally... The “Hitler Youth” invasion of Washington D.C. took place today as young fascists-in-training were corralled into the nation’s capitol to demand that government authoritarians strip away the civil liberties of all law-abiding Americans in the name of “gun control.”
Just like Hitler Youth enthusiasts, these fascists-in-training are told they’re “saving lives” for “a better future,” and that the only thing standing in their way is a bunch of violent gun owners who want to murder every baby in sight. (The irony of all these left-wingers actually condoning the abortion murder of babies, of course, is completely missed in all this.)
What none of these children are being told, of course, is that Hitler took away gun rights from the Jews before exterminating six million of them in the Holocaust. It’s so much easier to commit genocide, Hitler discovered, when the people you’re tying to murder can’t fight back.
Echoing the madness of the Third Reich, the propagandist-in-chief of today’s lunatic Left anti-gun movement is David Hogg, a profanity-laced, foulmouthed student who is seething with anger and seems forever on the verge of outright calling for all gun owners to be exterminated by the government.
In a recent interview, shown below, foul-mouthed Hogg, a student at the Parkland school shooting in Florida, says that gun owners and the NRA are “pathetic f##kers who want to keep killing our children” and adds, “They could have blood from children splattered all over their faces and they wouldn’t take action, because they all still see those dollar signs.”
David Hogg’s profanity-laced rant was so obnoxious, arrogant and deranged that YouTube systematically censored all the profanity-laced David Hogg videos in order to protect his public image. (Yes, YouTube is now running interference for David Hogg, making sure his public image is squeaky clean while he ravages gun owners with the most deranged, foul-mouth language imaginable.)
Hogg, who has arisen as the chief propagandist in the left-wing fascist “Hitler Youth” army, is completely opposed to adding security to public schools, even though a recent school shooting was stopped in 60 seconds by an armed security resource officer. It seems like Hogg might actually wants more children to be murdered so that he can get more air time on CNN to push his radical, fascist-like Third Reich call for disarming all the people he personally hates (and wants to destroy).
Don’t forget that David Hogg was featured in a photo tweet [see original link above to view the photo] by his sister, Lauren Hogg, promoting new Nazi-like armbands to demand gun confiscation from the American people. “David Hogg And His Sister Create Nazi-Like Armbands To Promote Gun Control,” reports Squawker.org.
Other armbands showed up in other rallies including Oregon, which is noted for its leftist population in urban centers. The rural part is conservative and always outnumbered. Adams continues:
Many people don’t remember this, but the Nazi symbol (swastika) also began as a peace symbol, but was of course twisted by Adolf Hitler into a symbol of tyranny and genocide. Many of today’s anti-gun Leftists are openly promoting a rainbow variation of the Swastika as a “symbol of peace:”
David Hogg physically resembles Adolf Hitler in fist-pounding salutes, angry speech patterns and more. In today’s rally, David Hogg became a full-fledged propaganda politician-in-training, reading from an obviously scripted speech, full of flowery words and high ideals that covered over his real goal: The complete disarmament of all law-abiding Americans.
Hogg is actually calling for a “revolution” against gun owners, reports ABC News. What kind of revolution? A violent revolution, of course. “Hogg ended his speech with the black power salute,” reports The Gateway Pundit.
It’s extraordinary that David Hogg not only uses the same sort of vile, hate-filled rhetoric of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels, but Hogg actually physically resembles Joseph Goebbels.
David Hogg was named by the LA Times as one of the Top Student leaders of the anti-gun movement, along with shaved head “femiNazi” Emma Gonzalez. Besides being foul mouthed, David Hogg is also a dishonest wannabe journalist. It turns out that despite his claim to being a survivor of the shooting and having interviewed other students during the crisis, he has made contradictory statements about where he was during the shootings. Peter D'Abrosca of Big League Politics has the story: [the first and most public version]
In a Time interview done within hours of the shooting Hogg recounted, “Our first response was ‘that sounded a lot like a gun shot’ and we closed the door.” Hogg claimed that he was in his AP enviromental science class during the shooting. He also made videos of himself and other students, regarding gun control, purportedly while the shooting was going on.
[Time.com] “When Hogg heard a “pop” while sitting in an AP environmental science class around 2:30 p.m. Wednesday, he told his teacher it sounded strangely like a gunshot. But there had been a fire drill that very morning and talk of a “Code Red” exercise to prepare for an active shooter. This must just be a surprise drill, he reasoned.
And then the fire alarm sounded. Dutifully acting on it, Hogg and other students tried to exit the building. A janitor—Hogg doesn’t know his name but calls him an angel—knew where the shots were coming from and sent the students back. Then a culinary arts teacher, Ashley Kurth, pulled Hogg and others inside, locked the door, and made them hide in a closet. Checking Twitter and Instagram, Hogg—who’s an editor at the school’s TV station—found the news that the shooting was real and ongoing.
The shots continued for what felt like an eternity. Hogg considered the possibility that he would not live to see the end of the day.
“While I was in there, I thought, ‘What impact have I had? What will my story be if I die here?’” Hogg told TIME in the hours following the ordeal. “And the only thing I could think of was, pull out my camera and try telling others. As a student journalist, as an aspiring journalist, that’s all I could think: Get other people’s stories on tape. If we all die, the camera survives, and that’s how we get the message out there, about how we want change to be brought about.” [end of Time quotation]
[However] In a not-yet-released CBS Documentary, David Hogg, Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School student who has become the face of the gun control movement, changes his entire story and admits that he was not at the school during the event. But CBS News has released some transcripts from its “39 Days” documentary, in which student David Hogg is quoted.
“On the day of the shooting, I got my camera and got on my bike and rode as fast as I could three miles from my house to the school to get as much video and to get as many interviews as I could because I knew that this could not be another mass shooting,” Hogg said in his CBS News interview.
That’s a huge contradiction—not just a simple slip of the tongue.
By the way, there is no way Hogg could have gotten into the school during the shooting, because the Broward County Sheriff’s Office set up a perimeter around the school during the shooting, all the while refusing to enter the school to stop the bloodshed.
Sheriff Scott Israel’s Broward County Sheriff’s Office made a concerted effort to not enter the Parkland high school during February’s mass shooting, instead allowing the shooting to happen.
The mainstream media is finally reporting on police and emergency scanner audio tapes that show the full extent of the Sheriff’s Office’s complicity in the horror at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.
“Do not approach the 12 or 1300 building, stay at least 500 feet away,” Sheriff’s Office deputy Scot Peterson said over radio dispatch, disproving his claim that he didn’t go inside the school because he was ordered not to do so if he didn’t have body cameras on. School surveillance footage has still not been released, and is unlikely to ever be released.
Big League Politics first reported on audiotapes showing that the Sheriff’s Office set up a perimeter around the high school during the shooting, after learning that multiple people were shot dead inside the high school. The police dispatcher ordered police to “hold all perimeters” while the shooter was still at large. Thirty minutes after learning of the active shooter situation, the Sheriff’s Office was still holding its perimeter and dispatchers were reporting “The shooter is not down. The shooter is not down.”
Our reporting proved that Israel’s office lied by claiming that they only set up a perimeter around the school AFTER the shooting, not during the shooting. In fact, they set up a perimeter four minutes after learning that people were shot dead inside.
Neither can Hogg take the heat of criticism. He called for a boycott of Fox News’ Laura Ingraham show after she revealed (via the Daily Caller) that Hogg had been turned down by all the colleges he applied for. Several advertisers did cancel on Ingraham and she was forced to apologize. Sadly, all mainstream advertisers are too politically correct to back controversy on the right—which has almost no media voices to defend its positions.
But to be fair to Hogg, there are some false conspiracies floating around like, “David Hogg has zero right to talk about ‘gun control’ when his father works for the most murderous part of the assault-rifle industry, the killer-training program known as Cubic Simulation Systems, a nice name for Murder Inc.”
Yes, David’s father Kevin is a former FBI agent who retired recently in 2014. We have no indication he worked on the dark side of the Bureau. The Kevin Hogg of Cubic Simulations has been there for over 11 years and is a different person. So, be careful about what comes out on the alternative news sites.
Worst of all, for the truth about the Parkland tragedy, weeks after Douglas High School teacher Stacy Lippel told a national audience on Good Morning America that the shooter she saw was dressed in full SWAT gear, including helmet, mask, “full metal armor” and using a weapon she didn’t recognize, no one in the mainstream media has dared investigate what she meant and how this contradicts the official narrative that the sole shooter was Nicolas Cruz.
Undoubtedly, that is why police refused to release any more of the school surveillance videos. As in Sandy Hook, they claim it will be offensive to victim’s relatives. Videotapes would also confirm what role Cruz actually had compared to the other professional shooters the government will never admit were there.
The Dark Role of Mood Altering Drugs: Virtually all mass shooters have been on mood altering drugs, which have been known to suppress the workings of a normal conscience and elicit violent behavior. As Ignatius Piazza, the head of Front Site gun training organization recently wrote,
"March For Our Lives", the misguided national school student walk out to protest gun violence, will do NOTHING to prevent another school shooting.
I don't know what is worse, the complete waste of time and energy that the gun grabbers in our public schools wasted on tax payer dollars or the manipulation of our children's minds by liberals who know that gun control has never been proven to stop mass shootings, yet lie to our children that taking guns away from gun owners will make schools safer.
I do agree that kids should be protesting. But not protesting gun ownership... Kids and their parents should be protesting the psych drugging of children, and the creation and mass proliferation of this unacceptable situation by those at fault!
Who is at fault? #1 The psychiatrists who push these drugs. #2 The companies who manufacture and promote these drugs. #3 The school counselors and teachers who encourage parents to place their kids on these drugs. #4 The lawmakers who continue to accept campaign money from the pharmaceutical industry lobbyists to look the other way instead of calling them out as the cause of these mass shootings!
He recommends, and I agree, that all should see this revealing short film out by Gary Null on the devastating effects of mood altering drugs like Paxil, etc, in the words of real life victims and their families including how they induce dark visions of violence, nightmares, and dumbed-down, spacey thinking and other behavior in teens that leads to the suppression of conscience and induces gun violence.
Backlash from gun supporters: There were a few counter protests in cities out West, but for the most part, gun owners simply affirmed their support for the Second Amendment by donating to and joining up with pro-gun lobbying organizations. Gun sales of AR-15 rifles were also up, favoring stores that still sell them. Many gun owners are now boycotting the Dick’s Sporting Goods chain for removing AR-15s from their stores. Susan Duclos covered the massive wave of support pro-gun organizations have seen in the past week. It’s pretty dramatic:
The National Rifle Association (NRA), who has been the target of these youngsters ire, calling them and their millions of members murderers and baby-killers, has seen a massive spike in membership with over half a million new members, and has seen their donations tripled, from nearly $250,000 in January to over $779,000 in February, other gun rights groups are seeing similar spikes in membership.
Second Amendment Foundation is reporting a "1,200 percent increase in the number of 18- to 20-year-olds joining or supporting the organization," as a direct result in "efforts to restrict firearms ownership by young adults," following the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting.
Via TIME we see that Georgia Gun Owners, with a modest membership of 13,000 increased by 1,000 members in the course of a two week period, while National Association for Gun Rights, which touts 4.5 million "members and supporters," saw a 30 percent increase in online membership applications. The Connecticut Citizens Defense League, with 29,000 members, has seen increased interest from the typical 15 or 20 applications a week to almost 200 in a one week period. Gun Owners of America with 1.5 million members saw hundreds of new members in a one week time frame. The group grew by "thousands" when gun grabbers pushed for more gun control after the Vegas shooting in October.
While the mainstream media is proud of inflating the coverage of these marches, to give the impression that the whole nation is rising up against guns, they unwittingly energized the pro-gun opposition, which is massive in this country. Duclos also covered some of the media admissions that they covered up for some of David Hogg’s lies:
The constant push by gun-grabbers, especially how the media is focusing on the younger crowd, while admitting they aren't bothering to correct their false assertions and inaccurate, misleading information, as CNN's Brian Stelter admitted to letting David Hogg get away with lying on his show...
Stelter’s admission came after host S.E. Cupp questioned him about the wisdom of the media’s obsession with elevating only the kids pushing gun control. “Brian, we as a business have been giving these kids a lot of coverage. All the networks have in some way or another,” she explained, noting boringness of nuanced policy. “But the policies is the tough part. Do you think in showing these kids so often, as often as we all do, we're doing actually them a disservice because the policy is actually what's going to change this?”
And with no sort of trickery from Cupp, Stelter just blurted out that he let the gun control advocate get away with lying to CNN’s viewers. “A disservice is a strong word, but when I was interviewing David Hogg only ten days after the massacre, there were a few times I wanted to jump in and say let's correct that fact,” he said.
Cupp immediately wanted to know if Stelter ever corrected the record. According to Stelter, he let most of the lies stand as truth and just tried to make excuses. “And at one of the times I did and other times I did not. There's always that balance, how many times you’re going to interrupt,” he argued. A blatant double standard that would not fly if Hogg was from the right or someone on Fox News.
That’s right. When did you ever see Rachel Maddow or Anderson Cooper let a conservative get away with any fact or opinion they disagreed with?
A Multiplicity of Attacks on Guns: It does appear that the Left is overplaying their hand, thinking that with the massive propaganda blitz they are “on a roll.”
DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is proposing background checks for ammo buyers, and other Democratic politicians encouraging the seizure of weapons, and pushing the idiotic proposal from former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens to "repeal the second amendment," other liberal journalists who are starting to note how the hard push for gun control is backfiring and encouraging people like Stevens to please just shut up because they fear that "gun-owning, blue-collar workers" will get riled up before the 2018 midterms.
Yes, they have good reason to fear, as Washington Post reporter Aaron Blake writes about the hornet’s nest of opposition rising out of Justice Stevens’ anti-2nd Amendment piece:
[R]arely do we see such an unhelpful, untimely and fanciful idea as the one put forward by retired Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens... The move might as well be considered an in-kind contribution to the National Rifle Association, to Republicans’ efforts to keep the House and Senate in 2018, and to President Trump’s 2020 reelection bid.
This is exactly the kind of thing that motivates the right and signals to working-class swing voters that perhaps the Democratic Party and the political left doesn’t really get them. And to the extent it catches on — which it could somewhat, given nearly half the party is on board, at least in spirit — it will confirm plenty of preexisting beliefs about what Democrats actually want,
Even the Leftist Esquire magazine panned the idea:
“This is a very legalistic take on things, befitting a judge. There is, indeed, a straightforward process to repealing an amendment—on paper. In reality, it is a Sisyphean political task.[Mythical Sisyphus was condemned to rolling a stone up a steep mountain only to have it roll back down and do it all over again, for eternity] The last time a federal lawmaker introduced a bill to repeal the Second Amendment was in 1993, when Rep. Major Owens of New York brought one to the House. It went nowhere, just as it likely would now.
President Trump tweeted support for the 2nd Amendment on Wednesday saying it would “never be repealed.” He added, “We need more Republicans in 2018 and must ALWAYS hold the Supreme Court!” Sadly, we don’t hold the Supreme Court even now. Most judges, even the “conservative” ones are controlled via blackmail evidence the Deep State has on them.
The Democrats are now in full retreat about repealing the Second Amendment. Some pundits have even gone as far to admit that “no one” on the Left has ever suggested getting rid of the Second Amendment. How could he miss the Stevens op-ed piece in the Times?
In summary, I do think that the protests and massive anti-gun media reports have swayed a lot in the public who have uninformed opinions. But it has also hardened and strengthened the pro-gun opposition. In other words, the nation is more polarized than ever on the issue, but not enough to get major gun control passed. The Left will have to be satisfied with small incremental gun control, until a world war comes. Only the martial government powers gained during a world conflict will finally justify and enable the draconian measures the Left is pushing.
Sadly, most are ignorant of the genocide the globalists plan on unleashing on dissidents once the public is disarmed. But on the good side, not all Americans will give up their guns, and for once in history, the Deep State agents will have a hard time arresting dissidents and carting them off in the middle of the night.
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.
#CNNLeaks: Project Veritas Releases Over 100 Hours of Audio From Inside CNN
Pelosi Says It Directly Into The Mic…Room Goes Silent As She Gets Caught, AGAIN
Posted by Donna Kay | Feb 10, 2017 | Breaking News, Top Article
Onlookers at the press conference react to Pelosi’s blunders.
One of the questions an individual is asked during a mental competency evaluation is, “who is the president of the United States?” Given that experts use it to consider mental faculties or lack of, should there be concerns raised about California Congresswomen Nancy Pelosi? It seems during a recent press conference, Pelosi may be a little confused as to what year it is and who is the president.
“We’ve seen nothing where we can where — where I can work with President Bush on…” Pelosi said.
“I’m disappointed because I thought there might be some interest because of what he said in the campaign,” she added.
At no time during the press gathering did Pelosi correct herself and neither did her colleagues including fellow Progressive Democrat, Congresswoman Maxine Waters, who conducted the joint conference with Pelosi. Instead Waters eyes widened and appeared to be muttering “something” to another colleague next to her.
Why didn’t Waters step up, and in humor, make the correction? Certainly everyone in the room and Pelosi herself would have had a good laugh. But there was no laughter; just stunned silence. What does this behavior indicate from those closest to one of the most influential voices for the progressive faction within the Democratic Party?
Could there be something serious going on with Pelosi’s mental faculties? If so then it is rather ironic that she and Waters are spearheading the charge of incompetency against Trump. Pushing for possible removal under Article 25 of the Constitution or at the very least appointing a White House “psychiatrist” to monitor the behavior of the president.
Imagine if conservatives led a charge of such inflammatory actions against Obama? There were many discussions of possible “impeachment.” Those arguments were based on actions they deemed unethical and in most cases unconstitutional to the point of treason. Never was there any attempt to declare Obama psychologically unstable and he should be removed for mental incompetency.
Congresswomen Maxine Waters and Nancy Pelosi seem to be struggling with keeping their facts straight!
Pelosi has a long history of making non seneschal statements as in 2009 when she stated, “you have to pass the bill so see what’s in the bill,” in answering questions about Obamacare; what was then 2,000 plus pages of a monstrous piece of legal ease legislation that had some of the top Constitutional lawyers in the country scratching their heads.
So one can almost justify if Pelosi found the bill confusing and difficult to understand much less explain. And that is being generous to Ms. Pelosi’s blunder. On last accounts the law has now grown into over 30,000 pages of added “rules” and “regulations” none which were approved by Congress.
One could certainly understand if she inadvertently said “Obama” instead of “Bush,” since it has only been a few weeks ago that Obama was still the president. Kind of like trying to get use to writing 2017 instead of 2016 at the beginning of the new year. Again, in the spirit of bipartisanship this is being generous.
In the past when Pelosi “stumbled” on her words, colleagues were fast on the trigger to correct and defend the California senator, offering up statements that she “misspoke.” Even Pelosi corrected herself with humor, or carefully crafted follow up statements of explanation.
But not this time, and not in another recent blunder as reported on this site. Her colleagues again reacted in stunned looks, some silent, others whispering to each other as she kept pushing over an open microphone, for her “protégé” to say he is Muslim during the press conference.
Pelosi called the press conference to announce Progressive Democrat, Andre Carson’s appointment to the House Intelligence Committee, the committee that has access to highly classified information and top secret documents that affect national security. Qualification for serve on the committee are very strict and it is unusual to have a freshman congressman to get a seat at the table.
However, just as Pelosi was instrumental in getting Carson elected to the House, she also wielded her power as long term congresswoman who served as both House Majority and Minority leader for a number of years.
As revealed by Allison Hillman, a senior writer for CPD, Carson has been directly linked to a number of terrorist organizations by verified documents, as well as Carson, himself, being openly active by giving speeches and serving on panels for groups like CAIR. CAIR is so radically tied to terrorism that Saudi Arabian lists them as a state sponsored terrorist organization. Readers can access Ms. Hillman’s in-depth report on the Pelosi/Carson ties to terrorism through this link.
Not only are Pelosi’s “misstatements” raising questions, but also her judgement in supporting a candidate with known terrorism ties much pushing to get him into the highly secretive House Intelligence Committee. Is there something sinister in Pelosi’s recent actions, as some have suggested, or is there a medical condition that have her own colleagues muttering to each other. What inside information is being relayed in these noticeable “whispers?” What are her colleagues saying to each other but not to the public?
Carson and fellow Muslim Keith Ellison the front runner to head the DNC are tied to a number of terrorists organizations.
Certainly if Pelosi is suffering from dementia or early stages of Alzheimer’s then no one should be making light of her medical illness or even wish such a devastating disease on anyone. But if she is, then perhaps it is time for Ms. Pelosi to step down and resign her seat in the best interests of the nation and its citizens.
Her fellow colleagues and the DNC should be supportive of Pelosi if this is the case, but they also should be taking the needed actions for a resignation, one arranged that will allow Pelosi to leave with dignity.
The Governor of California, Jerry Brown, who would appoint a replacement to fill the seat until mid-term elections is after all a far left Progressive Democrat. So there should be no concerns for Progressive liberals as to the type of political idealism the appointee would represent.
Either way, whether Pelosi has a serious medical condition or she is plotting something more sinister, the American people have a right to question and to be concerned. Her actions affects ALL Americans when it comes to national security.
Simply the usual Pelosi blunders or not, Congressman Carson is a threat to our nation and should have never been cleared to access documents and information he can feed to the enemy to cause great harm to the lives of people and to the United States. And if it comes to that, God forbid, Nancy Pelosi will be directly responsible and held legally accountable as a “conspirator” and a treasonous traitor.
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...)
Wednesday, 19 December 2018 History of Push for Global Order Revealed in Latest Foreign Affairs
Written by Steve Byas
“Who Will Run the World?” graces the cover of the January/February 2019 edition of Foreign Affairs, the official publication of the self-identified globalist Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). In the lead article, Foreign Affairs editor Gideon Rose gives an eye-opening survey history of the efforts by globalists to establish a “liberal order” for the world.
Rose begins his article, “The Fourth Founding,” with a brief discussion of the traditional foreign-policy view of the United States from its founding until the 20th century. He rightly admits that George Washington warned Americans about the “dangers of alliances,” and that other early American political leaders, such as John Quincy Adams, agreed with him. Adams offered the classic explanation of how America should deal with the rest of the world, saying that the United States would be the “well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all” while being the “champion and vindicator” only of its own.
But, like most globalists, Rose argues that the Washington-Adams way of dealing with other nations simply could no longer work as America moved into the 1900s. It was then that President Woodrow Wilson “first tried to found” the “international order” after World War I. Rose doesn’t say it, but Wilson called this effort at global governance a “new world order.” Rose, in his article, just calls it “the order.”
“Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman tried again during and after World War II,” Rose explained, calling this the second founding of the order, with the efforts of Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton the third founding in the aftermath of the end of the Cold War.
Now, Rose is calling for a fourth founding of the order, lamenting, “In 2016, Anglosphere voters rang down the curtain on the third phase of the order’s history with Brexit and the election of U.S. President Donald Trump, and for two years, the world has drifted.”
Students of this effort to establish a global “order” have often wondered why these globalists have done certain things, and how it all fits into their push for global governance. A careful reading of Rose’s article gives us some answers. Rose writes of the First Founding of the Order, “So when the United States entered the war [World War I], it sought not only a postwar collective security system but also the removal of the Prussian autocracy.”
Why? “Wilson thought regime change was necessary because dictatorships could not be trusted to participate in his collective security system,” Rose explained. In other words, if dictatorial governments supported the formation of the new world order, they were acceptable, but if not, they must be removed from power. Over the years, the United States and other partners in the order have implemented regime change in places such as Panama, Iraq, the Philippines, Nicaragua, and China.
Alas, from Rose’s point of view, “The first attempt to found the order was in trouble by the end of 1918, was on life support by the end of 1919, and died slowly and painfully in the years after.” Rose does not mention it, but this failure was the reason for creation of the CFR and the publication he now edits — to promote the New World Order envisioned by Wilson.
But World War II presented an opportunity for a “second try” at establishing the order. “The Roosevelt administration was stocked with rueful Wilsonians. They continued to believe that the best way to protect American interests was to use American power to transform international politics.” Rather than wait until the war’s end to set this order up, Rose said a “better-designed league would be set up during the war, with American participation locked in from the start.”
Despite the best efforts of Rose’s ideological ancestors, “the American public was quickly turning inward again.” While Rose did not put it this way, patriotic Americans who valued our national sovereignty were not yet ready to turn over that sovereignty to a United Nations organization. It was obvious that supporters of the order needed to “shift course.” Instead of a “grand universal institutional framework,” a “smaller, more practical one” would be used to advance the order. This involved a more piecemeal approach, with Bretton Woods (an international monetary arrangement based on the U.S. dollar) “supplemented by the Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan, and NATO.”
It should be emphasized that Rose argues that these three supplements were intended mainly to promote the order’s creation. The 1947 plan to “pump American capital” into Europe (the Marshall Plan) was for the purpose of creating an “integrated European economy centered on Germany and France.”
While American policymakers did consider the Soviet Union a threat in the late 1940s, Rose said that they were not actually concerned about any threat “to the U.S. homeland.” The “threat was to the order they were trying to build.” Rose admits that “neither Congress nor the American public was clamoring for the launch of such a grand new postwar project.”
Bluntly put, Americans had — again — essentially rejected the dreams of the New World Order envisioned by the Wilsonians. It was at this point that the globalists “cleverly flipped the story, presenting its new approach not as an independent project of American order building but as a response to a growing Soviet threat.” But, as Rose readily concedes, this “distorted what was really going on.”
What was really going on was the elites using a legitimate fear of the Soviet Union’s aggressiveness to build the New World Order. As Rose explained, “Cooperative integration was sold as something that was done to bind the American alliance together to win the conflict rather than as something valuable in its own right. This went on so long that when the Cold War finally ended, many were surprised that the order continued.”
Even CFR member Jeanne Kirkpatrick, UN ambassador for President Ronald Reagan, said at the time of the Soviet Union’s collapse, “Now we an be a normal country again,” and advocated pulling back on U.S. commitments, such as NATO. But, if NATO was never about containing the Soviet menace, primarily, but rather about advancing the New World Order, that was not going to happen, and it did not happen. In fact, NATO was expanded. When President George H.W. Bush formed the alliance to push Iraq out of Kuwait in 1991, he gloated that he was establishing a New World Order, using those very words.
The end of the Cold War was not going to end the push for a New World Order — global governance — as the next president, Bill Clinton, even “advanced North American economic integration” and expanded NATO into eastern Europe! At this point, Rose fondly recalls, “the order” was stronger than ever.
But problems remained, Rose lamented, arguing that without state intervention into the economies of the world, the benefits of “capitalism” were not distributed “steadily or evenly.” Apparently, free enterprise is not a goal of the order. Another problem was that there were still large numbers of Americans who opposed the New World Order. Rose quoted one reader of Foreign Affairs: “I’ll simplify it for you: the average American rejects your Globalist, anti-American, anti-constitution, politically correct VOMIT.”
Finally, Rose turns his attention to Donald Trump, taking aim at his campaign theme of “America first,” noting that Trump wanted to take American foreign policy back to the 1930s.
Perhaps the most revealing tidbit in the Rose article was his version of an event that took place early in the Trump administration: “At one point, Trump’s entire national security apparatus gathered in the basement of the Pentagon to explain the order to him. The president was bored and implacable.”
This explains the intense hatred that the architects of the order have for Trump. American conservative constitutionalists certainly have problems with Trump, but it is clear that those who would terminate America’s national sovereignty, submerging us into their vision of a New World Order, have even more problems with him.
Rose concludes his article by looking forward to the day when “Trump leaves office” and the next president can repair “the damage” to the order.
On the contrary, we can hope that the next president can finish the job that Trump has begun, and the American people can send the order to the ash heap of history.
The Science Behind Florida’s Sinkhole Epidemic
Reports of these ground-chasms have been swelling in the past few years. Geology helps explain why
By Chris Bodenner
MAY 24, 2018
1.5K213462.2KThere are many good reasons why The Villages is known as “Disney for Seniors.”
The largest retirement community in the world, The Villages is also one of America’s safest and most leisurely places to live. Sumter County, populated almost entirely by Villagers, is 62nd among 67 counties in Florida for violent crime—likely because the median age is 66.6, the oldest of any U.S. county. The ubiquity of gates, guard booths and mandatory visitor I.D. cards lends to the low crime. Vehicular deaths are very low, which makes sense given that Villagers commute in golf carts more than cars. The Villages is also located in the safest area of Florida for hurricanes.
But Villagers are increasingly fearful of a growing, surreal threat: the ground suddenly opening up and swallowing them whole.
“Everybody is worried,” a 10-year resident of the Village of Calumet Grove told me this March, pointing to a saucer-sized hole at his curb where sinkhole specialists drilled to check for weak spots. A month earlier, in mid-February, seven sinkholes opened across the street and into a golf course, forming a zig-zag crack across the facade of one house and causing four homes to evacuate. One is now condemned. A town hall that week attracted five times more Villagers than usual. “It’s not a good time to sell,” the elderly neighbor says, with a weary laugh. (He asked me not to use his name.)
In contrast to its otherwise serene status, The Villages is a hotbed of sinkholes. They occur more frequently in Florida than any other state, though this week we’ve seen them appear on Maryland roads and even in front of the White House. And The Villages is smack in the middle of Sinkhole Alley—a swath of counties in Central Florida that carry the greatest risk. (A German bakery near The Villages even sells a popular pastry called the Sinkhole.)
Typically sinkholes are no more than a headache for property owners, but when tragedy does strike, it’s the stuff of nightmares. Among the six recorded deaths from sinkholes in Florida history is Jeffrey Bush, who was sleeping in his bedroom when a sinkhole sucked him 20 feet underground. His body was never recovered.
The number of reported sinkholes in The Villages has spiked in recent years. An official with The Villages Public Safety Department told the Orlando Sentinel that residents had reported “several” sinkholes in 2016, though none affecting homes—an assessment matched by the archives of Villages-News. Ditto for 2015; in 2014 three sinkholes affected six homes.
In 2017, by stark contrast, at least 32 sinkholes were reported by that independent news site. At least eight homes were affected, plus a country club, a busy intersection, a Lowe’s home improvement store, and the local American Legion post, the largest in the world. (The Daily Sun, a large newspaper owned by The Villages’ developer, reported on none of them except the one at the busy intersection, only to say the hole was “later determined not likely” a sinkhole.) In just the first three months of 2018, at least 11 sinkholes were reported by Villages-News, affecting eight homes—all before sinkhole season even started, in early spring. Four more sinkholes sprang up this week.
That there’s such a thing as “sinkhole season,” just as there’s a “tornado season” and “hurricane season,” speaks to the many factors that contribute to the threat. Underlying all of them is the fact that Florida is built on a bedrock of carbonate, primarily limestone. That rock dissolves relatively easily in rainwater, which becomes acidic as it seeps through the soil. The resulting terrain, called “karst,” is honeycombed with cavities. When a cavity becomes too big to support its ceiling, it suddenly gives way, collapsing the clay and sand above to leave a cavernous hole at the surface.
The main trigger for sinkholes is water—too much of it, or too little. The normally moist soil of Florida has a stabilizing effect on karst. But during a drought, cavities that were supported by groundwater empty out and become unstable. During a heavy rainstorm, the weight of pooled water can strain the soil, and the sudden influx of groundwater can wash out cavities. Central Florida was in a severe drought at the beginning of 2017, followed by the intense rainfall of Hurricane Irma that hit The Villages in September—and a deluge after a drought is the optimal condition for a sinkhole outbreak.
But those major events from Mother Nature in 2017 don’t account for the spate of sinkholes this year already. The weather in Sumter County has been pretty typical. So what’s going on?
Man-made development, it turns out, is the most persistent factor for increased sinkholes. Earth-moving equipment scrapes away protective layers of soil; parking lots and paved roads divert rainwater to new infiltration points; the weight of new buildings presses down on weak spots; buried infrastructure can lead to leaking pipes; and, perhaps most of all, the pumping of groundwater disrupts the delicate water table that keeps the karst stable. “Our preliminary research indicates that the risk of sinkholes is 11 times greater in developed areas than undeveloped ones,” says George Veni, the executive director of the National Cave and Karst Research Institute who conducted a field study in Sinkhole Alley.
And The Villages has been in development overdrive. It was the fastest growing metropolitan area in the US. four years in a row (2013-16), and it’s still in the top 10. In his 2008 book Leisureville, journalist Andrew Blechman reported that The Villages would “finish its build-out—an industry term for the point when a project is complete—in the very near future,” peaking at “110,000 residents.” Yet a decade later, the population has sped past 125,000. Last year The Villages reported a 93 percent boom in housing construction and a new purchase of land that will yield up to 20,000 homes. Another land deal for 8,000 new homes is nearing completion.
Those new homes will bring more golf courses, and The Villages already has 49 of them (#2 per capita among all U.S. counties). The retention ponds built on those courses can leak into the karst and trigger sinkholes. Irrigating those 49 courses and the tens of thousands of lawns in The Villages is also a significant risk factor. In his 2016 book Oh, Florida, veteran reporter Craig Pittman reveals how his friend who worked at the Daily Sun said the staff was never to write two things: 1) anything complimentary of Barack Obama, and 2) “The numerous sinkholes that open up because of all the water being pumped from the aquifer to keep lawns and golf courses green.”
In a scathing column, Orlando Sentinel’s Lauren Ritchie notes how the fledgling community in 1991 had a water permit to use 65 millions gallons a year, but by 2017 that rate reached “a stunning 12.4 billion gallons a year.” The local aquifer in Sumter County is also threatened by a controversial plan by a bottling company to pump nearly a half-million gallons of water a day—and double that rate during peak months. Despite the protests of Villagers worried that a falling water table will spur sinkholes, pumping will begin soon.
The Villages shouldn’t be singled out when it comes to sinkholes. Marion and Lake, the two counties that The Villages pokes into, are #4 and #10, respectively, on RiskMeter’s 2011 list of the most sinkhole-prone counties in Florida. Number one is Pasco, which abuts Sumter to the south. Last summer a 260-foot-wide sinkhole yawned underneath a Pasco neighborhood, consuming two homes and condemning seven more, making it the county’s largest in 30 years. That massive chasm rivaled the epic Winter Park sinkhole in Orange County—#8 for RiskMeter, an online tool providing hazard analysis for insurers.
Citrus, directly to the west of Sumter, is both #6 for RiskMeter and the fourth “grayest” county in the U.S., based on the percentage of residents over age 65. Pasco and Marion are also among the top 10 counties nationwide with both a high concentration and high number of older people.
In Ocala, near The Villages, a sinkhole in a fast-food lot swallowed a car and forced the elderly couple inside to crawl out. A man simply standing in the grass in The Villages slipped through a trapdoor of a five-foot hole. In the Village of Glenbrook, a retired couple found a sinkhole literally on their doorstep. Another Villager reported a “prowler” to 911 only to discover a dark void instead. In the nearby city of Apopka, half a couple’s home collapsed and “nearly 50 years of memories sank with it.”
I spoke with geologist and sinkhole expert David Wilshaw on the same day he was returning from a trip to The Villages to inspect a suspected sinkhole. It turned out to be a false alarm—the small depression was caused by a leaking irrigation line—but the shaken resident told Wilshaw she hadn’t slept the whole night, afraid the ground would gobble her up. Injuries from sinkholes are rare, but “perception is everything,” says Wilshaw, “particularly with the elderly population. They’re also fearful they may lose their best investment”—their house—“and lose it during their retirement years,” when they’re most vulnerable.
Central to that fear factor is how unpredictable sinkholes are. They usually form without warning, and it’s difficult to detect weak spots in the ground. “Drilling exploration holes in The Villages is a challenge,” says Wilshaw, “since rock will be 5 feet down in some places and 100 feet down if you move 20 feet to the side.” Wilshaw, who runs his own company specializing in assessing sinkhole risk, is often hired to survey sites using ground penetrating radar (GPR), which is the best way to detect cavities. But he says many homebuilders “will do absolutely nothing and instead rely on the end user” to check for cavities, since Florida law doesn’t require it. “It’s a little bit of the Wild West,” he says.
Can anything besides GPR help predict sinkholes? NASA technology has shown potential: Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR) detects subtle changes in ground elevation over time when the sensor is flown repeatedly over an area susceptible to sinkholes, especially the slow-forming ones called “cover-subsidence.” When that use for InSAR emerged in 2014, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) reached out to NASA for help, but when I checked in with a DEP spokesperson, she said that’s not happening anytime soon.
Even when a site is surveyed and deemed safe from sinkholes, one can still form a few years later, given the precarious nature of karst. “It’s best to just cross your fingers and buy insurance,” says Wilshaw. But homeowners insurance only covers “catastrophic ground collapse”—when a sinkhole makes a home uninhabitable. Any damage just short of that must be covered by sinkhole insurance, whose deductible in Florida is typically 10 percent of the home’s value.
“Not all homes qualify for [that] broader coverage, which is admittedly a scary proposition in Florida,” according to a front-page article in the May 2018 issue of The Bulletin, published by the Property Owners’ Association (POA) of The Villages. (The group isn’t affiliated with the developer).
Even when a sinkhole is repaired (“remediated” is the technical term), it will sometimes reopen. Perhaps the most dramatic sinkhole to ever hit The Villages, in Buttonwood—just look at this photo—lurched open several months after remediation began. So did the sinkhole that killed Jeffrey Bush.
Conspicuously absent from RiskMeter’s top 10 list is Sumter County. That 2011 list, though, was based on sinkhole insurance claims, and scads of them were falsely reported in the years before 2011, when Florida lawmakers overhauled the abused system. A much better gauge of sinkhole risk followed two years later (just as The Villages was starting its four-year growth streak): The 2013 Hazard Mitigation Plan, created by the Florida Division of Emergency Management (DEM), which assigned Sumter a “medium” risk for sinkholes. Only eight other counties were given a higher level of risk.
But as DEM acknowledged, that 2013 assessment was “imprecise and poorly substantiated by available geologic data” because it was primarily based on citizen reports of sinkholes unverified by geologists. Enter Clint Kromhout of the Florida Geological Survey: In 2013, he and his team secured more than $1 million in federal funds to travel around Florida verifying those sinkholes and create a predictive map showing which areas have the most “relative vulnerability.” Among the many reporters Kromhout spoke to during the three-year study was Tampa Bay Times’ James L. Rosica, who noted, “The goal for the scale of the state map is at least the county level, but Kromhout said he hopes they will be able to get to a neighborhood-by-neighborhood detail.”
Veni, the karst expert I interviewed, calls Kromhout’s 2017 report “the most detailed, comprehensive analysis of sinkhole risk that I’m aware of.” (Kromhout declined to be interviewed for this story, as did a representative for The Villages.) Its long sought-after predictive map was included in the 2018 Hazard Mitigation Plan that came out in February.
That’s as detailed as the map gets. As the Sinkhole Report states, “Most importantly, the favorability map is not of sufficient detail to provide site specific information regarding sinkhole formation.” The Villages is primarily located in the northern part of Sumter County, which is almost entirely in the red zone.
How helpful is the Sinkhole Report? “I don’t think it is the prediction model that some hoped for (it would be very difficult to create one), but it does advance the science,” says Robert Brinkmann, a geology professor at Hofstra University who wrote Florida Sinkholes: Science and Policy and owns a house in Sinkhole Alley.
“The real challenge here is that the state doesn’t really fund much sinkhole research, particularly since real estate remains one of the driving economic engines in the state,” Brinkmann adds. “The federal government has not really funded any significant studies on the topic except for this modest one. Millions in federal dollars go every year to tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanoes and hurricanes, but little if any goes to studying sinkholes. Certainly [the former] are horrible, but they are one-time dramatic events. Sinkholes are a constant threat and much of the damage happens slowly over time. The annual property damage from sinkholes is staggering”—$300 million is a conservative estimate.
That damage could escalate as climate change intensifies. “As sea level rises in response to climate change, groundwater levels in near-coastal areas will also rise and result in increased flooding of sinkholes,” predicts Veni. “Studies on the potential degree of such flooding and its triggering new sinkhole collapses are just beginning.” He’s in the preliminary stages of just such a study with a colleague in Florida.
Some Villagers are tempted to throw in the towel. “When we moved [to the Village of Glenbrook] in 2012 we thought we would be here for the rest of our days,” wrote a member of the “Talk of the Villages” web forum on March 5 after a sinkhole forced his neighbors to evacuate, but “now we’re considering moving again which is the last thing I wanted to do.” (Less than two months later, another eight families would evacuate their homes when a dozen sinkholes appeared in an Ocala neighborhood not far from Glenbrook, making national news.) Another Villager added ominously: “I am dreading when the rainy season starts”--May 27, on average for the area.
But the rainy season came early this year: On May 20, after a week of persistent rain, four sinkholes struck Calumet Grove, the Village that suffered seven sinkholes in February. Thunderstorms are expected to continue thanks to a sub-tropical storm system forming off the coast. One of the residents forced from his home in February, 80-year-old Frank Neumann, spoke to Villages-News. “Prior to Monday’s sinkhole activity, Neumann said he was hoping to have his home repaired and stay in the neighborhood he’s lived in for 14 years—largely because of the friendships he and his wife have formed there,” according to the site. “But as he stood in his front yard looking at the second wave of destruction to strike his property in 95 days, he said he wasn’t so sure that remaining in The Villages was a good idea.”
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'.
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...)
Let the World Know: Germany Is Going Down
Saturday, October 15, 2016 1:34
(Before It's News)
4th February 2016
Destruction of Germany by invasion
5th October, 2015
Pls. spread this report as widely as you can, put it into international forums and into mailing lists.
The world must know what is going on in Germany.
About the writerI’m German by birth and heritage, it does not matter if I’m male or female and I’ve decided not to give my real name, in order to protect my family. I live in the southern part of Germany and I’ve got grown up kids, young adults.
My family tree has been documented until 500 years back into the past, my forefathers came from Silesia, an aristrocatic family which as always been strongly connected to land and people as goodhearted, protecting keepers. A high education was standard in this family, there were lawyers, factory owners, architects, priests, doctors, inventors etc. During WWII they became expelled from there, not only lost all their property and wealth, but also young children who died from sickness and weakness along the roadside while they had to flee from the east into the west. One can well say that all these expelled families were deeply traumatized. My mom was only 13 years old when all this happend and during the rest of her life she has never truely been able to overcome all of these dark experiences. When I was a young chield I was used to hear my grandparents and my mom talking about the horror of war, the horror of not being welcome in the west and about the fear that something like this might happen again.
They were not aware that I was listening, as they thought I was asleep, but what I heard caused a big fear inside my young mind, that I might ever be forced to experience all of this by myself, that I might loose all that was so dear to me, and during my sleep it turned into nightmares.
The reason why I’m telling this to you is to let you know that I’m personally involved into the “refugee” topic based on the history of my family, I’m an empathic person, I’m deeply connected to Germany, the German culture and tradition, but at the same side open to all cultures of the world, I’m aware about the fact that the majority of this world’s people just want to live in peace, make their livelyhood, want to have some enjoyments, a home and enough food – if their governments just let them. Same I’m deeply connected to God. I have left the institution of church – in my eyes merely a club – but I call myself an “employee” of Christ.
INTRODUCTIONThe present situation in Germany gives proof that some secret community has decided to eliminate Germany and it’s culture. Germans are becoming rightless and abandoned people in their own country, and this is most probably a fact which will never be told in the evening news broadcasted in the rest of the world. It’s a big showdown going on, the governments of our neighbor countries claim not to understand anything of what the German government has started to manifest – the suicide of the German nation.
The “TITANIC” named Germany has already hit the iceberg and has started to sink, while the band is still playing. Inside Germany we have a huge censorship in TV/Media/net, with threats to all those who do not post/broadcast/write in a manner which is regarded as “politically correct. More below.
The mainstream media will NOT properly inform you about what’s really going on in this land. The mainstream media does not even inform the GERMANS abot what’s really going on in this land.
Truely, these are circumstances which were similarly reported and denounced in connection with the NAZI regime, and if our children may ever survive this, they might ask once, “why has nobody had the courage to counter this suppression?”
I feel an utmost urge to inform the rest of the world properly, as long as I’m still able to, as long as our internet is still working, as long as I still have a chance to be heard.
What I’m going to tell you is the mere truth, and it’s not going against any of the average citizens of the world, who become the victims of governments who have just apparantly been elected by the people, but came into their places by manipulation and corruption.
Some of my relatives live in America, West Coast as well as East Coast. I’ve got friends all over the world, committed to Germany, rooted in Germany, not all interested in whats going on in Germany but this will not hinder me telling what’s going on with us.
GERMANY HAS BEEN HIT BY A TSUNAMI OF BODIES INVADING THIS LAND AND THERE IS NO END IN SIGHT.Many Germans start to realize that what always was bashed as a “Conspiracy theory” has never been a theory at all, but a hardcore plan. There IS a conspiracy of sorts, it’s a conspiracy REALITY, there is enough proof all over the net, if you just started looking for it beyond mainstream.
Don’t believe the phrases and propaganda our government blows out. The German chancellor of destruction, Merkel, has lately stated: This problem of being flooded with refugees from various countries was a problem inflicted to us “by God”.
Well, this is pretty profane. It WAS NOT. This is a manmade problem, created intentionally, long time ago already. The goal is the fulfillment of what WWII did not reach rightaway, it’s the EXITUS of Germany, a cardiac infaction to the core of Europe, reaching out even into the neighbor countrys like France or even to others more far away, like Sweden.
German members of the police or other institutions are whistleblowing that the situation in Germany – law and order – IS ALREADY OUT OF CONTROL.
The planned result is the destabilization of whole Europe – followed by a cry for help from there – countered by offering the BIG SOLUTION for the planet … THE NWO.
THE NATURE OF WHAT IS CALLED REFUGEESTo create a flood of “refugees” it was necessary to destabilize several countries. An explanation was needed for public presentation. The keys for destabilization are the ones everybody already knows – BOMBING and WARFARE. To bomb a country the agressor needs a reason – guess what – terrorism. Since the false flag of “Shock and Awe” we know as 911 (meanwhile nearly every chield knows it was an “inside job”) “terrorism” has become that one BIG rubbermade and stretchable argument of that “would like to control all the world” 3-letter State.
One has to look around for quite a while to find a country which has not yet been subject to bombing, “economic hit-men” or forces of separatism sent there (of course controlled by the secret service of the 3-letter State and another one “joined at the hip”).
We all know the recent victim countries …. Irak, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and the Ukraine, – not to forget Palestine and certain parts of Africa, which were unfortunate enough to be part of an agressor’s strategy to reach more control an power.
I can fully understand how the wish to live in peace without bombing, without IS-terrorism, urges citizens of destabilized countries to head for Germany.
Estimated these make 2 % of all the people invading Germany. REAL REFUGEES.
But I bet, most of the people still would not have left their homelands for the long road to Germany, if there had not been adequate propaganda and sponsoring, advertising for Germany “in need for them” or this “rich country”. You might have heard the German Chancellor’s phrase “the Islam would belong to Germany”. WHAT A PARADISE.
So, the bulk of the “refugees” are economic refugees but having a close look at them, it’s getting worse. They are not coming here to ask for help, they are coming to DEMAND. Somebody has told them they had all rights to demand anything and the “christed disbelivers” had to bow in front of the Islam.
Their status of evolution is lower than with animals – I’m sorry to say that but they are in neither way capable to integrate into German structures and rules. They do not even know how to use sanitary equipment. They pee wherever they are, they shit on the floor wherever they are, they pee on sleeping women inside the asylumn camps, they use any children as shields, they rape children and women, they plunder each other (as well as their German hosts), they steal whatever they need, in the sanitary rooms the walls are covered with their excrements, they place their shit next to the toilets on the floor.
Vandalism and demolition quickly changes their locations into ruins – and whatever property is offered them for use – probably civilized people will never more be willing to use it – one would have to tear it down. They attack Germans, they give open expression of hatred and disdain to the Germans (non Islamists). DISEASES ARE STARTING TO SPREAD. I’m pretty sure that the government will soon take a chance to order (deadly or sickening) vaccinations to the Germans, faking to “protect” them.
It’s NOT WOMEN AND CHILDREN causing this hell to the helpers – it’s the main part of the “refugees”, young grown-up MALES without any willingness to learn or to behave.
They arm themselves with knives and anything which can be used as a weapon, they go against each othere if there are differences in religions, there was even murder. They are the very chaotic troublemakers and anti-social through and through.
They invade supermarkets and stores without paying for what they take. There are official instructions to IGNORE REFUGEE CRIME, which is about 80% of the crime rate. Never before in German histroy the rate of raping German girls and women has been so high like it is now.
The newspapers are ordered by the Government not to tell the public that the criminal was of “migrant background”, they even change the names into German names, so that the German readers should not realize who was really behind.
THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT TELLS THE CITIZENS, THESE WERE “ENRICHMENT TO THE CULTURE”.The enrichment of culture becomes clear by banners hung up at bridges crossing the German Autobahn.
This photo was taken in the area of Stuttgart named SINDELFINGEN.
The translation means: “YOUR KIDS ARE GOING TO ADORE ALLAH OR THEY WILL DIE”
THE TROJANIC HORSE
Well, I suppose this statement includes the considerable number of IS-terrorists infiltrated among the masses of invading migrants. THERE IS PROOF ABOUT THAT “TROJANIC HORSE”.
The mainstream news did NOT report about strange containers delivered to certain asylumns in Germany – labeled as “AID FOR REFUGEES”, but containing a full load of weapons – guns and ammunition. The first of these containers was found by the Greek customs – on a ship south of Crete. There are reports on youtube, if you want to convince yourselves.
I suppose that the deliverers/big spenders of these weapons are identical with the nice people delivering weapons to the Ukraine to heat on the civil war there … “BLACKWATER” on order of that 3-letter state. There is proof that both sides were shot at with the same sort of bullets.
People have already wondered how all these “refugees” can have new smartphones – well, I guess it’s part of the plan. There were roumors that on a certain date and order “great islamic terror” should break loose all over Germany. I think we have had some intervening by whom ever – to prevent this so far.
I have a friend with the police and there IS CONFIRMATION AS FOLLOWS: THE GERMAN POLICE CANNOT PROTECT THE GERMAN CITICENS ANY MORE. WE WILL HAVE TO PROTECT OURSELVES, OUR HOMES, OUR CHILDREN. GERMANY CANNOT HANDLE THIS MIGRATION WEAPON ANY MORE.
WHISTLEBLOWERS HAVE STATED THAT THE BORDERS WERE NEVER REALLY CLOSED, ALTHOUGH THE GERMAN CITIZENS WERE TOLD SO. It was just a show to calm down the public. THE FLOODING GOES ON.
All the helpers and do-gooders out of free will are nearly suffering a burn-out now.
The country Gemany is not too big. It’s a quite small country with a high population rate. Germany was “full” even before all these refugees started to flood in.
The “refugees” with their nature of parasites, locusts or army ants are being distributed all over the country. Small villages “get” more refugees than they have people living there. There is not enough money, there is not enough security for all that potential crime.
Our village will get our share of them, too, but our mayor is a coward and denies informing us. The info came backstage. The community council was asked for agreement, of course, and everybody agreed, as nobody wanted to be a “Racist” or “Nazi”.
(This information comes directly from a talk between him and me). Of course, not telling us shall prevent the building up of resistance.
I’m a pretty strategic mind and I seem to know how the situation of living here will change.
I’m pretty glad that we have a fence around our property and dogs. But it will certainly become too dangerous for our blond and pretty daughters to have a relaxed dog-walk after sunset or even a ride through the near valleys. We will have to carry pepper-spray with us or anything else which can be used in case of self-defence. Most probably they will have to cover their shining hair, in order not to draw attention to it. So far we have one negroe living here and he has at least two times started to pester my daughters. I’m very empathic with all of those who still have small children.
It will be too dangerous to let them play outside for even a few minutes. Our shepherd will most probably loose sheep, as well as the breeders of small animals like rabbits or ducks will loose animals as well.
Today the radio news told, that the Government just corrected the number of Refugees to come still in 2015. It would not be the announced 850.000, but 1,5 million.
If you want to have a comparison: SWITZERLAND will take just 50.000.
THE PROBLEM OF HOUSING THE REFUGEESAs I told you above, the Germans are being abandoned in their own country. In the city of Niederkassel a German family of 8 persons had to leave the house they were living in, they had rented it from the community, who had decided to put 25 refugees inside it. They were put under pressure and were not offered an alternative. This is NOT A SINGLE CASE. All over Germany, communities are already confiscating private properties and they are just changing law accordingly, to simplyfy this process.
People who run holiday appartments are receiving notes about confiscation of the appartments for refugees.
It’s getting still worse.
Kids are lacking SPORTS at school, as the gyms are given to the refugees.
In the town of LÜBBECKE a secondary school received the command – after the 5th lesson – to vacate the complete building for refugees within just 15 minutes of time, and the next day the students were forced to attend a different location, a special school for handicaped kids, which would have to make room for them.
Soldiers have to move out from their barracks into tents, and asylants will move into the barracks.
There are even plans to force “better off” people to move out if they have rented cheap appartments, so that the cheap housing can be taken for refugees, so, some supercheckers are going to decide – according to your wages – what price you have to afford for an appartment.
If you will ever find another one – there is hardly a choice left.
CENSORSHIPMore and more people starting to realize that the German Government has foresaken the German Nation, that it has intentionally drawn damage, danger and crime into the country. Same with the council communities.
All of these people have been elected by the citizens (at least this is the common belief) and now everybody is participating in that “game”, as otherwise he would be called a “NAZI” or “RACIST”.
I assure you, the Germans are not racists, although there is still a worldwide propaganda going on trying to cement this image in the minds of the planet.
The GERMANS have always been there to help, on any catastrophe. They have offered help on the Tsunami 2004, on the earthquake in Haiti, on the nuclar catastrophe in Japan, on the earthquake in India – in Africa, on every event of place needed a helping hand.
German soldiers have returned in coffins from Afghanistan – and still they are ready to perform wherever needed.
The Germans are open to respect foreign beliefs and cultures, no problem, it never was. It’s absolutely ridiculous to blame the Germans to be racists, just because some are doubting the Islam to belong into this country of christed origin.
The Germans have invented a lot of things – Germany has often been called the “Land of poets and thinkers”, but whenever a German points to this, he’s directly becoming verbally bashed as a “racist” or a “NAZI”.
Isn’t this ridiculous? That thing about WWII has taken place generations and generations ago, still raising questions on this topic can easily and quickly bring one into a closed psychiatry dept.
Certain Youtube contributions are locked to Germans – and not for GEMA reasons – while everybody else in UK, France, and the rest of the world is allowed to watch them.
There is only ONE word for it, and this word is CENSORSHIP
Now, let’s talk about CENSORSHIP in connection with the refugee topic. There is one opinion allowed – the “political correct” one, which is “WELCOME REFUGEES”
Newspapers won’t print letters of readers with another opinion, and they will certainly NOT write anything countering “Welcome Refugees”.
Any contrary opinion is titled as “comment of hatred”. There are suggestions from “above” like strong punishments for these – for example, taking away the driving permission from the writer or even taking away his children. Mentionning the risks around the presence of refugees is also restricted.
Because “by this, one would place a seed of fear and promote separation”, so, there exist selfnominated groups of censorship and denouncing writers with institutions like prosecution etc.
PEGIDA is a group warning about the Islam taking over. It started with demonstrations in the city of Dresden. So, PEGIDA is being daemonized all over the mainstream media.
The AfD is a young party – standing for “an alternative to Germany”. They are one of the rare and couraged holders of opposition to the government. I bet that on the latest Bundestag elections there was huge manipulation on this party. There were hints on bundles of election letters which had disappeared – and this party did not make it to the Bundestag. However, later they made it into the EU parliament, and now the government is really frightened about them. According to a weekend survey, about 80% of the Germans were going to elect this party now….
And now you can imagine the mean comments and bashing against these groups.
A member of the German Red Cross had been ordered to go to an asylumn for support there.
She afterwards posted on Facebook, that according to her view there had only been 2% true refugees, while the rest of them were economic ones and “spongers”. Guess what – using the word “Spongers” made that she was fired.
A 13 year old boy placed a critical comment on Facebook. This comment was found by a self named censor who contacted the parents of this boy to hint on the “racist” comment. The parents said they would talk to him, but the censor claimed, this was not enough. By making pressure he insisted on the boy helping 1 day in a refugee location, and in the evening he had to make a “selfie with a laughing refugee child” to post it on Facebook with a statement of “how much fun they had”.
Watching TV becomes quite horrible. There is refugee propaganda wherever you watch. Knowing details of reality it’s really up to vomiting.
Another critical party had adressed the SPD with the input to protect the German culture as there were so many special things in it.
I’m ashame to tell that the female SPD speaker verbally vaporised him – he was a racist and a NAZI, as he was claiming the German culture to be superior to others. Others – perhaps you have heard about the ANTIFA – openly claim that “GERMANY MUST PERISH”.
In this connection I recommend you to educate yourselves – google “Hooton” or “Kalergi”.
SO FAR WE HAVE COME: IN GERMANY IT’S MEANWHILE REGARDED AS A CRIME IF SOME PATRIOT WANTS TO PROTECT HIS HOMELAND.Germans observing the situation with open eyes clearly see that it’s much too late to prevent the downgoing of our country. THE REQUIEM FOR THE FUNERAL OF OUR COUNTRY HAS ALREAY STARTED.
It’s just a question of not too long. The refugee thing was a well orchestrated act of war against Europe, especially Germany. I suppose, Merkel is already sitting upon packed suitcases, ready to disappear into one of those luxury dugouts. While all the world is officially questioning her deeds, or even if she is insane, she just did what Big Bro was demanding from her and was so becoming a traitor to her own nation.
There is proof that IS is being financed by that big 3-letter country, have you heard that IS is openly speaking about attacking Western Europe with nukes. Well, where would they get these from… out of a dusty Taliban cave? More likely would be: straight from the sponsor.
I strongly hope for DIVINE PREVENTION!
If you ask me, Putin has been a real genious by openly and effectively fighting IS in Syria. Truely, knowing who’s behind IS he’s fighting the 3-letter State. Latter one has claimed to fight IS too…. but so unfortunately just ineffectively. Well, yes… by intention. Would be not suitable to say: dear Putin, please, to not bomb IS in Syria…. it’s our own equipment.
So l the refugees claimed to be refugees of IS were in fact refugees of the 3-letter State and that other special one in this joint-venture.
And how will they now guarantee that the German dose of refugees will still rise by next year?
The next argument has already been delivered. “Africa has such a poor soil”, nothing will grow there anymore … so the poor Africans have to invide Europe in order not to starve.
Imagine Germany as a fortress with not much space left inside.
Merkel as a commander ordered the gates to be opened widely, and get the draw-bridge down.
She shouts NOW COME IN EVERYBODY…. WE NEED YOU…
And masses are starting to pour in.
At the top, the first original inhabitants start to fall down from over the battlements. Still more press themselves inside.
Finally, the walls burst.
Excerpts from the book, “Dedication & Leadership – Learning From the Communists”
The author, Douglas Hyde, renounced Communism after serving in the party for many years. He points out that the reason Secular Humanists, Socialists and Communists are winning the cultural war, is due to the lack of dedication and commitment of many conservatives and Christians. Communists are more dedicated, courageous, and energetic than Conservatives - that although Communism is evil there is much to be learned from its methods, members, and psychological motivation. The tragedy is that people give such energy, zeal and dedication to socialism, and other forms of Secular Humanism, while those who have the best cause on earth often give so little to it.
Hyde starts out by saying, “Often, ex-communists meeting together talk of the old days when we were in the Party rather like old soldiers discussing nostalgically the campaigns they shared in the past. We talked of old comrades who now saw themselves as our enemies. Do you remember what life was really like in the Party? You got up in the morning, and as you shaved you were thinking of the jobs you would do for communism that day. You went down to breakfast and read the Daily Worker to get the Party line - to get the shot and shell for a fight in which you were already involved. You read every item in the paper wondering how you might be able to use it for the cause. I had never been interested in sports, but I read the sports pages in order to be able to discuss sport with others and to be able to say to them, “Have you read this in the Daily Worker?” I would follow this through by giving them the paper in the hope that they might turn from the sports pages and read the political ones too. On the bus or train, on my way to work, I read the Daily Worker as ostentatiously as I could, holding it up so that others might read the headlines and perhaps be influenced by them. I took two copies of the paper with me; the second one I left on the seat in the hope that someone would pick it up and read it. When I got to work, I kept the Daily Worker circulating. One worker after another would take it outside, read it for a few minutes and bring it back to me again. At lunchtime I would try to start conversations with those with whom I was eating. I made a practice of sitting with different groups in order to spread my influence as widely as I could. I did not thrust Communism down their throats, but steered our conversations in such a way that they could be brought around to politics or, if possible, to the campaigns which the Party was conducting at the time. Before I left my place of work at night, there was a quick meeting of the factory group or cell. There we discussed the successes and failures of the day. We also discussed what we hoped to be able to do on the following day. I dashed home, had a quick meal and then went out, maybe to attend classes, maybe to be a tutor, maybe to join some communist campaign, going from door to door canvassing or standing at the side of the road selling communist papers - doing something for communism. At night I thought about the jobs I was going to do for communism the next day.”
If we lose the cultural war for the soul of America – tyranny will be the result. The consequences of losing this war are major - more horrendous than I care to contemplate. If we continue to lose this war we will no longer be able to enjoy our Constitutional freedoms, practice our religion, or raise our children as we see fit. It is important that every American - should understand that we are at war. The enemy realizes it, whether or not we do! The things I’m suggesting pale in comparison to some of the antics of many sports fans who are nearly hysterical in their enthusiasm. Some paint their house and their car in their team’s colors. Some even riot as a result of their teams winning or losing. It makes me wonder; who or what is their god?
If 10% of Americans had the same level of commitment progressives and Muslims have, we could preserve and pass freedom to our children.
“The World is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it.” Albert Einstein
New World Order Definition
The following article is extracted from an excellent analysis of the New World Order by author Ken Adachi which can be found at educate-yourself.org.
The term New World Order (NWO) has been used by numerous politicians through the ages, and is a generic term used to refer to a worldwide conspiracy being orchestrated by an extremely powerful and influential group of genetically-related individuals (at least at the highest echelons) which include many of the world's wealthiest people, top political leaders, and corporate elite, as well as members of the so-called Black Nobility of Europe (dominated by the British Crown) whose goal is to create a One World (fascist) Government, stripped of nationalistic and regional boundaries, that is obedient to their agenda.
Listen to the Zionist* banker, Paul Warburg:
"We will have a world government whether you like it or not. The only question is whether that government will be achieved by conquest or consent." (February 17, 1950, as he testified before the US Senate).
Their intention is to effect complete and total control over every human being on the planet and to dramatically reduce the world's population by two thirds. While the name New World Order is the term most frequently used today to loosely refer to anyone involved in this conspiracy, the study of exactly who makes up this group is a complex and intricate one. For further research sources, please see the side bar on the left.
In 1992, Dr John Coleman published Conspirators Hierarchy: The Story of the Committee of 300. With laudable scholarship and meticulous research, Dr Coleman identifies the players and carefully details the New World Order agenda of worldwide domination and control. On page 161 of the Conspirators Hierarchy, Dr Coleman accurately summarizes the intent and purpose of the Committee of 300 as follows:
"A One World Government and one-unit monetary system, under permanent non-elected hereditary oligarchists who self-select from among their numbers in the form of a feudal system as it was in the Middle Ages. In this One World entity, population will be limited by restrictions on the number of children per family, diseases, wars, famines, until 1 billion people who are useful to the ruling class, in areas which will be strictly and clearly defined, remain as the total world population.
There will be no middle class, only rulers and the servants. All laws will be uniform under a legal system of world courts practicing the same unified code of laws, backed up by a One World Government police force and a One World unified military to enforce laws in all former countries where no national boundaries shall exist. The system will be on the basis of a welfare state; those who are obedient and subservient to the One World Government will be rewarded with the means to live; those who are rebellious will simply be starved to death or be declared outlaws, thus a target for anyone who wishes to kill them. Privately owned firearms or weapons of any kind will be prohibited."
Why the Conspiracy is UnknownThe sheer magnitude and complex web of deceit surrounding the individuals and organizations involved in this conspiracy is mind boggling, even for the most astute among us. Most people react with disbelief and skepticism towards the topic, unaware that they have been conditioned (brainwashed) to react with skepticism by institutional and media influences. Author and de-programmer Fritz Springmeier (The Top 13 Illuminati Bloodlines) says that most people have built in "slides" that short circuit the mind's critical examination process when it comes to certain sensitive topics. "Slides", Springmeier reports, is a CIA term for a conditioned type of response which dead ends a person's thinking and terminates debate or examination of the topic at hand. For example, the mention of the word "conspiracy" often solicits a slide response with many people.
What most people believe to be "Public Opinion" is in reality carefully crafted and scripted propaganda designed to elicit a desired behavioral responsefrom the public. Public opinion polls are really taken with the intent of gauging the public's acceptance of the New World Order's planned programs. A strong showing in the polls tells them that the programming is "taking", while a poor showing tells the NWO manipulators that they have to recast or "tweak" the programming until the desired response is achieved.
The NWO Modus OperandiThe NWO global conspirators manifest their agenda through the skilful manipulation of human emotions, especially fear. In the past centuries, they have repeatedly utilized a contrivance that NWO researcher and author David Icke has characterized in his latest book, The Biggest Secret, as Problem, Reaction, and Solution.
The technique is as follows: NWO strategists create the Problem - by funding , assembling, and training an "opposition" group to stimulate turmoil in an established political power (sovereign country, region, continent, etc.) that they wish to impinge upon and thus create opposing factions in a conflict that the NWO themselves maneuvered into existence. In recent decades, so called opposition groups are usually identified in the media as 'freedom fighters' or 'liberators'.
At the same time, the leader of the established political power where the conflict is being orchestrated is demonized and, on cue, referred to as 'another Hitler' (take your pick: Saddam Hussein, Milosevic, Kadaffi, etc.). The 'freedom fighters' are not infrequently assembled from a local criminal element (i.e. KLA, drug traffickers). In the spirit of true Machiavellian deceit, the same NWO strategists are equally involved in covertly arming and advising the leader of the established power as well (the NWO always profits from any armed conflict by loaning money, arming, and supplying all parties involved in a war).
The conflict is drawn to the world stage by the controlled media outlets with a barrage of photos and video tape reports of horrific and bloody atrocities suffered by innocent civilians. The cry goes up "Something has to be done!" And that is the desired Reaction.
The NWO puppeteers then provide the Solution by sending in UN 'Peace Keepers' (Bosnia) or a UN 'Coalition Force' (Gulf War) or NATO Bombers and then ground troops (Kosovo), or the military to 'search for Weapons of Mass Destruction', which of course are never found. Once installed, the 'peace keepers' never leave. The idea is to have NWO controlled ground troops in all major countries or strategic areas where significant resistance to the New World Order takeover is likely to be encountered.
Who is the NWO?The corporate portion of the NWO is dominated by international bankers, oil barons and pharmaceutical cartels, as well as other major multinational corporations. The Royal Family of England, namely Queen Elizabeth II and the House of Windsor, (who are, in fact, descendants of the German arm of European Royalty - the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha family - changed the name to Windsor in 1914), are high level players in the oligarchy which controls the upper strata of the NWO. The decision making nerve centers of this effort are in London (especially the City of London), Basel Switzerland, and Brussels (NATO headquarters).
The United Nations, along with all the agencies working under the UN umbrella, such as the World Health Organization (WHO), are full time players in this scheme. Similarly, NATO is a military tool of the NWO.
The leaders of all major industrial countries like the United States, England, Germany, Italy, Australia, New Zealand, etc. (members of the "G7/G8" ) are active and fully cooperative participants in this conspiracy. In this century, the degree of control exerted by the NWO has advanced to the point that only certain hand-picked individuals, who are groomed and selected are even eligible to become the prime minister or president of countries like England, Germany, or The United States. It didn't matter whether Bill Clinton or Bob Dole won the Presidency in 1996, the results would have been the same. Both men are playing on the same team for the same ball club. Anyone who isn't a team player is taken out: i.e. President Kennedy, Ali Bhutto (Pakistan) and Aldo Moro (Italy). More recently, Admiral Borda and William Colby were also killed because they were either unwilling to go along with the conspiracy to destroy America, weren't cooperating in some capacity, or were attempting to expose/ thwart the takeover agenda.
The NWO's Role in Shaping HistoryMost of the major wars, political upheavals, and economic depression/recessions of the past 100 years (and earlier) were carefully planned and instigated by the machinations of these elites. They include The Spanish-American War (1898), World War I and World War II; The Great Depression; the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917; the Rise of Nazi Germany; the Korean War; the Vietnam War; the 1989-91 "fall" of Soviet Communism; the 1991 Gulf War; the War in Kosovo; and the two Iraq wars. Even the French Revolution was orchestrated into existence by elements of the NWO.
The instigation of a trumped-up war as a cover for amassing fortunes which can be dated back to at least the 12th Century when only a core group of nine members of the Knights Templar, kicked off the The Crusades that lasted for over a century and a half.
The core group mentioned above have been reported as being the military arm of a secret society known as the Priory of Sion, but this has been proven to be a hoax,
In 1307, the king of France, Philippe the Fair, coveted the wealth and was jealous of the Templars' power. The French king set out to arrest all the Templars in France on October 13. While many Templars were seized and tortured, including their Grand Master, Jacques de Molay, many other Templars (who had been tipped off) escaped. They eventually resurfaced in Portugal, in Malta (as the Knights of Malta) and later in Scotland as The Scottish Rites of Freemasonry, with Albert Pike playing a key role in defining a plan for establishing a world government.
The acquisition and consolidation of ever greater wealth, natural resources, total political power, and control over others are the motivating forces which drive the decisions of the NWO leaders. The toll in human suffering and the loss of innocent lives are non issues for these individuals.
Next: The New World Order Timeline.
Previous: World War 1 and World War 2 compared.
FrontPage Magazine names Sarah Huckabee Sanders their 2018 ‘Warrior Person of the Year’
December 30, 2018
By Michael Candelori / Shutterstock.com
If the mainstream media is “the enemy of the people,” then White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders is the president’s field general, facing off against an army of reporter-activists in battle after bloodless battle.
And against all odds, she’s winning the war for the hearts and minds of her fellow Americans. For this reason, FrontPage Magazine has named Sanders their 2018 “Warrior Person of the Year.”
The highest honorThe communications director is finally receiving some well-deserved recognition for her thankless and challenging role as President Donald Trump’s spokesperson. Since she joined the Trump administration in the summer of 2017, Sanders has skillfully and professionally managed a hostile pool of reporters, turning aside threats and intimidation while artfully communicating the president’s plan.
In fact, “leftist harassment of Sanders has become so severe that she has become the first press secretary to require [S]ecret [S]ervice protection, including at her home,” Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, said, lauding the press secretary’s accomplishments in Frontpage Magazine’s official Person of the Year announcement.
Sanders herself discussed this unyielding harassment during a back-and-forth with CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta, who tried unsuccessfully in August to get Sanders to contradict the president’s position that the “fake news” media are the enemy of the American people.
“It’s ironic Jim, that not only you and the media attack the president for his rhetoric when they frequently lowered the level of conversation in this country. Repeatedly, the media restarts personal attacks without any content other than to incite anger,” Sanders told Acosta. “The media has attacked me personally on a number of occasions, including at your own network; said I should be harassed as a life sentence. That I should be choked.”
Taking the heat“Look, we all get put through the wringer, we all get put through the meat grinder in this town,” was the best response that Mr. Acosta could muster to explain the poor state of his profession. But few — if any — Washington journalists can claim to experience the abuse that Sanders regularly endures.
“How do you resist the temptation to run up and wring her neck?” MSNBC’s Nicole Wallace once asked another reporter during a live broadcast.
Also on MSNBC, The Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin said that Sanders doesn’t deserve to “go through life unscathed,” and “has no right to live a life of no fuss, no muss, after lying to the press, after inciting against the press. These people should be made uncomfortable,” she declared.
White House wrecking ballBut Sanders isn’t deserving of FrontPage Magazine’s praise simply because of the punishment and violent rhetoric she has withstood from a deranged mainstream press. Indeed, the press secretary has successfully absorbed this abuse and refocused it back toward her media critics in the form of intelligent and meaningful policy debate.
“No matter what the media throws at her, from insults to death threats, Sarah Huckabee Sanders stays focused and remains on message,” Greenfield wrote. “The interruptions, tantrums and yelling by the media mob have yet to rattle her.”
Sanders’ no-nonsense approach to politics and communications has earned her the nickname “Trump’s battering ram” from the liberal New Yorker, a description to which Greenfield takes exception.
“Sarah Huckabee Sanders isn’t a battering ram,” he argued. “She’s a fortress. She takes a stand and makes it clear that she won’t be moved.”
Unfortunately, other media outlets, with their insatiable lust for demonizing the president, aren’t likely to crown Sanders with similar honors any time soon. TIME magazine’s iconic “Person of the Year” shortlist was recently revealed, and Sanders didn’t make the cut.
That honor is most likely going to be reserved for the “separated families” at the U.S. southern border, uncorroborated sexual assault accuser Christine Blasey Ford, or journalist and Muslim Brotherhood murder victim Jamal Khashoggi. Ironically, each of these potential awardees have benefited from sympathetic news coverage from the liberal mainstream press — the same reporters who regularly jockey to besmirch Sanders and undermine the Trump administration.
The Tragedy of the European Family
Emmanuel Macron, the newly elected French president, has no children; German chancellor Angela Merkel has no children.
British prime minister, Theresa May has no children; Italian prime minister Paolo Gentiloni has no children; Holland’s prime minister, Mark Rutte, Sweden’s Stefan Löfven, Luxembourg’s Xavier Bettel, and Scotland’s, first minster Nicola Sturgeon — all have no children.
The list goes on… Latvia’s childless president is Raimonds Vējonis, Lithuania’s childless president is Dalia Grybauskaitė, and Romania’s childless president is Klaus Werner Iohannis. And, Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission too, has no children and is family-less.
So to put it rather bluntly: a grossly disproportionate number of the people making serious decisions about Europe’s future have no direct personal sibling, child or grandchildren’s interests at stake in that future. They are not part of a family and have come to see all their attention focused on one dominant and all-powerful social unit to which they pay obeisance and give their complete and devoted attention: The State.
The demographics look problematic. Among native Europeans, the birthrate is currently between 0.2 and 1.1. Europe is not replicating itself and will, if trends are extrapolated—cease to exist.
The numbers are disturbing combining an ageing population, very low birth rates and an inability to pay for their rich benefits: what will come of Europe?
Why precisely, is the family dead or dying in Europe and the west?
In the western world, the traditional family continues to crumble and unravel — anyone who defends past tradition (300,000 years of pre-recorded oral and actual history) is ridiculed and rejected as we give up hope and resign in despair to a future without family or its attendant values. Speaking up for the family has almost no constituency and makes one look nostalgic at best and retrograde at worst.
Is something larger at stake? Yes, family decline is undermining civilisation itself.
Already in the 1930s Christopher Dawson, the Catholic historian at Oxford bemoaned in his, The Patriarchal Family in History, that a long term decline since the Renaissance had led to a point of no return for the family. He was prescient and saw then what we have come to factually experience now.
And why is an ascendant statist/globalist political culture so hostile to the family?
The crisis of the family is not simply a result of changed sexual mores or feminist ideology, while they contribute to it. It has far deeper roots.
The family has lost its social significance because to the State, the family is a threat. As a precursor and basic unit of life it preceded the state and always balanced its interests.
But in the last fifty years, the welfare state has done everything in its power to break it up. Dividing families, encouraging divorce, supporting abortion, coercing fatherlessness, and building dependencies, the state has not idly watched in the demise of the family structure: it has been the active and primary cause of its very plight.
[Image Credit: Flickr-Paul Townsend CC BY-SA 2.0]
As one pundit put it, “the State became master of the family; the result is that the family is now truly the agent, the slave, and the handmaiden of the State.”
With each generation, it seems we witness a further evisceration of the family. Atomized and acculturated, the family is no longer recognisable, where it even exists. We have seen the total politicisation of filial rebellion, particularly in Europe.
The nations themselves are no longer the collection of their many member families but have become a centralised Babylon, known as Brussels, the unionised functional state over all states.
G.K. Chesterton once remarked that the family was the check on state power and that weakening it would defeat freedom. His remedy was a smaller state and a system of plural social commitments, none of which usurped the other.
The Dutch Anti-Revolutionary prime minister, Abraham Kuyper, who himself had a large family, at the turn of the last century, called this, sphere sovereignty and saw all of the structures of society—family, economy, schools, communities and states in balance — under a sovereign God and each with their own domain.
At this point religion has certainly been relativized and fully privatised, if indeed it still is practised in Europe. The so-called bureaucratic elites or ‘experts’ in government and education (the new high priests) determine all policy—including that affecting the family. As a result of their policies, the family is a victim of the culture war.
Families are not just under assault, they are being duly eradicated. Look again at the numbers. Decades ago, sociologists, Peter Berger and his wife, Brigitte, wrote, The War on the Family. It lamented the “awful suspicion that the professionals preferred remedies may actually be part of the problem.”
In other words, by failing to note the mediating structure the family is, we have killed the baby. Indeed the bourgeois family is among all else, the source of attitudes — dare we say virtues — individuality, privacy, enterprise, thrift, discipline, and propriety, which are synonymous with western values and of modernization.
How do we renew the culture in the face of such overt hostility?
Loving life means realising and multiplying the gift of life. The place where that takes place is the family. Aristotle himself taught that family represents nature in its clearest manifestation. He said, “The family is the basic cell of all human society, the primary association of human beings.”
Europe today needs to turn away from its golden idol of statism which is killing the family and embrace a wiser set of norms, part and parcel of its past, where its leaders again hold high the value of the human family, before it is too late and disappears for good.
America, while plagued by the same forces, has not yet fully succumbed. Its birth rate is now the lowest in its long history at just 59 births per 1000 women. But where Europe has been strangled, America is only severely hampered and headed in the wrong direction. It should not copy Europe.
Reproduction is no longer popular, it appears; people wait or forego having children altogether because they want their own careers and see the ever escalating costs of child rearing. Some have no confidence in our future; still others believe in the planet or its environment more than the human species.
The responsibility of raising children and building enduring intergenerational families is evaporating, as there are fewer and fewer takers.
In the 17th century, the political economist Jean Bodin, argued that the “only wealth is people.” Logic itself suggests that nations, Europe in particular, indeed civilisation itself, need first to be populated.
Without families, ontologically and physically in Latin: ut cedant in nihilum.--
Theodore Roosevelt Malloch is a scholar, diplomat, strategist whose memoir is DAVOS, ASPEN & YALE: My Life Behind the Elite Curtain as a Global Sherpa. This article has been republished from Breitbart with permission from the author.
Senate Confirms Judge Brett Kavanaugh as Supreme Court Associate Justice
STEVEN ERTELT OCT 6, 2018 | 3:58PM WASHINGTON, DC
The Senate voted today to confirm Judge brett Kavanaugh to be the next Associate Justice on the Supreme Court, replacing pro-abortion Justice Anthony Kennedy following his retirement.
Kavanaugh was confirmed on a 50-48 vote with pro-abortion Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski voting present and pro-life Montana Senator Steve Daines, who supported Kavanaugh, absent due to his daughter’s wedding. All other Republicans voted for Kavanaugh along with West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin and all other Democrats voted against his nomination.
Kavanaugh secured enough votes yesterday when Senators Susan Collins and Joe Manchin agreed to support him despite misleading accusations made by pro-abortion Demcorats and abortion activists agaisnt him.
“I will vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh,” she said at the end of a long speech blasting the character assassination campaign against Kavanaugh.
She said the contentious Kavanaugh confirmation hearings meant that the Senate had reached “rock bottom.” She said that Kavanaugh should be given a “presumption of innocence” despite the unproven claims of sexual misconduct decades ago. The unproven accusations could not outweigh Kavanaugh’s “otherwise exemplary record” as a judge. Although she found Blasey Ford’s testimony to be “sincere, painful, and compelling,” Collins explained that no witnesses could corroborate her story.
She said that “the allegations fail to meet the more-likely-than not standard.”
Immediately after her speech, Senator Joe Manchin made the politically-calculated decision to support Kavanaugh.
As the Senate prepared to vote on his nomination for the Supreme Court, Judge Brett Kavanaugh defended himself in an emotional op-ed in the Wall St. Journal.
Kavanaugh acknowledged Thursday he “might have been too emotional” when testifying in response to unproven allegations he engaged in sexual misconduct but he said he was so emotional because he wanted to clear his name of false claims.
The judge explained he will remain optimistic in the days ahead and put the past behind him.
“I revere the Constitution. I believe that an independent and impartial judiciary is essential to our constitutional republic. If confirmed by the Senate to serve on the Supreme Court, I will keep an open mind in every case and always strive to preserve the Constitution of the United States and the American rule of law,” he concluded.
His comments came after Senators viewed the newly-released FBI supplemental report on Kavanaugh and they are saying the investigation exonerates him.
The FBI interviewed nine potential witnesses in search of possible corroboration of Christine Ford’s claim that Kavanaugh forcibly groped her when they were teenagers. Although the report is not expected to be made public as FBI reports are usually not made public to protect the confidentiality of witnesses, potential witnesses named by Ford previously said they had no knowledge of the party where she claims the attack occurred. They reiterated those statements to the FBI.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley viewed the FBI’s report and says nothing it in confirms the claims Christine Ford made about Brett Kavanaugh and added that it’s time to move forward to vote on his nomination.
“I’ve now received a committee staff briefing on the FBI’s supplement to Judge Kavanaugh’s background investigation file,” the Iowa GOP lawmaker said Thursday. “There’s nothing in it that we didn’t already know. These uncorroborated accusations have been unequivocally and repeatedly rejected by Judge Kavanaugh, and neither the Judiciary Committee nor the FBI could locate any third parties who can attest to any of the allegations.
SUPPORT LIFENEWS! If you like this pro-life article, please help LifeNews.com with a donation!
“Fundamentally, we senators ought to wipe away the muck from all the mudslinging and politics and look at this nomination with clear eyes,” Grassley said. “Judge Kavanaugh is one of the most qualified nominees to ever come before the Senate. He’s served with distinction for twelve years on the nation’s most important circuit court and dedicated himself to serving the American public. We know that he will be an excellent justice because he’s been an excellent judge.”
“This investigation found no hint of misconduct and the same is true of the six prior FBI background investigations conducted during Judge Kavanaugh’s 25 years of public service,” Grassley said. “I trust that the career agents of the FBI have done their work independent of political or partisan considerations. That’s exactly what senators from both sides asked for.”
“It’s time to vote,” Grassley added. “I’ll be voting to confirm Judge Kavanaugh.”
After pushing for an FBI investigation, Senate Democrats are not pleased that the FBI probe essentially cleared Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of the unproven allegations Christine Ford made against him.
Meanwhile, North Dakota Democrat Sen. Heidi Heitkamp became nationally infamous after she celebrated a vote to defeat a ban on late-term abortions. Now she is giving residents of the state another reason to vote against her, because she will oppose Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination for the Supreme Court.
The Senate will vote Saturday on Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to be the next Supreme Court justice now that the FBI has finished its 7th background check on him.
According to a news report in the Wall Street Journal late Wednesday night, the White House has found no corroboration of the sexual misconduct allegations against Kavanaugh. Although the full FBI review will not be made public and the White House and Senate officials still have to look over the full documents, it appears the FBI report has exonerated judge Kavanaugh from the claims made by Christine Ford and others.
Yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell filed for cloture on Kavanaugh’s nomination. That means the final vote on confirmation will take place on Saturday.
He told senators last night, “This evening, the Senate will receive the results of the FBI’s supplemental background investigation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh. This is now the seventh time the FBI has looked into Judge Kavanaugh’s background. And this information comes on top of what has already been one of the most thorough, most exhaustive Senate reviews of any Supreme Court nominee in our nation’s history.”
“Five days of public hearings. Sixty-five private meetings with Senators. More than 1,200 responses to written questions from members. More than 500,000 pages of documents for review — the most produced for any Supreme Court nomination in history. And the 300-plus opinions Judge Kavanaugh has issued during his 12 years on the D.C. Circuit,” he explained. “And now, Senators will have the evidence collected by this additional background investigation for their consideration as well. Members will have the opportunity to review the investigators’ records. And, as is the standard procedure, designated Judiciary Committee staff members with the required clearances will be authorized to brief members.”
“There will be plenty of time for Members to review and be briefed on this supplemental material before a Friday cloture vote. So I am filing cloture on Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination this evening so the process can move forward, as I indicated earlier this week,” McConnell concluded.
Keys to the vote will be Republican senators Jeff Flake, Lisa Murkowski, and Susan Collins. Every other Republican senator is on record supporting judge Kavanaugh’s nomination.
Meanwhile on the Democrat side, embattled Senators Heidi Heitkamp and Joe Manchin may possibly support Kavanaugh assuming their read of the FBI report comes to the same conclusion. Every other Democrat is on record opposing Kavanaugh’s nomination.
While the FBI was putting its report together, new evidence came to light making it appear Christine Ford misled the Senate during her testimony.
As LifeNews reported, during her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Christine Ford claimed she had two doors installed in her home because she feared she may be a victim of assault again after Judge Brett Kavanaugh supposedly sexually assaulted her as a teenager. New reports indicate that claim is false. Then, an alleged ex-boyfriend of Ford’s came forward and said that she had once coached her longtime friend on how to take a polygraph test. That’s a contradiciton to what she told the Senate panel.
This is one of many inconsistencies sex crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell noted when she said Ford’s testimony was totally inconsistent.
Meanwhile, three witnesses told the FBI that they can’t back up Ford’s claims of a party where the Supreme Court nominee supposedly sexually assaulted her, and Kavanaugh accuser Julie Swetnick is recanting some of her allegations.
On Friday, on a partisan 11-10 vote, the Senate Judiciary Committee has voted to support Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. All of the committee’s Republicans voted in favor of recommending Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination while every Democrat voted against that.
Before the vote, Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona said he would support the vote but wanted the full Senate to delay the vote for one week to allow the FBI time to investigate the unproven allegations Christine Ford has made that Judge Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her. Other senators agreed but there that is subject to the decision of Senate Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Democrat Leader Chuck Schumer.
“I think it would be proper to delay the floor vote up to but not more than one week in order to let the FBI do an investigation limited in time and scope [on] the current allegations that are there,” Flake said after meeting for several minutes with Democrats on the committee.
Flake had announced he would support Kavanaugh but his indicated that he would not be a “yes” vote for Kavanaugh on the Senate floor until the FBI completes work on a new investigation. Flake, along with Senators Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Joe Manchin, may all oppose confirming Kavanaugh while the FBI investigation continues — essentially forcing the probe to take place before a successful floor vote can occur.
Republican leaders have agreed to a 1-week delay to allow the FBI to investigate the unproven allegations against Kavanaugh.
The national pro-life group Susan B. Anthony List (SBA List) applauded the vote, telling LifeNews:
“We are pleased to see Judge Kavanaugh advance closer to confirmation and trust Leader McConnell to make a wise decision about next steps,” said SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser. “Judge Kavanaugh is a fair and independent judge in the mold of Justice Neil Gorsuch. By nominating him, President Trump is fulfilling a key promise to the voters who elected him. Vulnerable senators up for re-election should not underestimate grassroots support for Judge Kavanaugh and frustration with the tactics used to obstruct him. In battlegrounds like Missouri, North Dakota, Montana, West Virginia, and Indiana, an average of 75 percent of voters want their Democrat senator to vote to confirm Kavanaugh. They ignore their constituents at their political peril.
“It is time to end the politics of personal destruction. Ending the evil of sexual abuse of women and men will never be achieved by destroying good men and women. Respect for the dignity of all means listening as well as abiding by the rule of law. We thank Chairman Grassley for organizing yesterday’s hearing and the Judiciary Committee for moving swiftly to a vote. This exceptionally qualified nominee deserves a vote by the full Senate and should be confirmed with bipartisan support.”
Before the vote, Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh ripped pro-abortion Democrats pushing false allegations that he sexually assaulted Christine Ford or other women as both destroying his family and the political process.
SIGN THE PETITION: Vote to Confirm Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh
“This confirmation process has become a national disgrace,” Kavanaugh said during his opening statement before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
“The Constitution gives the Senate an important role in the confirmation process. But you have replaced advise and consent with search and destroy,” he continued.
Kavanaugh came out firing against those who have smeared his good name an engaged in a character assassination campaign against him. Kavanaugh made it unmistakably clear that he never sexually assaulted Christine Ford or anyone for that matter.
Psychologist Christine Ford testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee to recount her claims that Judge Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her when they were teenagers.
During her testimony, Ford reasserted that claim but provided no proof or evidence to substantiate it. She provided no photos, no recordings, no videos, no records from law enforcement, and no other proof that her claims are accurate. The only evidence Ford presented were witnesses who she says were present at the time of the sexual assault. The only problem is each and every one of the witnesses all say it never happened.
During the hearing Ford said she is “100 percent” certain that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her when they were high-school teenagers. But previously Kavanaugh said the claims are totally false.
Ford said Kavanaugh friend Mark Judge was also in the room. But he, too, says the allegations are false. He has no recollection of it, his counsel said in a statement, and he defended Kavanaugh’s integrity.
Judge says he has “no memory of this alleged incident” and “never saw Brett (Kavanaugh) act in the manner Dr. Ford describes.”
Meanwhile, Leland Keyser, believed to have been identified as one of five people at the party where Ford claims this incident occurred, has said it never happened.
Keyser, believed to have been identified as one of five people at the party, told the committee in a letter she “does not know Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with or without Dr. Ford.”
Also, a Kavanaugh high school classmate named Patrick J. Smyth, has provided a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee rebutting Ford’s story.
“I understand that I have been identified by Christine Blasey Ford as the person she remembers as ‘PJ’ who supposedly was present at the party she described in her statements to the Washington Post. … I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question, nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh.
“Personally speaking, I have known Brett Kavanaugh since high school and I know him to be a person of great integrity, a great friend, and I have never witnessed any improper conduct by Brett Kavanaugh toward women. To safeguard my own privacy and anonymity, I respectfully request that the Committee accept this statement in response to any inquiry the committee may have.”
Ford and her attorney are Democratic Party activists. For and her attorney Debra Katz have not only donated to Democrats, but also recently signed on to a Physicians for Human Rights letter protesting the Trump administration’s immigration policy.
Few media outlets have confronted Katz on her own Democratic activism. In 2017, Katz labeled all senior Trump administration officials to be “miscreants.” Hypocritically, she also staunchly and repeatedly defended Bill Clinton against claims of sexual harassment made by Paula Jones in the 1990s.
Additionally, Ford’s brother, Ralph Blasey III, once worked for the law firm of Baker & Hostetler LLP, but left that firm in 2004. The Daily Callerreported that Baker & Hostetler paid a company called Fusion GPS seven payments totaling more than a half million dollars in 2016. Fusion GPS was also the shadowy Democrat “dirty tricks” group hired by Planned Parenthood to produce the fake forensic analysis that supposedly “debunked” the Center for Medical Progress’ undercover videos.
And a peer and friend who knew Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh as a high school student is vouching for his character amid accusations from a woman that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her when they were teens.
According to documents on file with the Maryland Court System, Ford’s parents, Ralph G. and Paula K. Blasey owned property that was in foreclosure. The judge who presided over that case was Brett Kavanaugh’s mother, Martha G. Kavanaugh.
Other women who knew Judge Kavanaugh during that time period vouch for his character and high moral standard.
Shortly after the details of the letter were made public by The New Yorker, the Senate Judiciary Committee shared a letter it received Friday from 65 women who knew Kavanaugh during their high school years.
“Through the more than 35 years we have known him, Brett has stood out for his friendship, character, and integrity,” the women wrote. “In particular, he has always treated women with decency and respect. That was true when he was in high school, and it has remained true to this day.”
This controversy followed on the heels of Senate Democrats getting caught lying about Kavanaugh. Since Kavanaugh’s hearings last week, numerous fact checks and advice to “drop the whopper of a talking point”from one of the largest newspapers in America have not stopped pro-abortion politicians from repeating false claims about U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
The lies about Kavanaugh’s birth control beliefs began with U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris of California and continued with two-time failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. The Washington Post, Politifact and others refuted their claims that Kavanaugh called birth control “abortion-inducing drugs,” but the pro-abortion politicians continue to push the lie.
This week, Kavanaugh also responded to the claims by clarifying what he meant when he used the term “abortion-inducing drugs” last week during the U.S. Senate hearings.
Abortion activists fear Kavanaugh, who has served on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for D.C. for more than a decade. He has an extensive record of protecting religious liberty, including in the Priests for Life case, and enforcing restrictions on abortion. Pro-life leaders believe he would do the same on the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, Sen. Susan Collins’ office says it has received threats of rape and other violence from abortion activists who want her to vote against U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
The Maine Republican is a key swing vote in Kavanaugh’s confirmation. Collins is pro-abortion, and she has not yet announced her decision about him.
Over the past few months, NARAL, Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups have been targeting her with phone calls, political ads, fundraising for a pro-abortion Democrat opponent and a coat hanger campaign; but these attempts to influence may have the opposite effect.
Collins told reporters this week that her office has received a number of threatening phone calls and other messages, including one caller who threatened to rape one of her female staffers.
Under questioning from pro-life Senator Lindsey Graham, Kavanaugh confirmed there is no “specific” right to abortion in the Constitution.
“Is there any phrase in the Constitution about abortion?” Graham asked Kavanaugh.
“The Supreme Court has found that under the liberty clause, but you’re right that specific words,” Kavanaugh said before stopping as Graham continued. Kavanaugh clearly was beginning to admit Graham’s point that abortion or a right to abortion is never specifically addressed in the Constitution — but was made up by the Supreme Court in 1973.
During his nomination hearings, Judge Kavanaugh was been careful to discuss abortion within the context of what the Supreme Court has decided in the precedent-setting cases of Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood without biasing the hearings with his own views in a way that would force him to recuse himself in future abortion cases before the court.
During the first day of questioning, Judge Brett Kavanaugh refused to say that there is a so-called right to abortion. He declined to take the bait from pro-abortion Senator Dianne Feinstein who wants to get him to commit to upholding Roe v Wade once he is confirmed to the Supreme Court.
Kavanaugh also refused a pro-abortion senator’s request to promise to never overturn Roe v Wade, the high court case allowing abortions up to birth.
Also during the hearings, a new document was released showing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is possibly open to overturning the infamous Roe v Wade decision that allows virtually unlimited abortions up to birth.
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
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!
The Clinton Foundation left a toxic legacy in Colombia
By Ken Silverstein and The American Media Institute
Hillary Clinton has long said she is “very proud” of the Clinton Foundation’s work, but many of its beneficiaries in Colombia wonder why.
Since Bill Clinton established the foundation in the late 1990s, with help over the years from Hillary and daughter Chelsea, the nonprofit “global philanthropic empire” has raised roughly $2 billion from foreign governments and various wealthy donors to tackle global development and health problems. While intense media scrutiny has focused on the foundation’s donations and its use of that money – partly because of the wealth of available information on its vast financial intake – little sustained attention has been dedicated to its accomplishments on the ground.
“They are doing nothing for workers,” one Colombian union official told us, with disgust. “I don’t even know what they are doing in this country other than exploiting poverty and extracting money.”
Colombia should be the Clinton Foundation’s best case study. Ground zero for the drug wars of the 1980s and 90s, racked by uneven development and low-intensity conflict for half a century, Colombia has received more foundation money and attention than any other nation outside the United States. Bill and Hillary Clinton have visited the country often and enjoy close relationships with members of Colombia’s ruling party. Colombia has also been home to the vast oil and natural gas holdings of the man who is reportedly the Clinton Foundation’s largest individual donor, Canadian financier Frank Giustra. In short, conditions were right for Colombia to be the shining example of what the Clinton Foundation’s philanthropy can accomplish in the world, and what makes Hillary so proud of its efforts.
The American Media Institute, a nonprofit news service based in Alexandria, Virginia, partnered with Fusion to send us to Colombia to investigate the Clinton Foundation’s impact. We found ground realities that contrast, often starkly, with the nonprofit’s platitudes about its good work.
Many of the Colombian “success stories” touted on the foundation’s website – the ones specific enough for us to track down – were critical about the foundation’s effect on their lives. Labor leaders and progressive activists say foundation programs caused environmental harm, displaced indigenous people, and that it concentrated a larger share of Colombia’s oil and natural gas reserves in the hands of Giustra, who was involved in a now bankrupt oil company that worked closely with the Clinton Foundation and which used the Colombian military a 1984-style surveillance program to smash a strike by its workers.
It was a shocking record that belies the progressive principles on which the Clintons have based their political dynasty and philanthropy, embodied in the Clinton Foundation’s advertising copy: “Everyone deserves a chance to succeed.”
What’s missing from the press coverage of the Clinton Foundation is a basic question: What do its activities and outcomes reveal about Hillary Clinton’s political values?
We interviewed young women in the foundation’s job-training programs; female business owners who sought help from its programs; workers who toiled for the foundation’s biggest individual donor’s firms; indigenous fisherman who were promised jobs and aid; and union leaders, social-justice activists, and progressive lawmakers. Some say they lost money. Others said they were used as props. Still others simply thought that the foundation had wasted a lot of their time. “They are doing nothing for workers,” one Colombian union official told us, with disgust. “I don’t even know what they are doing in this country other than exploiting poverty and extracting money.”
The jilted fish-seller
The Clinton Foundation showcases its Colombia initiatives on its web site, boasting a variety of projects designed to promote sustainable development and help the poor. Sandra Valdivieso, a stout, charming Afro-Colombian fishmonger, was hailed in 2013 on the foundation’s website and social media as one of its stars. After partnering with Clinton, the website claimed, sales at Valdivieso’s fish shop, Pescadería Perlamar del Caribe, were booming, and her future couldn’t have been brighter. “I am very happy, indeed,” the site quoted her as saying. “Thanks to the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative and their continued support we’ll have all the tools and resources we need, such as the refrigerated storage rooms and support staff, to continue growing more and more every day.”
In person, Valdivieso told us a disturbingly different story.
In the Cartagena neighborhood of Crespo, off a busy street lined with small shops, Pescadería Perlamar del Caribe’s blue-and-white facade and windows displayed three refrigerated cases of shrimp, octopus, and other fresh catches. Valdivieso’s brother, Eduardo, in a white baseball cap, greeted customers at the door. The Clinton Foundation star, Sandra, was in the back working, as usual.
With a warm smile, Sandra told us that she was initially enthusiastic about working with the Clinton Foundation. She pulled out a smart phone and showed us pictures of the 2013 launch party for the “Acceso Oferta Local” program, a foundation effort directly supported by Canadian financier Giustra to match poor entrepreneurs — farmers, fishermen, candy-makers, flower vendors and others — with big buyers, like multinational hotels.
She thumbed past a shot of Giustra to show us a photo of herself with Bill Clinton. The former president and the female entrepreneur had megawatt smiles.
“The idea was that they would help small stores and small fisherman,” she said. “And that’s what it did, but only at the start.”
Sandra said she received no money from the Clinton Foundation and, in fact, took out a large bank loan at its urging. Paying this loan proved to be a tremendous burden, she said. Even worse, within months the head of the Acceso project told her that she should no longer deal directly with buyers. Instead, she would sell her fish directly to Acceso — at sharply reduced prices — and Acceso would resell them. In other words, the Clinton Foundation would act as a middleman and profit from margins supplied by the people it was supposed to be helping.
Sandra and eight other Acceso participants immediately dropped out, she said, worried that “if we had stayed with them, we would have gone out of business.”
Standing nearby, her brother Eduardo agreed, drawing a finger across his throat for emphasis.
A ‘concentration camp for workers’
Formally known as the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, the family’s nonprofit was formed in the early days of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. (Initially, it was going to pay for the president’s legal defense as well as fund good works in a post-presidency, modelled on Jimmy Carter’s sterling efforts.) Its staggering $2 billion haul, according to a Washington Post estimate, has come from American moguls, foreign governments, international capitalists and multinational organizations, including tentacles of the World Bank and United Nations.
So far, criticism of the foundation has focused on its opaque accounting – donations are listed in vague ranges, and the same donors appear under multiple entities – and the possibility it violated federal and state nonprofit laws. Conservatives have questioned the practice of foreign potentates contributing large sums to Hillary Clinton’s namesake foundation while she served as secretary of state, but no specific allegations of a quid pro quo have been proven. In recent testimony before Congress, FBI director James Comey declined “to comment on the existence or nonexistence” of a bureau investigation into the Clinton Foundation’s activities.
What’s missing from the press coverage of the Clinton Foundation is a far more basic question: What do its activities and outcomes reveal about Hillary Clinton’s political values?
On the campaign trail, Hillary Clinton trumpets a progressive vision: worker’s rights, environmental protections, safeguards for indigenous peoples, support for women’s business ownership. Colombian political progressives who have experience with the Clinton Foundation conveyed skepticism to us about the former secretary of state’s support for those values. Indeed, the interviewees were hostile to the Clinton Foundation in general – and, in particular, to foundation board member Frank Giustra’s sizable Colombian energy corporation, Pacific Rubiales, which benefited richly from Bill Clinton’s politicking and the foundation’s operations.
“The territory where Pacific Rubiales operated,” he said, thumbing through pages of alleged human-rights violations, “was a type of concentration camp for workers.”
Senator Jorge Enrique Robledo, a thin gray-haired three-term senator who once taught architecture at Colombia’s National University, is a leading voice of Colombia’s Left. He supports gay rights in a traditionalist Catholic country and opposes privatization efforts of his nation’s ruling party.
When we met him in his wood-paneled office in Colombia’s Capitol building in May, his desk was stacked high with papers related to Pacific Rubiales’s labor practices, the result of years of investigative work by his staff. He did not see the Clinton Foundation and its partnership with Giustra’s Pacific Rubiales as either progressive or positive. “The territory where Pacific Rubiales operated,” he said, thumbing through pages of alleged human-rights violations, “was a type of concentration camp for workers.”
Robledo said he had no doubt that Bill Clinton had successfully overcome legal and regulatory obstacles for Giustra’s benefit, especially given Clinton’s strong relationship with Colombian President Uribe and his stature as a former U.S. President: “Bringing Bill Clinton to Colombia was like bringing God,” he said.
Rafael Cabargas, a legendary local oil-worker’s union leader who was arrested during a strike at a Pacific Rubiales operation in 2011, was equally dismissive of the Clinton Foundation’s and Giustra’s activities in Colombia. We interviewed him in a tiny, cluttered union office in one of Cartagena’s poor, outlying neighborhoods. “They are doing nothing for workers,” he said with disgust. “I don’t even know what they are doing in this country other than exploiting poverty and extracting money.”
For many on Colombia’s Left, Pacific Rubiales is no Ben and Jerry’s, and the Clintons are no friends to organized labor. When we looked into their claims, we began to see why.
The Clintons’ ‘poison dwarf’
The story of the oil and gas exploration company Pacific Rubiales Energy Corp., and its highly profitable Colombian adventure, centers on a graying, five-foot-tall Canadian investor named Frank Giustra. He made his first fortune in Vancouver brokerage circles where Adrian du Plessis, a former stock-fraud investigator, says that Giustra was known as the “Poison Dwarf” – a reference to Giustra’s short build and Giustra’s reputed penchant deals that were toxic to his buyers but profitable to him. Giustra co-founded Lionsgate Films, wrote the lyrics for a song by Canadian singer/songwriter Sarah McLachlan, and recently signed on as an executive producer of the upcoming “Blade Runner” sequel. His own life could be a movie in the “Citizen Kane” mold.
Giustra’s relationship with the Clintons began in January 2005, when Bill Clinton spoke at a Giustra-organized fundraiser for Asian tsunami victims. The pair hit it off; later that year, Giustra’s private jet took Clinton to South America to deliver four speeches, where the former president collected some $800,000. Giustra also organized a 60th birthday bash for Bill Clinton, booking Jon Bon Jovi and others for the event, according to the New York Times.
Clinton brought to the friendship three things that Giustra lacked: prestige, charisma and global contacts with heads of state in resource-rich countries. Many of the governments with whom they partnered are not known for the sort of transparency, good governance and democracy that Bill and Hillary Clinton routinely call for when discussing American foreign policy.
In September 2005, Giustra and Clinton flew to Kazakhstan together to meet the Central Asian nation’s president. Shortly thereafter, Giustra secured a lucrative concession to mine Kazakh uranium, despite his company’s lack of experience with the radioactive ore. As Bill Clinton opened doors for Giustra, the financier gave generously to Clinton’s foundation. Within months of securing the Kazakh mining deal, Giustra had donated more than $31 million in all.
In 2007, while Hillary Clinton was the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination for president, Giustra pledged to give a $100 million to the Clinton Foundation in a New York press conference. More Giustra-connected pledges followed, including $4.4 million from Pacific Rubiales (called Petro Rubiales Energy Corp. in foundation filings) and the firm’s other financial backers, according to documents surfaced by investigative reporters at the International Business Times. The Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative to combat global poverty was born.
“[T]he resource sector is prepared to step up and take the initiative off the drawing board and turn it into a reality for developing countries around the world,” Giustra said. He later joined the Clinton Foundation’s board of directors. At nearly the same time, Pacific Rubiales won oil and gas exploration rights along Colombia’s coast and another large concession to produce oil in the jungle state of Meta.
Why Colombia? The Clintons open doors
Although details on the Clinton-Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative were sparse, the two men knew exactly where they wanted to start spending. They explained their vision together to a Canadian TV outlet in 2007. Clinton leaned back in his chair, relaxed as usual, reeling off charity buzz words: “broadly-shared prosperity,” “sustainable growth,” “scalability.” Giustra, with his trademark Caesar hairstyle, spoke quietly, rarely changing his facial expression.
“We’re going to begin work in Colombia, where the government has already invited us to come,” Clinton said.
The interviewer turned to Giustra. Why Colombia?
“We have several interests there in mining and oil and gas,” said Giustra in a soft monotone. “I love the people of that country.” At least in this case, the foundation’s priorities seemed to march in step with the investment interests of its major donors.
Giustra’s firm purchased Colombian land from middlemen who had obtained it from poor campesino indigenous farmers, according to government data provided to Sen. Jesus Alberto Castilla Salazar, the first campesino ever elected to the Colombian senate. Some of the land on which Pacific Rubiales is drilling appears to have been received from known drug traffickers, whose names appear on the “Clinton List” — a blacklist of mostly Colombian drug-connected businesses and associates, created under President Clinton in 1995 to bar U.S. entities from doing business with drug traffickers.
One of the individuals Pacific Rubiales bought land from was Peña Torres Miguel de los Santos, whom the U.S. Treasury Department connects to a drug operation headed by two thugs whose evocative nicknames translate as “The Crazy One” and “The Knife.” Peña Torres was added to the Clinton List in 2010, while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state—around the time that Giustra was buying land from him.
Castilla, the Colombian senator, told us that Pacific Rubiales used front companies (including something called Major International Oil S.A.) to buy up blocks of land and later lump them together – a conscious effort, he said, to skirt Colombian laws that prohibit single ownership of estates larger than 3,000 acres.
“This has created a grave situation, and they took control of land that was intended for peasants,” Castilla said. “Land is at the heart of the conflict in this country and it’s very important that small farmers have land. The government has moved in another direction.”
Bill Clinton’s long history of friendly ties to Colombia’s political elite positioned him to open doors for Giustra and Pacific Rubiales. Clinton began promoting a free-trade agreement with Colombia in 2000, his last year in office. He also signed an executive waiver to push through a controversial $1.3-billion military aid package to the country while it was under intense international scrutiny for human-rights violations. After leaving office, Clinton struck up a close relationship with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, who served from 2002 to 2010.
Bill Clinton’s support for the free-trade deal clashed sharply with his wife’s platform during her 2008 presidential campaign. Hillary Clinton scornfully denounced the agreement citing labor and human-rights abuses in that country. “I have spoken out against the deal, I will vote against the deal and I will do everything I can to urge the Congress to reject the Colombia Free Trade Agreement,” she told a union audience on the campaign trail. “I am very concerned about the history of violence against trade unionists in Colombia,” she said in a campaign release.
As President Barack Obama’s secretary of state, however, Clinton championed the agreement –as the Clinton Foundation was increasing its activities in Colombia and Giustra’s investments there were growing.
Clinton’s support appears to have included ignoring corruption in Colombia. Shortly before leaving for a trip to meet Uribe there in June 2010, Clinton received a briefing memo from Cindy Buhl, a congressional staffer for liberal Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass), that urged her to confront the Colombian president publicly about “the recent rise in death threats, attacks and murders of Colombian human rights defenders, religious, community and other NGO leaders.”
There is no evidence that Hillary took that advice. She dined with the Colombian president at a Bogotá steakhouse, along with VIP guests that included Bill Clinton and Frank Giustra. (In her memoir “Hard Choices,”Hillary described Bill’s presence in Bogotá as “a happy coincidence in our hectic schedules.”) During an ensuing press conference, Clinton said she wanted to “publicly express our admiration for President Uribe providing a remarkable example of strong democratic leadership.”
“Your visit,” a happy Uribe responded, “the fact that you spent the night in Bogotá, and President Clinton’s frequent visits, are a great manifestation of confidence in Colombia.”
That same month, the Uribe regime awarded control of a gold mine to Giustra and his business partners.
This period proved to be a charmed one for Giustra and Pacific Rubiales. Its stock soared to more than $35 a share by November 2010 — which proved to be its all-time high.
Welfare for a donor’s businesses
Virtually all of Giustra’s Colombian firms operated in remote parts of the country, beyond the eye of public scrutiny, and through a maze of shell companies that make it difficult for Colombia’s politicians and press to determine what his actual holdings are.
“With Pacific Rubiales, it’s a business with obscure and suspicious transactions in every respect,” Mario Valencia, head of an economic research institute called Cedetrabajo, told us. “That’s the most important business of Pacific Rubiales. To produce shares. That produced more money than the oil business,” he said. “The whole point was to put out information to increase the share price and pump out more shares.”
Colombian court and congressional records, corporate documents, stock-market filings, and Giustra’s periodic public statements showed that he was linked to numerous of these holding companies. One was set up by Jurgen Mossack of the Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca, the law firm made notorious by the “Panama Papers” scandal.
U.S. agencies and international lending institutions approved more than $100 million to support Giustra’s Colombian investments, which are intertwined with many Clinton Foundation projects.
One of the most prominent of these investments was Puerto Bahía, a massive port and oil pipeline project in Cartagena, which received about $150 million from the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation (IFC) and millions more from the U.S. Agency for International Development. IFC’s investment, the organization said in a 2013 press release, was its largest-ever “equity investment in support of a new infrastructure project.” Puerto Bahía is being built by Pacific Infrastructure, a firm partly owned by Giustra, and the port was slated to be used by Pacific Rubiales.
The U.S. government is the major shareholder in the International Finance Corporation, and it let the deal go through – even though the IFC concededthat Puerto Bahía could unleash “significant adverse social and/or environmental impacts that are diverse, irreversible or unprecedented” on the local community.
Millions to train housekeepers and baristas
As part of the investment agreement, Giustra’s Pacific Infrastructure promised the IFC it would provide job training to Afro-Colombians and indigenous peoples and would support local fishing and farming industries.
To meet these requirements, the Clinton Foundation and Giustra launched a job center (with more funding from USAID). It is said to have trained hundreds of indigenous peoples to work on the port construction.
But visits to each of the Clinton Foundation projects — and interviews with the publicized beneficiaries — reveal a wide gap between the public descriptions and reality.
The promise of jobs initially gave poor islanders hope. But the few who received jobs were shocked by the dangerous working conditions, low pay and callous managers.
At the Acceso job-training center, an armed security guard led us to a back room, where employees told us that director Diana Barboza was traveling for several weeks. Another senior employee, Jose Colon, was said to be at lunch.
At the entrance was a poster, featuring two women hugging, advertising the upcoming National Day of Afro-Colombians. Signs on the lobby walls thanked the Clinton Foundation and Giustra for their support. When asked for printed information about the center, the guard provided an enrollment form, saying that was the only information available.
Colon, a muscular twentysomething, returned about 45 minutes later and said Barboza was heading off to Barcelona that very afternoon. He refused to answer a single question about the center. He promised to email a “protocol” to arrange an interview. He never contacted us again.
Despite the center’s initial public focus on industrial workers — port workers and other high-paying trades — so far, its alumni have graduated into job roles that appear to require little advanced training: “housekeeping, hotel guest services, and as kitchen aides, baristas, food and beverage servers,” according to the Clinton Foundation website.
Karay Baressa graduated from the training program two years ago. Since then, the 22-year-old has been working as a waitress at the luxurious Charleston Hotel in Cartagena’s colonial-era walled old city. She earns the minimum salary of some $250 a month.
She said she enjoyed the training, but it has done her little actual good. “I get paid the same as people who didn’t do the training,” Baressa said, with a wry smile. “There is no difference.”
Golfing while workers die
One of Frank Giustra’s main ventures in Colombia sits on the island of Baru, in Cartagena Bay: A huge 389-acre port development project called Puerto Bahia.
Outside the project, two uniformed Colombian soldiers and a dog stand guard in oppressive heat under a tent marked with the logo of Puerto Bahía. Almost a mile past the guard tent, the fresh pavement turns to gravel and the port project appears on the left.
The site is cut off from the road by a barbed-wire fence and security guards, and the only visible signs of the project are a few towering white oil storage tanks. Somewhere past the horizon are the terminals and bustling trade waters of Cartagena Bay.
The Clinton Foundation told the Washington Free Beacon last year that its Accesso job training center has “helped hundreds of employees and potential employees” of the port project, many of them Afro-Colombians.
Nearby residents live in sprawling shantytowns of concrete and wood shacks; the promise of port-construction jobs initially gave them hope. But the few who received jobs were shocked by the dangerous working conditions, low pay and callous managers, local union officials told us.
One incident encapsulated their concerns. Shortly before closing time two years ago, two workers were in the bucket of large mechanical arm called a “cherry-picker,” painting a massive oil tank. The machine suddenly bucked them off, throwing them into a cement wall. The wall fell on top of them, instantly killing 40-year-old Jose Munoz. The other employee, 28-year-old Sergio Luis Elles, was bleeding and buried, but somehow still alive.
Their fellow workers frantically pulled away the concrete blocks to save the trapped Elles.
Within minutes, an ambulance arrived. But, union officials told us, it didn’t take Elles to the hospital. Instead, it took the both workers to the nearby lunch tent. Other workers watched as port officials walled off the tent and paramedics carried the two victims in.
“Pacific did not want the stain on their reputations from worker’s accidents,” said Julio Carrascal, an official with the Unión Sindical Obrera, the Colombian oil workers’ union. “They didn’t want the news to get out.”
Truck driver Gabriel Martinez saw the men hauled into the tent on what was a very hot day – the recorded temperature in Cartagena that day hit 93 F. “They kept them in the tent for an hour,” said Martinez. “Then they left in the same ambulance.”
Elles, the injured worker, died shortly after the ambulance departed.
One of the soldiers replied: “We don’t work for Colombia. We work for Pacific Rubiales.”
The incident did not lead to safety improvements, Martinez said. About a month later, he saw another worker get his leg ripped open by a pipe. Martinez said he would quit if he could find other work.
Safety training is insignificant, say both workers and union officials. “The accidents continued,” said Delmiro Mendez, a former port construction worker. “People don’t die (usually), but they are injured.”
The safety issues at Puerto Bahía drew the alarm of the oil-workers’ union, which insisted that the firm observe established safety standards. But Puerto Bahía management wouldn’t budge, union officials told us.
One of the few Colombian lawmakers who took notice was Senator Alexander Lopez, a brash young politician with a reputation for speaking out on workers’ rights. In November 2012, Sen. Lopez and his aides made the six-hour trek from Bogota to Campo Rubiales, the oil field operated by Pacific Rubiales, to investigate allegations of labor abuses.
His convoy was stopped at a military roadblock before he could reach the camp’s entrance. The soldiers manning the blockade said they were under orders not to let the group pass through. When Lopez asked what authority the military had to prevent Colombian citizens from driving down a public road, one of the soldiers replied: “We don’t work for Colombia. We work for Pacific Rubiales.”
While union leaders and human-rights campaigners complained, Bill Clinton flew in for a Pacific Rubiales pro-am golf tournament at Bogotá Country Club in February 2012. Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos came to play a few holes with Clinton as a crowd of spectators gathered around the green.
Clinton, clad entirely in white, didn’t stop smiling. When Santos moved to leave after the sixth hole, Clinton gripped him in his famous bear hug. “Thank you,” said Clinton, giving him a friendly slap on the back. “Thank you for coming.”
Key figures from Colombia’s political, economic and philanthropic world had turned out at the course to applaud Bill Clinton’s work on behalf of the country’s most vulnerable communities. Among the dozens of press photos from the golf course on that day, only a few captured Giustra in a white polo shirt, with credentials dangling from his neck.
The exhibition and subsequent PGA tour event, called the Pacific Rubiales Colombia Championship, raised $1 million for the Clinton Foundation.
“Bill Clinton didn’t come here to play golf,” Robledo, the progressive Colombian senator, said to us about the fundraiser, his lips in a tight smile. “Clinton opened doors for Giustra to do business here.”
Picking up the pieces
The good times would not last for Pacific Rubiales. Although the company’s stock climbed steadily after the Clinton Foundation announced operations in Colombia, it never poked above that $35-per-share price in November 2010. Its shares have since lost most of their value. Pacific Rubiales changed its name to Pacific Exploration & Production Corporation in 2015. It filed for bankruptcy in May 2016.
Later that same month, Colombian Labor Minister Clara Lopez turned up at an event at a union office in a shantytown on Cartagena’s outskirts. There were about a dozen heavily armed Colombian SWAT team members wearing green army fatigues patrolling outside the office. Inside, about 100 people jammed into an oven-hot second-floor room, where photographs hung of Che Guevara, Fidel Castro and several murdered Colombian leftist leaders.
The labor minister told us she had heard that the Clinton Foundation operated in Colombia but had no idea what it did. She expressed concern when told that the foundation’s Accesso worker training program pumped out graduates who were employed through subcontractors.
“Subcontracting can be legal in rare situations, but it’s probably not,” she said. “Wages in this country are very low and workers need to be paid fairly if they have any chance of escaping poverty.”
The labor minister was friendly throughout the interview, but grew visibly anxious when asked about Pacific Rubiales. “It’s a legitimate company,” she said, refusing to add any further comment.
Hillary Clinton has also had little to say about Colombia during her presidential campaign. She was last seen in the country in 2012, dancing and drinking a beer at a Cartagena nightclub called Havana during the Summit of the Americas. The free-trade agreement went into effect a month later.
Hillary Clinton resigned from the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation in 2015, citing growing complaints about the apparent conflict of interest with her current campaign. The legal entity continues to bear her name. She recently said the foundation will continue to operate if she is elected, although it will place new restrictions on donations from non-U.S. citizens.
Clinton and her campaign did not respond to requests for comment for this story. In response to questions about ethical concerns, Clinton has promised “complete transparency about donations” to the foundation. She has not detailed any reforms to its operations or regrets about its failures in Colombia.
Sandra Valdivieso still appears on the Clinton Foundation’s website, its poster child for the Clinton-Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative, months after we asked a foundation spokesman to comment on her criticism and experiences. (The foundation declined comment.)
Colombia’s progressive community leaders continue to wonder why the foundation came to its country if it was going to side with its multinational donors over its unions and indigenous peoples.