False Flag: Trump Warns ‘Animal Assad’ Over Chemical Weapons Attack That Killed 70

Standard

Caving to neocon interests, US President Donald Trump has said Syrian President Bashar al-Assad will have a “big price to pay” for allegedly launching a deadly chemical weapons attack on civilians — and blamed Iran and Russian President Vladimir Putin for backing “animal Assad”.

This follows Trump’s earlier decision to strike a Syrian airbase in April 2017 in retaliation for Assad’s alleged use of chemical weapons against his own people.

Recent tweets from Trump appear to advocate a direct overthrow of Assad.

In one of the tweets, Trump slammed Obama, who vowed in 2012 that such actions (a chemical weapons attack) would cross a “red line,” but later failed to enforce the promise a year later when hundreds of Syrians were killed by sarin gas.

Instead, Obama brokered a multi-nation deal in which Syrian President Bashar Assad pledged to remove his chemical-weapons stockpile.


The continuation of war.

This latest, likely false flag chemical weapons attack in Syria follows the defeat of ISIS, and provides the much-needed justification for the Zionist-neocon lobby to keep the US forces in Syria indefinitely — and judging by the heated rhetoric, maybe even move to overthrow Assad.

Despite all this, at a rally in Cleveland last week, Trump said that the US will get out of Syria “very soon.” It is now clear that the 4,000 US troops currently occupying Syria will in fact stay in Syria.

But just as Trump again comes out urging for military withdrawal, a false flag crops up and the US is thrown back into contention. The strings are being pulled.

Trump buying into this latest publicity stunt is a worrying sign of escalation and further interventionism — it was only a matter of time before something came up and the banker’s war was given a new lease of life.

30443265_481782188890667_6331916112679982069_n


There’s no motive for Syria to use chemical weapons and draw more attention to itself.

There is no reason for Assad to attack his own people with chemical weapons, the motive is not there, he wants deescalation and for NATO to leave Syria, why would he create reasons for further occupation? — also, the means of carrying out the attack aren’t there if we take Assad’s word for the dismantlement of Syria’s chemical weapons. If there are no means, there is no opportunity to carry out the attack to begin with.

Last year, a Syrian military statement published by state media on 4 April denied the use of “any chemical or toxic substance”, saying that the military “has never used them, anytime, anywhere, and will not do so in the future”.

President Bashar al-Assad subsequently said the 2017 chemical weapons incident was a “fabrication” used to justify a US cruise missile strike on Syria’s Shayrat airbase on 7 April.

Now, in 2018, history is repeating itself.

This shock-factor child poster image from the Zionist-owned Associated Press is up across all the mainstream media outlets.


US intelligence has links to training ‘moderate’ rebels in using chemical weapons.

Globalresearch reports:

CNN accuses Bashar Al Assad of killing his own people while also acknowledging that the “rebels” are not only in possession of chemical weapons, but that these “moderate terrorists” affiliated with Al Nusra are trained in the use of chemical weapons by specialists on contract to the Pentagon.

Moscow has provided evidence that the U.S is training Al Qaeda affiliated “militants groups” in the use of chemical. A March 17, Russia’s Ministry of Defense  states the following:

“We have reliable information at our disposal that US instructors have trained a number of militant groups in the vicinity of the town of At-Tanf, to stage provocations involving chemical warfare agents in southern Syria. The provocations will be used as a pretext by the United States and its allies to launch strikes on military and government infrastructure in Syria.”

The CNN report by Barbara Starr below dated September 2013 ultimately confirms Russia’s allegations.

Moreover, in an earlier report dated December 9 2012, CNN confirms that:

“The training [in chemical weapons], which is taking place in Jordan and Turkey, involves how to monitor and secure stockpiles and handle weapons sites and materials, according to the sources. Some of the contractors are on the ground in Syria working with the rebels to monitor some of the sites, according to one of the officials.

The nationality of the trainers was not disclosed, though the officials cautioned against assuming all are American. (CNN, December 09, 2012, emphasis added)

The above report by CNN’s award winning journalist Elise Labott (relegated to the status a CNN blog), refutes CNN’s numerous accusations directed against Bashar Al Assad.

Who is doing the training of terrorists in the use of chemical weapons? From the horse’s mouth: CNN

And these are the same terrorists (trained by the Pentagon) who are the alleged target of Washington’s counter-terrorism bombing campaign initiated by Obama in August 2014:

“The Pentagon scheme established in 2012 consisted in equipping and training Al Qaeda rebels in the use of chemical weapons, with the support of military contractors hired by the Pentagon, and then holding the Syrian government responsible  for using the WMD against the Syrian people.

What is unfolding is a diabolical scenario –which is an integral part of military planning– namely a situation where opposition terrorists advised by Western defense contractors are actually in possession of chemical weapons.

This is not a rebel training exercise in non-proliferation. While president Obama states that “you will be held accountable” if “you” (meaning the Syrian government) use chemical weapons, what is contemplated as part of this covert operation is the possession of chemical weapons by the US-NATO sponsored terrorists, namely “by our” Al Qaeda affiliated operatives, including the Al Nusra Front which constitutes the most effective Western financed and trained fighting group, largely integrated by foreign mercenaries. In a bitter twist, Jabhat al-Nusra, a US sponsored “intelligence asset”, was recently put on the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations.

The West claims that it is coming to the rescue of the Syrian people, whose lives are allegedly threatened by Bashar Al Assad. The truth of the matter is that the Western military alliance is not only supporting the terrorists, including the Al Nusra Front, it is also making chemical weapons available to its proxy “opposition” rebel forces.

The next phase of this diabolical scenario is that the chemical weapons in the hands of Al Qaeda operatives will be used against civilians, which could potentially lead an entire nation into a humanitarian disaster.

The broader issue is: who is a threat to the Syrian people? The Syrian government of Bashar al Assad or the US-NATO-Israel military alliance which is recruiting “opposition” terrorist forces, which are now being trained in the use of chemical weapons.” (Michel Chossudovsky, May 8, 2013, minor edit)

Case Closed: JFK Killed After Shutting Down Rothschild’s Federal Reserve

Standard
With the stroke of a pen, President Kennedy declared that the privately owned Rothschild Federal Reserve Bank would soon be out of business.


On June 4, 1963, a virtually unknown Presidential decree, Executive Order 11110, was signed with the authority to basically strip the Rothschild Bank of its power to loan money to the United States Federal Government at interest.

With the stroke of a pen, President Kennedy declared that the privately owned Rothschild Federal Reserve Bank would soon be out of business. The Christian Law Fellowship has exhaustively researched this matter through the Federal Register and Library of Congress.

We can now safely conclude that this Executive Order has never been repealed, amended, or superceded by any subsequent Executive Order. In simple terms, it is still valid.

When President John Fitzgerald Kennedy signed this Order, it returned to the United States federal government, specifically the Treasury Department, the Constitutional power to create and issue currency – money – without going through the privately owned Rothschild Federal Reserve Bank.

THE FEDERAL RESERVE

A myth that all Americans live with is the charade known as the “Federal Reserve.” It comes as a shock to many to discover that it is not an agency of the United States Government.

The name “Federal Reserve Bank” was designed to deceive, and it still does. It is not federal, nor is it owned by the government. It is privately owned.

It pays its own postage like any other corporation. Its employees are not in civil service. Its physical property is held under private deeds, and is subject to local taxation. Government property, as you know, is not.

It is an engine that has created private wealth that is unimaginable, even to the most financially sophisticated.

It has enabled an imperial elite to manipulate our economy for its own agenda and enlisted the government itself as its enforcer. It controls the times, dictates business, affects our homes and practically everything in which we are interested.

It takes powerful force to maintain an empire, and this one is no different. The concerns of the leadership of the “Federal Reserve” and its secretive international benefactors appear to go well beyond currency and interest rates.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11110

President Kennedy’s Executive Order 11,110 gave the Treasury Department the explicit authority: “to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury.”

This means that for every ounce of silver in the U.S. Treasury‘s vault, the government could introduce new money into circulation based on the silver bullion physically held there.

As a result, more than $4 billion in United States Notes were brought into circulation in $2 and $5 denominations.

$10 and $20 United States Notes were never circulated but were being printed by the Treasury Department when Kennedy was assassinated.

It appears obvious that President Kennedy knew the Federal Reserve Notes being used as the purported legal currency were contrary to the Constitution of the United States of America.

“United States Notes” were issued as an interest-free and debt-free currency backed by silver reserves in the U.S. Treasury.

Jacob de Rothschild

We compared a “Federal Reserve Note” issued from the private central bank of the United States (the Federal Reserve Bank a.k.a. Federal Reserve System), with a “United States Note” from the U.S. Treasury issued by President Kennedy’s Executive Order.

They almost look alike, except one says “Federal Reserve Note” on the top while the other says “United States Note”. Also, the Federal Reserve Note has a green seal and serial number while the United States Note has a red seal and serial number.

President Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963 and the United States Notes he had issued were immediately taken out of circulation. Federal Reserve Notes continued to serve as the legal currency of the nation.

According to the United States Secret Service, 99% of all U.S. paper “currency” circulating in 1999 are Federal Reserve Notes.

Kennedy knew that if the silver-backed United States Notes were widely circulated, they would have eliminated the demand for Federal Reserve Notes. This is a very simple matter of economics. The USN was backed by silver and the FRN was not backed by anything of intrinsic value.

Executive Order 11110 should have prevented the national debt from reaching its current level (virtually all of the nearly $9 trillion in federal debt has been created since 1963) if LBJ or any subsequent President were to enforce it.

It would have almost immediately given the U.S. Government the ability to repay its debt without going to the private Federal Reserve Banks and being charged interest to create new “money”.

Executive Order 11110 gave the U.S.A. the sovereign ability to, once again, create its own money backed by silver and realm value worth something.

Again, according to our own research, just five months after Kennedy was assassinated, no more of the Series 1958 “Silver Certificates” were issued either, and they were subsequently removed from circulation.

Perhaps the assassination of JFK was a warning to all future presidents not to interfere with the private Rothschild Federal Reserve’s control over the creation of money.

It seems very apparent that President Kennedy challenged the “powers that exist behind U.S. and world finance”.

On November 22, 1963, JFK was shot dead in Dallas, Texas, in extremely strange circumstances. Phyllis Hall, a nurse who was part of desperate attempts to save the life of President John F Kennedy after he was assassinated has claimed he was shot by a “mystery bullet.”

There is also strong evidence involving Lyndon B. Johnson (The following USA President) in the assassination conspiracy.

LINCOLN’S PRIVATE WAR: THE TRAIL OF BLOOD

Abraham Lincoln worked valiantly to prevent the Rothschild’s attempts to involve themselves in financing the Civil War.

Interestingly, it was the Czar of Russia who provided the needed assistance against the British and French, who were among the driving forces behind the secession of the South and her subsequent financing.

Russia intervened by providing naval forces for the Union blockade of the South in European waters, and by letting both countries know that if they attempted to join the Confederacy with military forces, they would also have to go to war with Russia.

The Rothschild interests did succeed, through their agent Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase, to force a bill (the National Banking Act) through Congress creating a federally chartered central bank that had the power to issue U.S. Bank Notes.

Afterward, Lincoln warned the American people:

“The money power preys upon the nation in time of peace and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me, and causes me to tremble for the safety of our country. Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people, until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the republic is destroyed.”

Lincoln continued to fight against the central bank, and some now believe that it was his anticipated success in influencing Congress to limit the life of the Bank of the United States to just the war years that was the motivating factor behind his assassination.

THE LONE ASSASSIN MYTH IS BORN

Modern researchers have uncovered evidence of a massive conspiracy that links the following parties to the Bank of Rothschild: Lincoln’s Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, John Wilkes Booth, his eight co-conspirators, and over seventy government officials and businessmen involved in the conspiracy.

When Booth’s diary was recovered by Stanton’s troops, it was delivered to Stanton. When it was later produced during the investigation, eighteen pages had been ripped out.

These pages, containing the aforementioned names, were later found in the attic of one of Stanton’s descendants.

From Booth’s trunk, a coded message was found that linked him directly to Judah P. Benjamin, the Civil War campaign manager in the South for the House of Rothschild. When the war ended, the key to the code was found in Benjamin’s possession.

The assassin, portrayed as a crazed lone gunman with a few radical friends, escaped by way of the only bridge in Washington not guarded by Stanton’s troops.

“Booth” was located hiding in a barn near Port Royal, Virginia, three days after escaping from Washington. He was shot by a soldier named Boston Corbett, who fired without orders.

Whether or not the man killed was Booth is still a matter of contention, but the fact remains that whoever it was, he had no chance to identify himself.

It was Secretary of War Edwin Stanton who made the final identification. Some now believe that a dupe was used and that the real John Wilkes Booth escaped with Stanton’s assistance.

Mary Todd Lincoln, upon hearing of her husband’s death, began screaming, “Oh, that dreadful house!” Earlier historians felt that this spontaneous utterance referred to the White House.

Some now believe it may have been directed to Thomas W. House, a gun runner, financier, and agent of the Rothschild’s during the Civil War, who was linked to the anti-Lincoln, pro-banker interests.

ANDREW JACKSON

andrew

Andrew Jackson was the first President from west of the Appalachians. He was unique for the times in being elected by the voters, without the direct support of a recognized political organization.

He vetoed the renewal of the charter for the Bank of the United States on July 10, 1832.

In 1835, President Andrew Jackson declared his disdain for the international bankers:

“You are a den of vipers. I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God I will rout you out. If the people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system, there would be a revolution before morning.”

There followed an (unsuccessful) assassination attempt on President Jackson’s life. Jackson had told his vice president, Martin Van Buren,

“The bank, Mr. Van Buren, is trying to kill me.”

Was this the beginning of a pattern of intrigue that would plague the White House itself over the coming decades? Was his (and Lincoln’s) death related by an invisible thread to the international bankers?

JAMES GARFIELD

James Garfield

President James Abram Garfield, our 20th President, had previously been Chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations and was an expert on fiscal matters.

(Upon his election, among other things, he appointed an unpopular collector of customs at New York, whereupon the two Senators from New York – Roscoe Conkling and Thomas Platt – resigned their seats).

President Garfield openly declared that whoever controls the supply of currency would control the business and activities of all the people.

After only four months in office, President Garfield was shot at a railroad station on July 2, 1881. Another coincidence.

THE TRAIL OF BLOOD CONTINUES

In the 70’s and 80’s, Congressman Larry P. McDonald spearheaded efforts to expose the hidden holdings and intentions of the international money interests.

His efforts ended on August 31, 1983, when he was killed when Korean Airlines 007 was “accidentally” shot down in Soviet airspace. A strange coincidence, it would seem.

Senator John Heinz and former Senator John Tower had served on powerful Senate banking and finance committees and were outspoken critics of the Federal Reserve and the Eastern Establishment.

On April 4, 1991, Senator John Heinz was killed in a plane crash near Philadelphia. On the next day, April 5, 1991, former Senator John Tower was also killed in a plane crash. The coincidences seem to mount.

Attempts to just audit the Federal Reserve continue to meet with failure. It is virtually impossible to muster support for any issue that has the benefit of a media blackout.

(The bizarre but tragic reality that the American people suffer from a managed and controlled media is a subject for another discussion.)

BEGINNING OF A SERIES

For many years, numerous authors have attempted to sound the alarm that there exists a hidden “shadow government” that actually rules America.

Most of us have dismissed these “conspiracy theory” views as extremist and unrealistic. However, when I had the opportunity to have lunch with Otto von Habsburg, member of the European Parliament, he made two remarks that caught my attention.

The first was: “The ignorance in America is overwhelming.” Indeed, the contrast in general awareness of world affairs between the average American and the average European is striking.

It was his second observation that really provoked me: “The concentration of power in America is frightening.

As a reasonably circumspect senior executive, having spent three decades in international finance and viewing America as a broadly based representative democracy, his remark shocked me. It prompted me to do some more homework. The results of my inquiries are most disturbing.


Politicalvelcraft and RenseGuests
Waking Times Media

The Largely Unrecognized US Occupation of Syria. Nearly One Third of Its Territory

Standard

The United States has invaded Syria with a significant military force, is occupying nearly one-third of its territory, has announced plans for an indefinite occupation, and is plundering the country’s petroleum resources. Washington has no authorization under international or even US law to invade and occupy Syria, much less attack Syrian forces, which it has done repeatedly.

Nor has it a legal warrant to create new administrative and governance structures in the country to replace the Syrian government, a project it is undertaking through a parallel invasion of US diplomatic personnel. These actions—criminal, plunderous, and an assault on democracy at an international level—amount to a retrograde project of recolonization by an empire bent on extending its supremacy to all the Arab and Muslim worlds, including the few remaining outposts of resistance to foreign tyranny. Moreover, US actions represent an escalation of Washington’s long war on Syria, previously carried out through proxies, including the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda, into a full-scale conventional war with direct US military involvement. Yet, despite the enormity of the project, and the escalation of the war, the US occupation of Syria has largely flown under the radar of public awareness.

Atop multiple indignities and affronts to liberty and democracy visited upon the Arab world by the West, including the plunder of Palestine by European settlers and the political oppression of Arabs by a retinue of military dictators, monarchs, emirs and sultans who rule largely at the pleasure of Washington and on its behalf, now arrives the latest US transgression on the ideals of sovereignty, independence, and the equality of nations: marauders in Washington have pilfered part of the territory of one of the last bastions of Arab independence—Syria. Indeed, Washington now controls “about one-third of the country including most of its oil wealth”, [1] has no intention of returning it to its rightful owners, has planned for an indefinite military occupation of eastern Syria, and is creating a new Israel, which is to say, an new imperialist outpost in the middle of the Arab world, to be governed by Kurdish proxies backed by US firepower. [2] The crime has been carried out openly, and yet has hardly been noticed or remarked upon.

Here are the facts:

In January, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson announced that US “troops will remain in Syria” indefinitely “to ensure that neither Iran nor President Bashar al-Assad of Syria will take over areas” [3] the United States captured from ISIS, even though these areas belong to the Syrian Arab Republic, by law and right, and not to Washington, or to Washington’s Kurdish proxy, the SDF. The SDF, or Syrian Democratic Force, is a US-constructed outfit which, in journalist Robert Fisk’s words, is neither Syrian (it’s dominated by Kurds, including those of Turkish origin) nor democratic (since it imposes Kurdish rule over traditionally Arab areas and dances to a tune called by a foreign master.) Moreover, it’s not much of a force, since, without US airpower, artillery, and Special Operations support, it is militarily inconsequential. [4] “US President Donald Trump’s rollout of an updated Syria policy,” reports Aaron Stein, writing in the unofficial journal of the US State Department, Foreign Affairs, “commits US forces to maintaining a presence” in northeast Syria in order to “hedge against” any attempt by Damascus to assert sovereignty over its own territory. [5]

The Pentagon officially admits to having 2,000 troops in Syria [6] but a top US general put the number higher, 4,000, in an October press briefing. [7] But even this figure is an “artificial construct,” as the Pentagon described a previous low-ball figure. On top of the infantry, artillery, and forward air controllers the Pentagon counts as deployed to Syria, there is an additional number of uncounted Special Operations personnel, as well as untallied troops assigned to classified missions and “an unspecified number of contractors” i.e., mercenaries. Additionally, combat aircrews are not counted, even though US airpower is critical to the occupation. [8] There are, therefore, many more times the officially acknowledged number of US troops in Syria, operating out of 10 bases in the country, including “a sprawling facility with a long runway, hangars, barracks and fuel depots.” [9]

In addition to US military advisers, Army Rangers, artillery, Special Operations forces, satellite-guided rockets and Apache attack helicopters [10], the United States has deployed US diplomats to Syria to create government and administrative structures to supersede the legitimate government of the Syrian Arab Republic. [11] Plus, the United States “is now working to transform Kurdish fighters into a local security force” to handle policing [12] while US diplomats on the ground work to establish local governments to run the occupied territory’s affairs. [13]

“The idea in US policy circles” is to create “a soft partition” of Syria between the United States and Russia along the Euphrates, “as it was among the Elbe [in Germany] at the end of the Second World War.” [14] On top of the 28 percent of Syria the United States occupies, it controls “half of Syria’s energy resources, the Euphrates Dam at Tabqa, as well as much of Syria’s best agricultural land.” [15]

During the war against ISIS, US military planning called for the Kurds to push south along the Euphrates River to seize Syria’s oil-and gas-rich territory. [16] While the Syrian Arab Army and its allies focussed mostly on liberating cities from Islamic State, the Kurds, under US direction, went “after the strategic oil and gas fields”, [17] “robbing Islamic State of key territory,” as The Wall Street Journal put it. The US newspaper correctly designated the seizure of key territory as a robbery, but failed to acknowledge the victim, not Islamic State, which itself robbed the territory, but the Syrian Arab Republic. But this skein of equivocation needs to be further disentangled. It was not the Kurds who robbed ISIS which earlier robbed the Syrians, but the United States which robbed ISIS which robbed Syria. The Kurds, without the backing of the US armed forces, are a military cipher incapable, by their own efforts, of robbing the Arab republic. The Americans are the robbers, the Syrians the victims.

The United States has robbed Syria of “two of the largest oil and gas fields in Deir Ezzour”, including the al-Omar oil field, Syria’s largest. [18] Last September, the United States plundered Syria of “a gas field and plant known in Syria as the Conoco gas plant” (though its affiliation with Conoco is historical; the plant was acquired by the Syrian Gas Company in 2005.) [19] Russia observed that “the real aim” of the US forces’ (incontestably denominated) “illegal” presence in Syria has been “the seizure and retention of economic assets that only belong to the Syrian Arab Republic.” [20] The point is beyond dispute: the United States has stolen resources vital to the republic’s reconstruction (this from a country which proclaims property rights to be humanity’s highest value.)

Joshua Landis, a University of Oklahoma professor who specializes in Syria, has argued that by

“controlling half of Syria’s energy resources…the US will be able to keep Syria poor and under-resourced.” [21]

Bereft of its petroleum resources, and deprived of its best farmland, Syria will be hard-pressed to recover from the Islamist insurgency—an operation precipitated by Washington as part of its long war on nationalist influence in the Arab world—a war that has left Syria in ruins. The conclusion that “Assad has won” and that the war is over except for mopping up operations is unduly optimistic, even Pollyannaish. There is a long road ahead.

Needless to say, Damascus aspires to recover its lost territory, and “on February 7 sent a battalion-sized column to [recuperate] a critical gas plant near Deir Ezzour.” [22] This legitimate exercise of sovereignty was repulsed by an airstrike by US invaders, which left an estimated 100 Syrian Arab Army troops and their allies dead. [23] The significance of this event has been under-appreciated, and perhaps because press coverage of what transpired disguised its enormity. An emblematic Wall Street Journal report, for example, asserted that the US airstrike was a defensive response to an unprovoked attack by Syrian forces, as if the Syrians, on their own soil, were aggressors, and the invading Americans, victims. [24] We might inquire into the soundness of describing an aggression by invaders on a domestic military force operating within its own territory as a defensive response to an unprovoked attack. Likewise, we can inquire into the cogency of Washington’s insistence that it does not intend to wage war on the Syrian Arab Army. That this statement can be accepted as reasonable suggests the operation of what Charles Mills calls an epistemology of ignorance—a resistance to understanding the obvious. It should be evident—indeed, it’s axiomatic—that the unprovoked invasion and occupation of a country constitutes an aggression, but apparently this is not the case in the specially constructed reality of the Western media. Could Russia invade the United States west of the Colorado River, control the territory’s airspace, plunder its resources, establish new government and administrative structures to supplant local, state, and federal authority, and then credibly declare that it does not seek war with the United States and its armed services? Invasion and occupation are aggressive acts, a statement that shouldn’t need to be made.

Washington’s February 7 attack on Syrian forces was not the first.

“American troops carried out strikes against forces loyal to President Bashar Assad of Syria several times in 2017,” reported the New York Times. [25]

In other words, the United States has invaded Syria, is occupying nearly a third of its territory, and has carried out attacks on the Syrian military, and this aggression is supposed to be understood as a defensive response to Syrian provocations.

It is incontestable that US control of the airspace of eastern Syria, the invasion of the country by untold thousands of US military and diplomatic personnel, the plunder of the Levantine nation’s resources, and attacks on its military forces, are flagrant violations of international law. No country has more contempt for the rule of law than the United States, yet, in emetic fashion, its government incessantly invokes the very rule of law it spurns to justify its outrages against it. But what of US law? If, to Washington, international law is merely an impediment to be overcome on its way to expanding its empire, are the US invasion and occupation of Syria, and attacks on Syrian forces, in harmony with the laws of the United States? If you ask the White House and Pentagon the answer is yes, but that is tantamount to asking a thief to rule on his or her theft. The question is, does the US executive’s claim that its actions in Syria comport with US law stand up to scrutiny? Not only does it not, the claim is risible.

“Under both Mr. Obama and Mr. Trump,” explains the New York Times’ Charlie Savage, “the executive branch has argued that the war against Islamic State is covered by a 2001 law authorizing the use of military force against the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks [my emphasis] and a 2002 law authorizing the invasion of Iraq.”

However, while “ISIS grew out an offshoot of Al Qaeda, the two groups by 2014 had split and became warring rivals,” and ISIS did not perpetrate the 9/11 attacks. What’s more, before the rise of ISIS, the Obama administration had deemed the Iraq war over. [26]

Washington’s argument has other problems, as well. While the 2001 law does not authorize the use of military force against ISIS, is does authorize military action against Al Qaeda. Yet from 2011 to today, the United States has not only failed to use force against the Syrian-based Jabhat al-Nusra, Al Qaeda’s largest branch, it has trained and equipped Islamist fighters who are intermingled with, cooperate on the battle field with, share weapons with, and operate under licence to, the group, as I showed in my book Washington’s Long War on Syria, citing the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and Washington Post, which have extensively reported on the interconnections between US trained and armed fighters and the organization founded by Osama bin Laden. [27]

Finally, by implication, since the law does not authorize the use of force against ISIS, it does not authorize the presence of US aircrews in Syrian airspace or US military and diplomatic personnel on Syrian soil. In addition, it certainly does not authorize the use of force against a Syrian military operating within its own borders.

Let’s look again at Washington’s stated reasons for its planned indefinite occupation of Syria: to prevent the return of ISIS; to stop the Syrian Arab Republic from exercising sovereignty over all of its territory; and to eclipse Iranian influence in Syria. For only one of these reasons, the first, does Washington offer any sort of legal justification. The latter two objectives are so totally devoid of legal warrant that Washington has not even tried to mount a legal defense of them. Yet, these are the authentic reasons for the US invasion and occupation of Syria. As to the first reason, if Washington were seriously motivated to use military force to crush Al Qaeda, it would not have armed, trained and directed the group’s auxiliaries in its war against Arab nationalist power in Damascus.

Regarding Washington’s stated aim of eclipsing Iranian influence in Syria, we may remind ourselves of the contents of a leaked 2012 U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency report. That report revealed that the insurgency in Syria was sectarian and led by the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda in Iraq, the forerunner of Islamic State. The report also disclosed that the United States, Arab Gulf oil monarchies and Turkey supported the insurgents. The analysis correctly predicted the establishment of a “Salafist principality,” an Islamic state, in eastern Syria, noting that this was desired by the insurgency’s foreign backers, which wanted to see the secular Arab nationalists isolated and cut-off from Iran. [28] The United States has since decided to take on the role that it had once planned for a Salafist principality. A planned Saudi-style state dividing Damascus from Tehran has become an indefinite US occupation, from whose womb US planners hope to midwife the birth of a Kurd mini-state as a new Israel.

The reality that the US operation in Syria is illegal may account for why, with Washington’s misdirection and the press’s collusion, it has largely flown under the radar of public awareness. Misdirection is accomplished by disguising the US occupation of eastern Syria as a Kurd-, or SDF-effort, which the United States is merely assisting, rather than directing. The misdirection appears to be successful, because the narrative has been widely mentally imbibed, including by otherwise critical people. There are parallels. The United States is prosecuting a war of aggression in Yemen, against a movement that threatens US hegemony in the Middle East, as the Syrian Arab Republic, Iran and Hezbollah do. The aggression against Yemen is as lacking in legal warrant as is the US war on Syria. It flagrantly violates international law; the Houthis did not attack Saudi Arabia, let alone the United States, and therefore there is no justification for military action on international legal grounds against them. What’s more, the Pentagon can’t even point to authorization for the use of force against Yemen’s rebels under US domestic law since they are not Al Qaeda and have no connection to the 9/11 attacks. To side step the difficulty of deploying military force without a legal warrant, the war, then, is presented as “Saudi-led”, with the involvement of the United States relegated in the hermeneutics to the periphery. Yet Washington is directing the war. The United States flies its own drones and reconnaissance aircraft over Yemen to gather intelligence to select targets for Saudi pilots. [29] It refuels Saudi bombers in flight. Its warships enforce a naval blockade. And significantly, it runs an operations center to coordinate the bombing campaign among the US satellites who participate in it. In the language of the military, the United States has command and control of the aggression against Yemen. The only US absence is in the provision of pilots to drop the bombs, this role having been farmed out to Arab allies. [30] And that is the key to the misdirection. Because Saudi pilots handle one visible aspect of the multi-dimensional war, (whose various other dimensions are run by the Americans), it can be passed off to the public as a Saudi affair, while those who find the Saudi monarchy abhorrent (which it is) can vent their spleen on a scapegoat. We do the same to the Kurds, hurling rhetorical thunderbolts at them, when they are merely pawns of the US government pursuing a project of empire-building. Jeremy Corbyn, the British Labour Party leader, has seen through the misdirection, declaring that it is the West, not the Saudis, who are ‘directing the war’ in Yemen. [31]

It would profit us to heed the words of Ibrahim Al-Amin, who, on the occasion of the White House recognizing Al-Quds (Jerusalem) as the capital of Israel, asked Arabs whether it wasn’t time to realize that the United States is the origin of all that plagues them. Let us leave ‘Israel’ aside, he counseled. “Whatever is said about its power, superiority and preparation, it is but an America-British colony that cannot live a day without the protection, care and blind support of the West.” [32] The same can be said of the Saudi monarchy and the SDF.

I leave the last word to the Syrian government, whose voice is hardly ever heard above the din of Western war propaganda. The invasion and occupation of eastern Syria is “a blatant interference, a flagrant violation of [the] UN Charter’s principles…an unjustified aggression on the sovereignty and independence of Syria.” [33] None of this is controversial. For his part, Syrian president Bashar al-Assad has pointed out incontestably that foreign troops in Syria “without our invitation or consultation or permission…are invaders.” It is time the US invasion and occupation of Syria—illegal, anti-democratic, plunderous, and a project of recolonization—was recognized, opposed, and ended. There is far more to Washington’s long war on Syria than Al Qaeda, the White Helmets and the Kurds. As significant as these forces are, the threat they pose to the Syrian center of opposition to foreign tyranny has been surpassed by a more formidable challenge—the war’s escalation into a US military and diplomatic occupation accompanied by direct US military confrontation with the Syrian Arab Army and its allies.

Article: Syrian army vows to eject US troops.

*

Notes

1. Neil MacFarquhar, ‘Russia’s greatest problem in Syria: It’s ally president Assad,’ The New York Times, March 8, 2018.

2. Anne Barnard, “US-backed force could cement a Kurdish enclave in Syria,” The New York Times, January 16, 2018; Domenico Losurdo, “Crisis in the Imperialist World Order,” Revista Opera, March 2, 2018.

3. Gardiner Harris, “Tillerson says US troops to stay in Syria beyond battle with ISIS, The New York Times, January 17, 2018.

4. Robert Fisk, “The next Kurdish war is on the horizon—Turkey and Syria will never allow it to create a mini-state,” The Independent, January 18, 2018.

5. Aaron Stein, “Turkey’s Afrin offensive and America’s future in Syria: Why Washington should be eying the exit,” Foreign Affairs, January 23, 2018.

6. Nancy A. Yousef, “US to remain in Syria indefinitely, Pentagon officials say, The Wall Street Journal, December 8, 2017.

7. Andrew deGrandpre, “A top US general just said 4,000 American troops are in Syria. The Pentagon says there are only 500,” the Washington Post, October 31, 2017.

8. John Ismay, “US says 2,000 troops are in Syria, a fourfold increase,” The New York Times, December 6, 2017; Nancy A. Yousef, “US to remain in Syria indefinitely, Pentagon officials say,” The Wall Street Journal, December 8, 2017).

9. Dion Nissenbaum, “Map said to show locations of US forces in Syria published in Turkey,” The Wall Street Journal, July 19, 2017.

10. Michael R. Gordon, “In a desperate Syrian city, a test of Trump’s policies,” The New York Times, July 1, 2017.

11. Nancy A. Yousef, “US to send more diplomats and personnel to Syria,” The Wall Street Journal, December 29, 2017.

12. Dion Nissenbaum, “US moves to halt Turkey’s drift toward Iran and Russia,” the Wall Street Journal, February 21, 2018.

13. Nancy A. Yousef, “Some US-backed Syrian fighters leave ISIS battle to counter Turkey,” The Wall Street Journal, February 6, 2018.

14. Yaroslav Trofimov, “In Syria, new conflict looms as ISIS loses ground,” The Wall Street Journal, September 7, 2017.

15. Gregory Shupak, “Media erase US role in Syria’s misery, call for US to inflict more misery,” FAIR.org, March 7, 2018.

16. Trofimov, September 7, 2017.

17. Raj Abdulrahim and Ghassan Adnan, “Syria and Iraq rob Islamic State of key territory,” The Wall Street Journal, November 3, 2018.

18. Raj Abdulrahim and Ghassan Adnan, “Syria and Iraq rob Islamic State of key territory,” The Wall Street Journal, November 3, 2018.

19. Abdulrahim and Adnan, November 3, 2018.

20. Raja Abdulrahim and Thomas Grove, “Syria condemns US airstrike as tension rise,” the Wall Street Journal, February 8, 2018.

21. Joshua Landis, “US policy toward the Levant, Kurds and Turkey,” Syria Comment, January 15, 2018.

22. Yaroslav Trofimov, “As alliances shift, Syria’s tangle of war grows more dangerous,” The Wall Street Journal, February 15, 2018.

23. Raja Abdulralhim and Thomas Grove, “Syria condemns US airstrike as tensions rise,” The Wall Street Journal, February 8, 2018; Nancy A. Yousef and Thomas Grove, “Russians among those killed in US airstrike is eastern Syria,” The Wall Street Journal, February 13, 2018.

24. Yousef and Grove, February 13, 2018.

25. Charlie Savage, “US says troops can stay in Syria without new authorization,” The New York Times, February 22, 2018.

26. Savage, February 22, 2018.

27. Stephen Gowans. Washington’s Long War on Syria. Baraka Books. 20017. Pp. 149-150.

28. DIA document leaked to Judicial Watch, Inc., a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation, which promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pg.-291-Pgs.-287-293-JW-v-DOD-and-State-14-812-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf

29. Mark Mazzetti and Eric Schmitt, “Quiet support for Saudis entangles U.S. in Yemen,” The New York Times, March 13, 2016.

30. Stephen Gowans, “The US-Led War on Yemen, what’s left, November 6, 2017.

31. William James, “May defends Saudi ties as Crown Prince gets royal welcome in London,” Reuters, March 7, 2018.

32. Ibrahim Al-Amin, “Either America or Al-Quds,” Alahednews, December 8, 2017.

33. Syria condemns presence of French and German special forces in Ain al-Arab and Manbij as overt unjustified aggression on Syria’s sovereignty and independence, SANA, June 15, 2016.

Has the US-Israeli-UK War with Iran Officially Started?

Standard

War with Iran

is the best way to describe what is happening right now with the recent Iranian protests. Yes, the Iranian people have legitimate gripes (especially economic) with the theocratic government there, which is hardly a bastion of freedom. However, there can be no doubt that the protests orchestrated earlier this year were done by the same meddlesome US-Israeli axis (and you can add the UK in there too) which has been the driving force behind all Middle Eastern wars for at least 50 years. These protests were merely the latest manifestation of a continuous and incessant Anglo-Zionist policy of targeting Iran.

They may ignite further conflict, or they may be quelled, but either way, you will make more sense of them by understanding the long and deep history of US, Israeli and UK interference in Iran. Right after Trump assumed office at the start of 2017, he made his intention clear that he wanted war with Iran. These protests are yet another way in which the US-Israeli-UK axis is showing it wants war with, and to take control of Iran – and will go to any lengths to get it.

Iranian Protests: Another US-Israeli-UK Color Revolution

When news of the 2018 Iranian protests first broke on January 1st, some were struck by the odd assortment of protest cries. The Iranian protestors were reported to be complaining about all sorts of things:

“Death to the dictator” (an apparent reference to Ayatollah Khamenei)

“Death to Rouhani” (the current Iranian president)

“I give my life for Iran, not Gaza, not Lebanon”

“We are of Aryaee [Aryan] race, we don’t worship Arabs”

The big clue among these protest cries is this next one, where the “protestors” were said to have shouted:

“No to Gaza, no to Lebanon, no to Palestine, no to Syria”

It is perfectly understandable for some Iranian people to be complaining about the price of eggs. It is also understandable for them to be expressing dissatisfaction with their leaders. But since when do average people on the street – especially those in dire financial straits – start taking an active interest in the foreign policy of their nation? Do you really think an average poor Iranian cares enough to critique his nation’s foreign policy of defending Syria against ISIS, Al Qaeda, etc. when he’s just trying to feed his family? That doesn’t even come close to passing the smell test. Besides, Iran is widely esteemed for having had the intelligence and strength to intervene in Syria (alongside Russia) and stave off the coalition of mercenaries, “moderate” terrorists, Wahhabis, takfiris and other fighters – all funded and trained by the US, Israel, UK, Saudi Arabia, the GCC, NATO and other nations – who would surely have set their sights on Iran had they been successful in toppling Bashar Al Assad. Why on Earth would an average Iranian protest his country’s skilled intervention in Syria? Or protest that Iran cares too much about the Palestinians (fellow Muslims) in Gaza?

Israel, on the other hand, has been loudly complaining for years about Iran’s involvement in propping up Hamas (Palestine), Hezbollah (Lebanon), Syria, Yemen and other places, so these “Iranian protests” constitute a perfect Zionist wishlist for the region. Just a coincidence, I’m sure …

War with Iran Part of NWO Agenda Since 1979

Like many other countries in the world, Iran has been a victim of foreign meddling by the Anglo-American Empire. In a sad but watershed moment in its history, its democratically elected Prime Minister Mossadegh was overthrown in 1953 due to a CIA coup, after he made moves to nationalize the Iranian oil industry. The Anglo-Persian Oil Company (later to become BP) had been making a killing taking Iranian oil for British use, and only paying 16% of their profits back to Iran. Once the Shah was installed, along with a new PM who was sympathetic to the British and Americans, the Iranians lived under authoritarian rule until the 1979 Islamic Revolution. As Eric Margolis writes:

“The 1953 coup went perfectly. Mossadegh was ousted with backing from the Army and Savak. Iran’s oil remained safe in western hands. The successful Iran uprising became the template for future ‘color revolutions’ in Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Russia, Poland, and Romania.

Iran’s new Islamic Republic was deemed a dire threat to Western and Israeli strategic and military interests (think Saudi Arabia). The very idea that the Islamic Republic would follow the tenets of Islam and share oil wealth with the needy was anathema to London and Washington. Israel’s intelligence agency, Mossad, ran Iran’s dreaded, brutal secret police, Savak. The crooked royal family looted the nation and stored their swag in California.”

During the 1980s, Iran was consistently the target of US ire. First there was the 1980 Iranian hostage crisis which affected the outcome of the US presidential election. Then, during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, started when Iraq’s Saddam Hussein invaded Iran, the US decided to arm Iraq against Iran. Iraq ultimately lost that war and then the US turned against them too.

war with iran israel

The Zionist Obsession with Containing Iran

During this time, Iran has refused to kowtow or back down to the Zionist regime, rightly seeing it as the biggest threat to peace in the region. This has put it in the crosshairs of Israel, and since Israel controls America, the crosshairs of the US military too. There has been much Zionist discussion of how Iran can be contained and defeated. The 2009 Brookings Institute (a Zionist organization) paper Which Path to Persia? devotes itself to this issue. Some from the Brookings Institute have even publicly floated the idea of starting a war with Iran with a false flag op, e.g. sinking an Iranian boat. In his 2007 article Unsolicited Advice to the Government of Iran, Gary Hart warned Iran to be careful, since the aggressive US leadership and military need little provocation to attack their enemies. He even mentions 3 false flag incidents in US history: the USS Maine (which provided a pretext for the US to attack Spanish in what became the Spanish-American War in 1898), Pearl Harbor (which justified US entry into WWII in 1941) and Gulf of Tonkin (which provided a pretext for the US to attack Vietnam in what became the Vietnam War in 1964).

It would hardly be surprise if another false flag attack happened to lure Iran into war in the near future.

stuxnet

Cyber, Economic and Targeted Attacks on Iran

Iran has been consistently hassled by the US and Israel throughout the last few decades. It had to endure a cyberattack on its nuclear facilities that was named Nitro Zeus (from which we heard about the infamous Stuxnet which was subsequently shown to be an Israeli-based attack). The entire 2012 UNGA had to sit through Netanyahu’s kindergarten bomb cartoon which was patently absurd and hypocritical. Israel continues to sit atop 200-400 nukes while Iran doesn’t even have a single one. The US and Israel fought Iran tooth and nail over its (peaceful) nuclear program. On several occasions, US and international officials have confirmed that Iran is completely abiding by the terms of JCPOA, despite the fact that the US-Israeli axis is itching for any excuse to go to war with Iran. Then there has been the matter of the many dead Iranian scientists; just a few months ago, Reuters reported that Iran had sentenced a Mossad agentto death for his role in the assassinations.

Conclusion: Iraq, Libya, Syria … Iran

Iran is a theocracy, with power tightly held by the ruling class of mullahs(religious clerics), and thus is a far cry from a open and free society. However, we know that war with Iran (and then eventually Russia-China) is a integral part of the Anglo-American-Zionist NWO agenda. General Wesley Clark spilled the beans long ago by admitting that the Pentagon had their plans for regime change in 7 countries, including Iraq (already invaded and conquered), Libya (already invaded and conquered), Syria (already invaded but couldn’t be conquered) … and now it’s Iran’s turn.

It is so laughable and utterly ridiculous to hear American leaders pretend that “We care about the Iranian people.” How gullible is the Western public going to be? How short is their memory? Will they recall how former US Secretary of State John Kerry made a Freudian slip and admitted that “we are working with China to implode Iran”?

People of Iran – Netanyahu, Trump and all the other warmongers don’t care about you.

It’s time to wake up and smell the agenda.

*****

Makia Freeman is the editor of alternative media / independent news site The Freedom Articles and senior researcher at ToolsForFreedom.com, writing on many aspects of truth and freedom, from exposing aspects of the worldwide conspiracy to suggesting solutions for how humanity can create a new system of peace and abundance.

Sources:

*http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com/war-with-iran-agenda-11-signs/

*https://ericmargolis.com/2018/01/trumps-failed-coup-in-iran/

*https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/06_iran_strategy.pdf

*https://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hart/unsolicited-advice-to-the_b_65984.html

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitro_Zeus

*http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com/iran-is-fully-compliant-nuclear-israel-rogue/

*https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-court/iran-sentences-mossad-agent-to-death-over-scientist-killings-idUSKBN1CT1XU

President Trump: The Anti-Globalist USA Champion or Just Another Con Man Riding a Trojan Horse?

Standard

Trump has said all the right things to net votes of the growing right-leaning US electorate, but has he actually done anything substantially anti-Globalist while in office?

Trump is the untouchable “holy cow” of certain alt-media and right wing outlets who support him not based on what he is doing in office now, but what he said he would do in his campaign, this article will hold him to critique as any President should be.

Yes, Trump is taking flack from establishment voices across the board while having the appealing image of the “outsider candidate”, yes, he has said some things which are pretty anti-establishment, but what he’s doing (or what he isn’t doing) in office overrules all that.

Ignore the sometimes fine rhetoric in some of Trump’s speeches. Talk is cheap. If we consider rather the agenda that’s taking form we can see that Donald Trump is pushing the same agenda of war and global empire as Obama, as Bush before him, as Bill Clinton and Clinton’s “tutor”, George H.W. Bush before him, even if their is a tinge of “anti-establishment” rhetoric sprinkled on top, it’s not enough to call Trump anything else but a deep state backed insider.

And like a true insider, Trump likes to remind the world that he is an “outsider” at every given opportunity.

That’s his shtick, the non-politician “I’m not like them“, but this has no relation to what he actually does in office:

Anybody that needs to insist and constantly reinforce that they are an “outsider” needs to be seriously questioned, it’s the basic psychology of lying, liars tend to need to reinforce something that they know is patently untrue. Depicting yourself as agent of change, or an outsider, is a very obvious tactic of politicians who want to get voted in. Trump’s campaign and now Presidency has had this rhetoric written all over it.

There is a slim possibility Trump is truly anti-establishment, and that his time in office has been spent as a “hostage” of a deep state who coerce him to do their bidding as a puppet.

Possible, yes, but unlikely, a guy as smart as Trump who has socialized and networked with all the big high-flyers would have seen that eventuality a long way off, he knows how all this works.

Something tells me that the multi-century proxy-ruling trillionaire banker families wouldn’t let a true outsider get to the stage Trump has got to.

There is no way of knowing for sure what’s going on behind closed doors in the White House, and frankly, we don’t need to theorize too much, it’s obvious the two-faced “outsider” called Trump is a ploy designed to confuse people:

So objectively, what we can do is either support or oppose Trump based on his actions as President. The fruits of his Presidency are what matter — not the reputation, promises, or image of the person who is in office, even if their “intentions are good”, even if they would like to steer the ship in a certain direction and have “big plans”, even if they mix in some token actions as a lousy compromise, look at the bottom line of every President to see what they’re really worth.

Is Trump a Grassroots Revolution? 

We should not imagine for one second that the Patriarchy – those loveless old men like David Rockefeller or George H.W. Bush, or unnamed others – were so overwhelmed by the political genius of candidate Trump emerging from every scandal more powerful than before, that they were surprised, out-foxed, and just groaned and let it happen.

The Trump Presidency has been planned in minute detail by them and their think tanks. Quite simply, had they continued the policies that Hillary Clinton represented–war and confrontation against Russia, against China, with Color Revolution destabilizations of any and all political leaders who opposed them whether Gaddafi or Mubarak or even Putin –they saw they were losing power over huge parts of the world, essential geopolitical power.

When a President of the relatively tiny American former colony fears not to openly attack by name an American President as “son of a whore,” and declare in China his Philippines’ “separation” from the United States, when one country after the other comes closer in economic and political cooperation to Russia, to China and to their growing Eurasian economic cohesion around the One Bridge One Road Eurasian infrastructure great project, it was clearly time to install a Plan B President.

That Plan B is casino mogul Donald1 Trump, a political tabula rasa, a power-possessed person with a blackmail potential that will keep him on program for them, an alpha male who is quite gifted at being able to make people fear.

If we were to use conventional psychological definitions I would say the word sociopath fits: “Antisocial personality disorder characterized by a lack of regard for the moral or legal standards in the culture.” Narcissism would be another apt term: “Extreme selfishness, with a grandiose view of one’s own talents and a craving for admiration…” Read his own autobiography and his descriptions of his earlier antics with mob lawyer and mentor, Roy Cohn, at the cocaine-snorting Studio 54 and look more closely at his actual life history, not only what he dismisses as “locker room talk” eleven years ago with Billy Bush. He is definitely no JFK or Charles de Gaulle, not even close.

Donald Trump was put into office to prepare America for war, a war the banks of Wall Street and the US military industrial complex are not presently in a position economically or industrially or otherwise, geopolitically, to win. His job will be to reposition the United States for them to reverse the trend to disintegration of American global hegemony, to, as the Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz Project for the New American Century put it in their September, 2000 report, “rebuild America’s defenses.”

To do that preparation, a deception strategy that will fatally weaken the developing deep bonds between Russia and China will be priority. It’s already begun. We have a friendly phone call from The Donald to Vladimir the Fearsome in Moscow. Russian media is euphoric about a new era in US-Russia relations after Obama. Then suddenly we hear the war-mongering NATO head, Stoltenberg, suddenly purr soothing words to Russia. Float the idea that California Congressman and Putin acquaintance, Dana Rohrabacher, is leaked as a possible Secretary of State1. It’s classic Kissinger Balance of Power geopolitics – seem to ally with the weaker of two mortal enemies, Russia, to isolate the stronger, China. Presumably Vladimir Putin is not so naïve or stupid as to fall for it, but that is the plot of Trump’s handlers. Such a strategy of preventing the growing Russia-China cooperation was urged by Zbigniew Brzezinski in a statement this past summer.

Because he’s been selected (and not by us dear voters) to play a definite role – to shift tactics of global domination according to the basics of the 1992 Bush-Wolfowitz Doctrine – preempting any nation or group of nations in Eurasia from challenging American Sole Superpower hegemony–the selection of his Cabinet and key policy advisers, is vital. Here we can already see the outlines of the cast of characters who have been chosen to fill out the theater play called Trump Presidency, and the emerging new plot for re-configuring the Sole Superpower strategy.


Was Trump the much-needed “reset” for the establishment?

The establishment needed a clean slate, a fresh face, a re-brand; the scandal-ridden Clintons and Bushes need to be replaced by a fresh “anti-establishment” Presidential brand to tide over an increasingly skeptical electorate.

All the while, the establishment works tirelessly to silence the alternative media responsible for this upsurge in nationalist populism and socially engineer the population back towards a “desirable” mindset in time for the next election, Trump may just be the interim President that they needed to maintain the status quo.

A different puppet with the same owners.

Trump embodies the “third way” of politics, outside of the waning political spectrum of the left-right paradigm. By creating a “third way” candidate the ruling elite control all the voting possibilities; within the classic paradigm and outside of it.

Bottom line – deep pocket money from both the Rothschild, Rockefeller, and other elite dynasties have been funding both Hillary and Trump.

Trump’s NWO connections. 

Political analysts have been saying that Trump’s tilt for the presidency has been “thirty years in the making.” This makes more sense than they realise. Thirty years ago members of the Rothschild family saved Trump from bankruptcy and took him under their wing. They recognized his potential as a “man of use” and “colourful front man” for a secretive organisation that prefers to keep itself in the shadows.

Consider how Trump built his wealth – and who supported him during his booms and busts.


“In 1987 Donald Trump purchased his first casino interests when he acquired 93% of the shares in Resorts International. Resorts International has a sordid history which began in the early 1950’s when it evolved from a CIA and Mossad front company which had been established for the purpose of money laundering the profits from drug trafficking, gambling, and other illegal activities. On October 30, 1978, The Spotlight newspaper reported that the principle investors of Resorts International were Meyer Lansky, Tibor Rosenbaum, William Mellon Hitchcock, David Rockefeller, and one Baron Edmond de Rothschild.”

“In 1987, upon the death of longtime CIA front man James Crosby, the nominal head of Resorts International, up-and-coming young New York real estate tycoon Donald Trump stepped into the picture and bought Crosby’s interest in the gambling empire.”

“Trump soon became a household name, with his colorful personality and his insistence upon naming a variety of luxury hotels, apartment houses and other commercial ventures after himself. But while the name “Trump” appeared in the headlines, the names of the real movers behind Resorts International – Rockefeller and Rothschild – remained hidden from public view.”

After quickly expanding the reach of Resorts International to Atlantic City in the final years of the 1980s, Donald Trump found himself in financial trouble as the real estate market in New York tanked. The three casinos in Atlantic City, like other Trump assets, were under threat from lenders. It was only with the assistance and assurance of Wilbur L. Ross Jr., senior managing director of Rothschild Inc. that Trump was allowed to keep the casinos and rebuild his threatened empire.

Tap News Wire.

Resorts International was formerly a CIA front company (Mary Carter Paint) that Trump took over. Piper sources an article from The Spotlight magazine, which researched the investors behind it:

“• Meyer Lansky, the acknowledged “chairman of the board” and chief financier of the underworld gambling syndicate, who maintained his own longstanding ties to not only Israel and the Mossad, but also the CIA and the American intelligence community (and who was another figure in the JFK assassination – ed.);

• David Rockefeller, head of the Rockefeller financial empire, who provided his family’s clout and CIA and global banking connections to assist in the operation;

• The Investors Overseas Service (IOS), then the world’s largest flight-capital conglomerate, controlling assets worth $2.5 billion.

• Tibor Rosenbaum, who was not only the Mossad’s Swiss-based chief financier behind covert arms deals but also the head of the Banque De Credit Internationale of Geneva, the Lansky syndicate’s chief European money laundry; and

• Baron Edmond de Rothschild of the European banking family and a personal business partner of Rosenbaum in Rosenbaum’s Mossad-related ventures ranging far and wide; and lastly,

• William Mellon Hitchcock, one of the heirs to the Mellon family fortune (one of America’s largest private family fortunes, which, for many years, has also maintained close ties with the CIA).

In 1987, upon the death of longtime CIA front man James Crosby, the nominal head of Resorts International, up-and-coming young New York real estate tycoon Donald Trump stepped into the picture and bought Crosby’s interest in the gambling empire.”

This was deep state’s plan all along. To have both candidates operating under their interests whilst systematically pitting the entire nation against each other, creating the chaos they need to push their New World Order agenda closer to completion.

Trump is the latest new flavor in politics, but still a bought-out flavor and brand of politics nonetheless.

The patriarchs of the elite families that rule the US and by extension most of the world.


 

The classic “problem-solution” election campaign brand needed a stronger hue of anti-establishment with a dash of charisma, Trump offered that.

With many Presidents, the establishment used a reformist brand that is the “solution” to the blatant failures of the outgoing administration to get their pre-selected candidate in office, this was the case with Barack Obama’s campaign.

Obama was the perceived antithesis to Bush when so many Americans were taken in by the Manchurian Candidate preying on the “hope for change”.

The people now know this “problem-solution” brand of marketing and campaigning candidates is worn-out. By using a maverick like Trump the establishment was able to alter the brand of candidate to accommodate the Overton window (the contemporary public sentiment or zeitgeist), once again getting their candidate into office.

Any true anti-establishment politician would have been completely ignored by the media, but not Trump.

I seriously doubt the establishment would have been as naive to give Trump the huge media airtime (positive or negative) that he got if they didn’t want him to gain significant traction and look as anti-establishment as possible to the voter.

The media made the Trump brand an exceptional brand of reactionary politics.

To add fuel to the fire, Trump knows exactly how to drive forward a brand of charismatic politics. People were fed up, they didn’t and don’t want more traditional politics, they wanted a feel-good beat-down of the establishment, and Trump knew this.

He is a businessman, a talented schmoozer, the perfect front-man to assuage the negative feelings surrounding the current dire situation in the United States.

His brand is to “Make America Great Again”, and most people, who are casually politically active, buy into the assertion that Trump is the “fix-all” solution, and maybe he could have made some ground — but his actions in office so far suggest that won’t happen in any meaningful or permanent way. His uncommitted war on Globalism is not one set in stone, but one designed to get the vote, and then quietly pass away from materialization.

Like every other puppet politician, Trump has abandoned his big campaign promises.

Trump with Prince Mohammed bin-Salman on his state visit to Saudi Arabia; longtime allies of the Globalist international elite, abjectly corrupt and warmongering sponsors of state-sponsored terrorism, extremism and imperialism.

This is a very different Trump from the Trump who once called Saudi Arabia the “biggest funder of terrorism”.

“It’s the world’s biggest funder of terrorism. Saudi Arabia funnels our petrodollars, our very own money, to fund the terrorists that seek to destroy our people while the Saudis rely on us to protect them.”

Thus far into his tenure, Trump’s actions have mostly condoned Globalism, even while his words have opposed it.


Two-faced Trump?

“Hey, I’m a nationalist and a globalist,” Trump told the Wall Street Journal. “I’m both.” It seems to me that Trump is masquerading as an anti-Globalist to a limited, superficial extent — with his substantive actions for the most part being overwhelmingly Globalist, it’s the classic bait and switch.

Trump buddying-up with the Clintons. Part time anti-establishment brand of politician, part time globalist associate?

The Clintons have close ties to the elite families that rule by-proxy, in this image they stand with members of the Rothschild banking family.

Actions speak louder than words, Trump.

Edmond Benjamin James de Rothschild, the “Father of Israel” is on Israeli currency; Israel is the Globalist-owned nation Trump openly supports.

 


Here’s the balance between the Globalist and anti-Globalist stances of Donald Trump, who insists he is “both”, most of Trump’s anti-Globalist actions are temporary and are not permanent solutions whatsoever — his Globalist actions on the other hand are often permanent, significant, and impacting decisions:

Anti-Globalist Trump:

  • Regularly attacks the establishment media, virtue signals his disapproval of the establishment on his Twitter account, claims he will “drain the swamp”.
  • Opposes mass immigration and illegal immigration, recognizes that all cultures are not equal, “shitholes” quote. Promises a wall.
  • Nationalist stance, claims to put “America first” in trade.

Globalist Trump:

  • Zionist: Trump has advocated the globalist’s colonial state of Israel, he flattered his rich Zionist donors by announcing to break with the half-century policy of most western nations that considers the city of Jerusalem a United Nations protected zone and an international city occupied by Arabs, Christians and Jews — recognizing Jerusalem as the new Israeli capital. “We have to stay with Israel and stay with them big time”, “We love Israel. We will fight for Israel 100 percent, 1,000 percent. It will be there forever.”
  • Has said he is a Globalist (as well as a nationalist, whatever that means).
  • Trump has made a 180 degree reversal from many of his long-held views, and views pushed by Trump throughout his election campaign.
  • Advocate of Saudi Arabia. Signed arms deal with Saudis which supports further imperialism and war racketeering.
  • Trump has not challenged but instead preserves the status of what Jeffrey Sachs has called the Wall Street-Washington complex, which has steered the financial system toward control by a few politically powerful Wall Street firms, notably Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, and a handful of other financial firms.
  • Numerous Globalist programs are still in progress from the pre-Trump era, there is no indication Trump is trying to stop or roll-back these programs.
  • Appointing a former Goldman and Soros employee to serve as Treasury secretary, cabinet and advisers gradually becoming more establishment.
  • Carrying out Globalist foreign policy: sanctioning Russia and China, preying on North Korea, threatening Iran and Syria among other Globalist stances. Luke Rudkowski (from We Are Change) recently exposed how Trump is turning to the CFR for military and foreign policy advice.
  • Trump has promoted anti-Iranian, anti-Syrian, anti-Russian, and anti-Chinese policy-making, i.e. advocating a trade war against China.
  • Trump has not “drained the swamp”, or addressed the Federal Reserve, the CIA, among other corrupt institutions.

What Trump should be doing as President (but isn’t).

If Trump really does mean business and attempts to make good on his campaign promise to “drain the swamp,” finishing the job that JFK started by abolishing the CIA, Trump most definitely has his work cut out for him.

Once he completes that task, he must move on to destroying destructive, enslaving monsters like the Federal ReserveHomeland Security, and the DEA, drastically reducing the self-serving cancerous bureaucracy and cronyism of ever-sprawling big government. In addition to gutting the fed, President Trump’s priorities must also include eliminating the parasitic glut of thousands of private contractors, bilking billions more from taxpayers.

Trump must also normalize relations with Russia (as well with China and Iran) and denounce Israel, and in partnership as mentioned in his inaugural, eradicate the cabal’s proxy ally the terrorists “off the face of the earth.” Trump needs to revoke all the unconstitutional Obama executive orders as well as dismantle and repeal a number of Obama passed laws, including reinstating the Smith-Mundt Act to once again hold all the fake MSM accountable for propagating unlawful lies and false propaganda.

Perhaps more important than anything else, President Trump needs to restore the US Constitution as America’s rule of law and our government back to a democratic republic. Trump’s website promises he will honor and uphold the Constitution as taking his oath of office demands.

That means he needs to immediately begin rolling back the totalitarian police state tyranny and invasive violation of US constitutional freedoms already demolished under the Bush-Obama regime.

Finally, Trump built his entire campaign on the promise to jump start the lifeless national economy by creating massive employment opportunity for millions of under- and unemployed Americans, vowing to create 25 million jobs within the decade. He also says that he’ll entice many companies back to the US as well as resurrect our lost manufacturing base and shrinking middle class. This is something he will likely actually try to achieve — but ultimately it means nothing in the context of “draining the swamp” and the Zionist-globalist problem.