The use of chemical weapons on civilians (non combatants) is a particularly heinous crime as would be the use of chemicals on any combatants. And anyone that would use those kinds of weapons should be tried for war crimes if possible. However, the issue always is who authorized the used of those weapons? I the most recent attach it is assumed that Assad in Syria directed this use but on face it doesn’t make sense that he would have directed this use for what was the upside and what was the down side? killing women and children doesn’t reduce the combat ability of your enemy who is also losing on the battle field. So there doesn’t appear to be any upside! There is however a major downside to the use of chemicals especially on women and children; so why would he direct something with no upside and a major downside?
Maybe we should look elsewhere and not at Assad or Russia but instead at those that want Assad and Syria destroyed. Who would that be well the most likely would be an ISIS related group for they have a significant upside if they can get Assad blamed and no downside if they can do so. This is especially true since they are being defeated on the battle field. So I would be very careful about who I blamed for this atrocity.
For example during World War I during the period prior to the US involvement President Wilson wasn’t sure which side was the aggressor and which was the victim but he was leaning toward supporting Briton and France. So the US was supplying arms to them and placing them on civilian ships. The Germans found out and warned American not to do that and they also placed an ad in the NYT not to take passage on the Lusitania which was making a trip to Europe. The warning wasn’t headed and the Germans sank the ship and that act propelled us into WW I against the Germans. Worse the aftermath was the cause of World war II then worst war ever fought on the planet.
Then more recently we had the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 which may or may not have been real but President Johnson assumed it was and that directly lead us into the Vietnam war which destroyed his presidency and cost 58,220 Americans their lives and another 153,303 wounded (I was one of them). That war changed America and not for the better.
The point to this discussion is not that action shouldn’t be taken but it should be based on facts not guess work.
I don’t believe it is as pervasive as certain people may think, but there is a notion among some in the liberty movement that with Donald Trump in the White House the need for crisis preparedness has subsided. Because preppers and survivalists tend to lean towards the conservative side of things, the urgency for prepping almost always explodes when the Democratic party is “in power.” As they say, for example, Barack Obama was perhaps the greatest gun salesman in history with the gun industry growing over 158% during his two terms.
Now with Republican dominance in Congress, Senate and White House, there is a possible temptation for conservatives to become complacent and comfortable once again. In 2017 so far, ATF background checks have dropped by at least half a million since this time last year, and gun company stocks are turning negative. There are also rumors floating around that survival food companies are suffering from a severe crunch in sales. Though I have not yet found this to be substantiated, I can verify that many preppers I deal with on a daily basis seem to have relaxed their guard.
I would point out that this is not necessarily all due to Trump. The gun market is likely saturated after eight years of Obama, and one must also consider that as the U.S. economy continues to decline, surplus cash used for prep gear is going to dry up. That said, I do think it is important to examine any assumptions liberty activists might have in terms of a Trump driven “recovery.”
When I began publishing my post-election analysis on what I felt was a predictable Trump win, I did find anger among some activists who decided I was being “too pessimistic,” and that I should join the movement in celebration. Being that I called a Trump presidency half a year in advance based on the premise that the globalists needed a conservative scapegoat for the next phase of the ongoing financial crisis, it was hardly a moment of celebration for me.
There is a common delusion among those that invest themselves in politics that all that is needed to reverse the course of any nation or situation is a “strong leader” with ample cheerleading from the populace. In reality, social and geopolitical disasters are usually far beyond the means of any one politician to change. Economic disasters are even more irreversible. I wish I could pretend to be optimistic, but I am rather well studied in the history of these kinds of events.
Conservatives are especially vulnerable to the idea of a “protector on a white horse” coming to their rescue; a God-fearing hero and statesman, a general and leader of men. But, such people do not exist. There are no supermen. There are no worldly saviors. There are only common men, with common failings, destined to face extraordinary obstacles. The great men of history are not born before hand — they are forged in the crucible of crisis. Great men are not great men until proven otherwise. To assume any political leader is a great man beforehand is foolish, to say the least.
This is why blind faith in a post-Trump renaissance is misplaced. It is something that has yet to be proven, and in the meantime, there are numerous and highly visible dangers on the horizon that demand continued vigilance and preparedness. I will examine one of these primary dangers now…
The Growing Threat Of Civil Unrest
As I noted in my post-election analysis, the political Left has been shell shocked by the rise of Trump and their emotional response would undoubtedly be to double down and become progressively more volatile and more violent. I predicted that this would be evident as winter broke and the cold weather subsided.
The first signs of this are surfacing as May Day is becoming a rally date for social justice mobs bent on disrupting any agenda the Trump administration might have for enforcing immigration laws. The largest of these protests is to be held in Los Angeles, but similar protests are planned nationwide as well.
From what we have seen from previous rallies, it would not be unfair to expect rioting in May. I say this because a tone shift in the left is taking place and extreme reactions are more frequent. The following video illustrates this clearly, I think…
Warning – Explicit
In case you missed it, this guy just pulled an AR-15 on someone simply because they had a MAGA flag on their truck. Not only that, but he FILMED HIMSELF doing it and and apparently posted it on social media. That is how brazen and insane these people are becoming.
Think of it this way — could you have even imagined something like this happening during the 2012 election? It is important not to become conditioned to such behavior as being “normal.”
To be sure, this sort of thing will not be happening in certain parts of the country. In my state of Montana, the assailant would have been shot two dozen times over by our highly armed population regardless of his politics just on the self defense principle. And frankly, I am fine with that. Citizens providing security for citizens is the American way.
What I do have a problem with, though, is the increasing potential for an extreme response from conservatives in the face of leftist lunacy. Meaning, I worry about martial law with conservative support, which in my view is more and more likely over the next two years.
Contrary to popular belief among tough-government champions, martial law often instigates more violence than it solves. The harsher the crackdown, the more vicious the push-back; the more vicious the push-back the more totalitarianism is rationalized by authorities. It’s a terrible cycle.
Preparedness in terms of self defense should be self-explanatory here. During widespread mob action the rule of law is usually the first casualty, even when martial law is instituted. You also never know when some nutcase might declare you a “Trump supporter” (whether you are one or not) as he reaches for a weapon.
It is fascinating to me the level of cognitive dissonance with some liberty activists who seem to think Trump’s first term will be anything other than pure chaos. George Soros, an elitist who often funds the very groups organizing mobs to protest Trump, said it plainly:
“I think Trump will fail.”
“What’s more Soros predicted that the market’s Trump high will soon turn into a hangover. He called Trump unpredictable and unprepared, and said that combination will end up bad for the market.”
Soros and his globalist colleagues do not need to field guesses; they ENGINEER the outcomes that they “predict.” Social unrest at this fragile time would result in the exact market instability Soros mentioned, among other problems.
Look, you may believe Trump is being threatened on all sides by the so-called “deep state,” or you may believe that he has willingly surrounded himself with global elitists because he is a Trojan horse. Either way, the diagnosis for the future is not rosy. It would be naive to think that the globalists would not do everything in their power to foment calamity in the near term. It would be equally naive to believe that such an agenda could be repelled through political means.
The answer, as always, is a prepared citizenry. This can act as a deterrent as much as a measure of comfort. The more prepared the public is for any eventuality, the less affected we will be by disaster. The less affected we are by disaster, the less fearful we will be when it strikes and the less likely we will be to make stupid decisions such as throwing our support behind martial law and the wholesale erasure of the constitution. The more prepared we are, the fewer options available to the establishment when attempting to lure us into poor collective decisions.
Prepping means freedom in the face of uncertainty, and times have never been more uncertain. To summarize: A Trump White House calls for more caution, not less.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has apparently decided she’s not willing to take the chance of becoming the latest politician to fall victim to the same “Russian hacking” and “fake news” campaigns which ‘undoubtedly’ caused the downfall of America’s liberal darling, Hillary Clinton (forget those pay-for-play scandals, federal record retention violations and willful non-compliance with Congressional subpeonas…total non-factors in the 2016 election).
And since they can’t really control the actions of those pesky ‘Russian hackers,” Germany’s cabinet has instead decided to pass legislation that would impose serious fines of up to 50 million Euros on any social networks that fail to swiftly remove content that could be deemed “hateful” or “fake news.” Per Yahoo News:
Germany’s Cabinet on Wednesday approved a new bill that punishes social networking sites if they fail to swiftly remove illegal content such as hate speech or defamatory fake news
Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Cabinet agreed on rules that would impose fines of up to 50 million euros (53.4 million dollars) on Facebook, Twitter and other social media platforms.
German Justice Minister Heiko Maas said that the companies offering such online platforms are responsible for removing hateful content. He said the new bill would not restrict the freedom of expression, but intervene only when criminal hatred or intentionally false news are posted.
Of course, all of this begs the question of exactly how German officials define “fake news” as the lines between what is pure ‘fact’ versus ‘opinion’ often grow very blurred in politics. Moreover, politicians themselves are often the biggest purveyors of “fake news”…so if someone quotes the erroneous comments of a German politician on FaceBook is the social network then liable? All questions that would have seemed silly just a year ago…
Nevertheless, German Justice Minister Heiko Maas is convinced that “verbal radicalization” of snowflakes over twitter and Facebook is often a precursor to “physical violence.”
Social networks need to ensure that obviously criminal content — as defined by German law — will be deleted within 24 hours and other illegal content after seven days.
“Just like on the streets, there is also no room for criminal incitement on social networks,” Maas said.
“The internet affects the culture of debate and the atmosphere in our society. Verbal radicalization is often a preliminary stage to physical violence,” he added.
But nevermind the actual ‘radicalization’ occurring in migrant communities throughout Europe at the moment…that is also just “fake news.”
As we noted last week, Assemblyman Ed Chau (D-Monterey Park) recently introduced a similar piece of legislation in California, the so-called “California Political Cyberfraud Abatement Act” or AB 1104 for short, that would have effectively made it a crime to be wrong on the Internet. The text of the bill implicated anyone who writes, publishes or even shares news stories that could be false, if those news stories are later found to have had an impact on an election. From the bill:
This bill would modify the definition of the terms “political cyberfraud” and “political Web site” to include Internet Web sites that urge or appear to urge the support or opposition of candidates for public office. The bill would also make it unlawful for a person to knowingly and willingly make, publish or circulate on a Web site, or cause to be made, published, or circulated in any writing posted on a Web site, a false or deceptive statement designed to influence the vote on any issue submitted to voters at an election or on any candidate for election to public office.
And even though author Ed Chau described AB 1104 as “an important step forward in the fight against ‘fake news’ and deceptive campaign tactics”, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a digital-rights advocacy group, said the bill was “so obviously unconstitutional, we had to double check that it was real.”
Memo to California Assemblymember Ed Chau: you can’t fight fake news with a bad law.
On Tuesday, the California Assembly’s Committee on Privacy and Consumer Affairs, which Chau chairs, will consider A.B. 1104—a censorship bill so obviously unconstitutional, we had to double check that it was real.
This bill will fuel a chaotic free-for-all of mudslinging with candidates and others being accused of crimes at the slightest hint of hyperbole, exaggeration, poetic license, or common error. While those accusations may not ultimately hold up, politically motivated prosecutions—or the threat of such—may harm democracy more than if the issue had just been left alone. Furthermore, A.B. 1104 makes no exception for satire and parody, leaving The Onion and Saturday Night Live open to accusations of illegal content. Nor does it exempt news organizations who quote deceptive statements made by politicians in their online reporting—even if their reporting is meant to debunk those claims. And what of everyday citizens who are duped by misleading materials: if 1,000 Californians retweet an incorrect statement by a presidential candidate, have they all broken the law?
At a time when political leaders are promoting “alternative facts” and branding unflattering reporting as “fake news,” we don’t think it’s a good idea to give the government more power to punish speech.
But, unlike in Germany, California actually realized how idiotic their bill was before passing it into law…
One think is clear it makes no sense for Assad to do this as he and the Russians are now wining the war. This attack was from the deep sate or ISIS or maybe they are the same.
France holds its first round of voting on the 23rd of April, 2017. Unless one candidate wins more than 50% of the vote, the two leading contenders will go to a second round on May 7th. The French Debate took place and of course Emmanuel Macron the press is cheering as the victor. Of course, we have seen how the press tries to manipulate the public in Britain against BREXIT and in the USA against Trump. The press agenda in France is no less corrupt.
Macron attacked Ms Le Pen’s nationalist proposals declaring “Nationalism is war. I know it. I come from a region that is full of graveyards,”Reported Reuters. Macron is showing how nasty he really is as a person. He then attacked Le Pen’ dead father “You are saying the same lies that we’ve heard from your father for 40 years.”
Francois Fillon, the scandal plagued conservative who paid his wife to be an assistant more than the President of the United States is paid, said that France needed Europe when up against the US and China. Fillon would never change anything and doom France in the process the same as Macron. Indeed, Fillon tried to also attack Le Pen and she responded to Mr Fillon: “You shouldn’t pretend to be something new when you are speaking like fossils that are at least 50 years old.”
Francois Asselineau, who is the nationalist right-wing outsider, chimed in and said that he was “the only true candidate of Frexit”, and promised to trigger Article 50 as has Britain to begin the divorce from the EU immediately if he were to win power.
While the press is now touting Macron as the leader, what is very clear is that the failure to elect Le Pen will really be devastating for the EU. Why? Because a Le Pen victory would be far more of a soft-landing for the EU and actually raise hope that Brussels would be forced back to just a trade union rather than a political union demanding the surrender of individual nation sovereignty. That will actually raise the risk far greater for a European war. Brussels will wipe its brow and declare “populism” is dead and press full stream ahead to federalized Europe.
But the economics of the EU are crumbling and this indicates that no matter how hard Brussels tries to keep this mess together, it will crumble and fall apart. A Le Pen victory would be the soft-landing and political reform would then be possible in Europe. A Le Pen defeat, will only invite civil unrest that can turn to war within Europe because Brussels will not reform and it will only get worse.
You have already the Arrogance of Brussels telling Poland and Hungary they MUST accept the refugees or get out of the EU. That is a totalitarian position and the sovereignty of individual states will no longer matter. The argument are akin to surrendering the United States to be ruled by the United Nations.
We’ve covered the hidden story of manipulation within Syria quite extensively. And in the example today of Chemical Weapons being used against the Syrian People, all indications do not point toward Bashir Assad doing it.
The entire event looks like an horrific operation by anti-Assad forces trying to create assistance for their regime change efforts by killing their own people. Yes, they are that desperate; and yes, there are vested interests in the U.S., including the CIA, who would support such an objective.
Remember, as a direct outcome of the Obama/Kerry U.S. policy we have been arming the anti-Assad Syrian elements for several years. This is not hidden.
With President Obama out of office; with President Trump not supportive of foreign policy based on regime change; and with Trump’s Secretary of State Tillerson saying just a few days ago that “Syrians will determine the future of Syria” the anti-Assad Syrians are now desperate.
There is ZERO motive for President Bashir Assad to weaponize chemical weapons against his people. Assad’s forces are winning the war, Syria is more stable now than ever in the past six years, Assad has nothing to fear from a Trump administration, and using chemical weapons just doesn’t serve his interests.
However, in their desperation, there is ample motive for the anti-Assad elements to give the appearance of ‘war-crimes’ in an effort to try and gain some desperate positioning in their remaining moments. Additionally, there is more than ample evidence the perpetual war machine, the Deep State and their alignment with global ideologues, would trigger such an optic.
It is not accidental this happens right after Secretary Tillerson’s statement.
So lets go back and review what we already know as fact – Beyond the U.S. policy change, we must remember that Secretary John Kerry essentially told the anti-Assad forces they would need to pull off this type of a ruse.
♦ In August of 2014 President Obama (wearing a tan business suit) gave a press conference where he stated he “did not have a strategy” against ISIS. –Video Link–
♦ Two months later, in October of 2014, Josh Earnest gave a press conference where he stated: “Our ISIS strategy is dependent on something that does not yet exist” –Video Link–
However, on September 30th 2016 the New York Times quietly released a leaked audio recording of Secretary John Kerry meeting with multiple factions associated within Syria.
When you listen to the audio recording (embed below) it becomes immediately obvious what was going on when both of those 2014 statements were made by the White House. In addition, you discover why this jaw-dropping 2016 leak/story was buried by the U.S. media and how it connects to over 5 years of perplexing U.S. mid-east policy.
This evidence within this single story would/should forever remove any credibility toward the U.S. foreign policy under President Obama. It also destroys the credibility of a large number of well known republicans. What the recording reveals is substantive:
♦ First, only regime change, the removal of Bashir Assad, in Syria was the goal for President Obama. This is admitted and outlined by Secretary John Kerry.
♦ Secondly, in order to accomplish this primary goal, the White House was willing to watch the rise of ISIS by placing their bet that ISIS’s success would force Syrian President Bashir Assad to acquiesce toward Obama’s terms and step down.
♦ Thirdly, in order to facilitate the two objectives, Obama and Kerry intentionally gave arms to ISIS and even, arguably, attacked a Syrian government military convoy to stop a strategic attack upon the Islamic extremists killing 80 Syrian soldiers.
Pause for a moment and consider those three points carefully before continuing. Because this audio (below), along with accompanying research now surfacing, not only exposes these three points as truth – but also provides the specific evidence toward them.
The problem in the Obama/Kerry’s secret strategy became clear when ISIS grew in sufficient strength to give the White House optimism for the scheme – however, instead of capitulation Assad then turned to Russia for help.
When Russia came to aid Bashir Assad the Syrian Government began being able to defeat ISIS and the Islamic Extremist elements within Syria. For the hidden plan of Obama/Kerry (and also McCain, Graham, et al), Russia defeating ISIS, al-Qaeda and al-Nusra, upended their objective.
The revelations within this leaked audio are simply astounding. The 40-minute discussion took place on the sidelines of a United Nations General Assembly in New York. The meeting took place at the Dutch Mission to the United Nations on Sept. 22nd 2016:
[…] Kerry’s off-record conversation was apparently with two dozen ‘Syrian civilians’, all from US backed opposition-linked NGO’s in education and medical groups supposedly working in ‘rebel-held’ (aka terrorist-held) areas in Syria.
This opposition conclave also included ‘rescue workers’ which can only be ambassadors from the White Helmets, a pseudo NGO which serves as Washington and London’s primary PR front in pursuit of a “No Fly Zone’ in Syria, and it’s being bankrolled by the US, UK, EU and other coalition states to the tune of well over $100 million (so far). (link)
Listen to the audio.
Key Kerry moments at 02:00, and again at approximately 18:30 forward.
The discussion from 18:30 through to 29:00 are exceptionally revealing and should be listened to by anyone who has wondered what was going on in Syria. Kerry even makes mention of the “Responsibility to Protect, or R2P” principle:
@18:30 Secretary John Kerry:
[…] Well, the problem is the Russians do not care about law, and we do. And, we don’t have a basis -our lawyers tell us- unless we have a U.N. Security Council resolution, which the Russians can veto and Chinese, OR unless we are under attack from the folks there, or unless we are invited in. Russia was invited in by the legitimate regime, well, it’s illegitimate in our mind, by the regime. And so, they were invited in and we’re not invited in.
We’re flying in airspace there, where they can turn on the air defense and we have a very different scene. The only reason they’re letting us fly is because we’re going after ISIS. If we were going after Assad, those air defenses, we’d have to take out all those air defenses, uh, and we don’t have a legal justification, frankly, for doing that unless we stretch it way beyond the law on a humanitarian basis, which some people argue we should – by the way.
Uh, but so far American legal theory has not gone into these so called “right to protect”, uh, and we don’t even have what we had in Kosovo where we had an, you know, an existing resolution and so forth. Uh, even though we went alone.
And so it’s complicated, it’s not easy. And we’ve been fighting. How many wars have we been fighting? We’ve been fighting in Afghanistan, we’ve been fighting in Iraq, we’ve fighting -you know- in the region for fourteen years. And a lot of Americans don’t believe that we should be fighting and sending young Americans over to die in another country. That’s the problem.
The congress won’t vote to do it. And you can be mad at us, but what we’re trying to do is help Syrians fight for their own country; and we’ve been spending a lot of money, a lot of effort to try and help do this. So, there’s an opposition there; the opposition is doing very well. Russia came in, and that’s a problem I know, because, uh, y’ know, uh, we don’t behave like Russians, it’s just a different standard.
So we are trying to see if we can test whether Russia, you see, is serious about a political solution. And if they are not serious, then we will help the opposition more. But I don’t think that’s particularly good for Syrians in the end because it will mean more fighting.
Secretary Kerry is then questioned by an obvious sympathizer to ISIS (calls pro-assad Sunni faction “Sunni Jews”) about why the U.S. fights the extremist Sunni (ISIS), but not the extremist Shia (Hezbollah). Kerry’s response:
Well, they’re [Hezbollah] a terrorist organization, we’ve designated them a terrorist organization. The reason for [airstrikes against the Sunni Extremists] is because they have basically declared war on us; and are plotting against us, and Hezbollah is not plotting against us; Hezbollah is exclusively focused on Israel, they’re not attacking now, and on Syria where they are attacking in support of the, uh, in support of Assad.
So it a, uh, it’s…
[Interrupted]
Question: But how to make the majority of the Syrian people accept this approach, that because Hezbollah or the Iraqi or Iranian groups are not attacking the U.S. now when they are attacking against the terrorism in Syria?
Kerry: Well, they, they are targeted by the opposition who we are arming and training.
The interview continues with anti-Assad Syrians expressing their frustration that multiple social media and social justice type efforts (the Pallywood type scripted activity targeting the United Nations to take action) have yielded no positive results in the international community stepping in to take down Bashir Assad directly.
Against the backdrop of this recording we can reconcile so many historic issues. We already know of a Second Presidential Finding Memo authorizing additional CIA covert action in 2012, this time in Syria. However, unlike the 2011 Libyan operation we do not know the operational name of the second action in 2012 Syria.
2012:WASHINGTON, Aug 1 (Reuters) – President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing U.S. support for rebels seeking to depose Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his government, U.S. sources familiar with the matter said.
Obama’s order, approved earlier this year and known as an intelligence “finding,” broadly permits the CIA and other U.S. agencies to provide support that could help the rebels oust Assad. (link)
Further consider how this Kerry audio tape, and the now transparent Obama policy toward Syria, absolutely confirms our previous research as it is contained with the Benghazi Brief surrounding Syria:
(JULY 2012) As they stood outside the commandeered government building in the town of Mohassen, it was hard to distinguish Abu Khuder’s men from any other brigade in the Syrian civil war, in their combat fatigues, T-shirts and beards.
But these were not average members of the Free Syrian Army. Abu Khuder and his men fight for al-Qaida. They call themselves the ghuraba’a, or “strangers”, after a famous jihadi poem celebrating Osama bin Laden’s time with his followers in the Afghan mountains, and they are one of a number of jihadi organisations establishing a foothold in the east of the country now that the conflict in Syria has stretched well into its second bloody year.
They try to hide their presence. “Some people are worried about carrying the [black] flags,” said Abu Khuder. “They fear America will come and fight us. So we fight in secret. Why give Bashar and the west a pretext?” But their existence is common knowledge in Mohassen. Even passers-by joke with the men about car bombs and IEDs.
According to Abu Khuder, his men are working closely with the military council that commands the Free Syrian Army brigades in the region. “We meet almost every day,” he said. “We have clear instructions from our [al-Qaida] leadership that if the FSA need our help we should give it. We help them with IEDs and car bombs. Our main talent is in the bombing operations.” Abu Khuder’s men had a lot of experience in bomb-making from Iraq and elsewhere, he added.
[…] Abu Khuder split with the FSA and pledged allegiance to al-Qaida’s organisation in Syria, the Jabhat al Nusra or Solidarity Front. He let his beard grow and adopted the religious rhetoric of a jihadi, becoming a commander of one their battalions.
“The Free Syrian Army has no rules and no military or religious order. Everything happens chaotically,” he said. “Al-Qaida has a law that no one, not even the emir, can break.
“The FSA lacks the ability to plan and lacks military experience. That is what [al-Qaida] can bring. They have an organisation that all countries have acknowledged.
“In the beginning there were very few. Now, mashallah, there are immigrants joining us and bringing their experience,” he told the gathered people. “Men from Yemen, Saudi, Iraq and Jordan. Yemenis are the best in their religion and discipline and the Iraqis are the worst in everything – even in religion.”
At this, one man in the room – an activist in his mid-30s who did not want to be named – said: “So what are you trying to do, Abu Khuder? Are you going to start cutting off hands and make us like Saudi? Is this why we are fighting a revolution?”
“[Al-Qaida’s] goal is establishing an Islamic state and not a Syrian state,” he replied. “Those who fear the organisation fear the implementation of Allah’s jurisdiction. If you don’t commit sins there is nothing to fear.” (link – more)
al-Qaeda’s goal was to establish the Islamic State, that’s the origin of ISIS. Against the backdrop of ISIS formation in Syria, and understanding the Obama objectives were regime change first and foremost, we can now reconcile all of Obama’s foreign policy surrounding Syria.
President Obama, Secretary Clinton and later Secretary Kerry, together with John McCain, and the CIA tentacled team within the Republican party, were willing to support ISIS (under all factional names) in order to overthrow Bashir Assad…
Representative Adam Kinzinger, Senator John McCain, candidate Evan McMullin
What you are about to read is specifically how the Muslim Brotherhood, and ISIS, connect to the Republicans outlined above – and how their individual behaviors within the 2016 election begin to make sense. And how their continuing behavior in 2017 reconciles against the backdrop of their interventionist, deep state, foreign policy objectives.
Perhaps, like us, you will have an ah-ha moment.
The “Never Trump” coalition has always consisted of a few noisy and indecent politicians within Washington DC. Senator John McCain, Senator Ben Sasse, Senator Jeff Flake and House Representative Adam Kinzinger the most noteworthy and vitriolic.
However, whenever CNN, or for that matter any media, want a republican voice to argue against Donald Trump, in the “current days’ outrage du jour”, they call upon Kinzinger first and foremost.
Kinzinger loves the spotlight as much as he enjoys promoting himself on social media. In essence, he was a proud #NeverTrumper and continues to be a useful media mouthpiece when they need an anti-Trump opinion embedded using a Republican.
We’ll come back to Kinzinger and McMullin in a moment. But first we must place the second set of puzzle pieces on the table.
When we did all the exhaustive research into the Benghazi Brief three years ago, one of the pictures that continued to draw our interest was this one:
The picture above was taken during a time when Senator John McCain visited Syria, and the Western media were proclaiming there were “moderates” in the opposition to Bashir Assad. Senator McCain proclaimed this 2012 visit to be meeting with the “Free Syrian Army”. [Coincidentally, this was on the same trip where he met Ambassador Chris Stevens at the Benghazi courthouse in Libya for the last time].
However, at the same time McCain was trying to convince the world of moderate Syrian resistance, multiple voices within non-traditional journalism, and a large number of people doing independent research, reached the conclusion that al-qaeda and al-Nusra extremists had completely infiltrated the Syrian resistance groups, and a new militant Islamic network was forming.
“2012 NO ISLAM WITHOUT JIHAD” – members of the Free Syrian Army. Abu Khuder and his men fight for al-Qaida. They call themselves the ghuraba’a, or “strangers”, after a famous jihadi poem celebrating Osama bin Laden’s time with his followers in the Afghan mountains, and they are one of a number of jihadi organisations establishing a foothold in the east of the country now that the conflict in Syria has stretched well into its second bloody year.
They try to hide their presence. “Some people are worried about carrying the [black] flags,” said Abu Khuder. “They fear America will come and fight us. So we fight in secret. Why give Bashar and the west a pretext?” But their existence is common knowledge in Mohassen. Even passers-by joke with the men about car bombs and IEDs.
That network ultimately evidenced and defined itself as the Islamic State, or ISIS.
In 2013 and 2014, even though ISIS initially did not have a name, as the hardline extremists in Syria became more openly visible, eventually the western media accepted Raqqa and Aleppo had become the de-facto center of Syrian ISIS operations. In August of 2014 President Obama finally admitted the problem and stated his administration was caught off guard and did not have a strategy to combat them.
Back To The Photograph – The importance of the McCain photograph became increasingly interesting because ISIS as an extremist force became increasingly visible. As a direct consequence we were able to identify the ideology of the people in the picture:
There has been some skepticism as to #2 being al-Baghdadi himself, and Senator John McCain has strongly refuted this claim. However, there is more evidence to prove it is Baghdadi than to refute it’s not Baghdadi. Person #2 looks just like him:
In addition, one of the important bits of evidence to prove #2 is indeed Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, is actually found in #1 Abu Mosa (ISIS Press Officer).
Abu Mosa was killed in August 2014. In 2012, during organization, Baghdadi would have a man with this level of importance to the Islamic State around him at the time this picture was taken.
However, lets look at #5 – “Mouaz Moustafa”, because he is the current person that should be of interest to everyone in the 2016 presidential discussion. Moustafa is the connective tissue per se’. In the photograph, he’s also Senator McCain’s intermediary:
Fast forward two intense years later and look where #5, Mouaz Moustafa shows up in 2014. And more specifically the two faces that show up with him:
Well lookie there. During a trip to Turkey in 2014 to discuss arming Syrian rebel groups, under the auspices of fighting ISIS, you see Representative Adam Kinzinger appear. Oh yeah, and who’s that other fellow circled in the meeting? ….why that’s our anti-Trump candidate Evan McMullin.
Huh, fancy that.
Spotting Evan McMullin conspicuously standing there in the picture made us want to go back to the CNN file footage from the time and see if he was actually visible in the report they filed from Turkey. Yup, he’s there alright.
Watch and spot him in the background during quite a bit of the footage:
Long before anyone heard about Evan McMullin running for President, there he is paling around with #NeverTrump Adam Kinzinger in Turkey chatting with the Muslim Brotherhood affiliates (guise SETF) who are essentially the political arm of ISIS under a differing name.
The declared purpose of the meeting was to discuss who and how to arm the entities within Syria. However, just like in 2012/2013 these same Brotherhood voices in 2014 are simply trying to present themselves as one thing, only to gain the goal of another.
That reality is ultimately the story behind the arms deals within The Benghazi Brief. That’s the lesson that should have been learned if the truth contained within the brief were ever to have larger public interest.
Additionally, all that said – it’s connections like these that make other things, like the opposition to Donald Trump, make much more sense.
Just step back and look at the landscape from the elevated position. Who are the Washington DC politicians most invested in, and public about, the removal of Bashir Assad?
There’s some seriously sketchy activity here, and it is not recent. Activity that carries solid and visible connective tissue to a much larger objective. There’s just no doubt Senator McCain is leading a foreign policy that continues to be his own construct.
Every nation McCain has involved himself within, has resulted in chaos or civil war as a direct result of his engagement. Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen and now Ukraine and the Baltic states.
Who is paying these characters.
My God, dozens -perhaps hundreds- of Syrians were killed toward the objective of getting rid of Bashir Assad. Who are these Deep State creeps?
COMMENT: I believe you are wrong about the meaning of natural born citizen in you blog Does it Matter If You Are Born Outside USA to be President? You are a natural born citizen only if BOTH parents are citizens.
REPLY: The site you refer to notes the definition which comes from Emer de Vattel (1714 – 1767) who was a Swiss philosopher, diplomat. Those who were trying to make arguments against Obama were relying upon Vattel because it suited their desired result. Vattel’s definition was in his 1758 “the Law of Nations”:
Book I, Chapter 19, section 212, is “Of the citizens and naturals”
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
This is all fine and good. However, there is a conflict of law between the English “Common Law” and the law of Continental Europe. This is taught in the very first semester of law. Emer de Vattel was NOT any real influence in establishing the US Constitution. That distinction goes to William Blackstone (1723-1780). Blackstone wrote the Commentaries On The Laws OfEngland. This is what the framers of the Constitution relied upon for here is the interpretation that the Supreme Court will turn to – Blackstone not Vattel.
When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king’s dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty’s English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once. Yet the children of the king’s ambassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England’s allegiance, represented by his father, the ambassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.
The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien.
Those who relied upon Vattel to support their argument that Obama was not a natural born citizen simply were looking for someone to agree with them. Then McCain would not qualify either or anyone born to an ambassador while posted overseas or a child of someone in the military stationed overseas. Even in the tax code, Canadians with one single American parent born in Canada were all being sent notices from the IRS that they owed taxes in Washington because they were citizens. I had a friend in Switzerland who married an American girl and they had a son. When he was 13, they took him to the bank to open his first account. The bank refused to allow the child to open an account because he was an American and they would have to report under FATCA to the USA everything he did.
The definition is clearly different from that of Continental Europe. You could have applied for an EU passport even as an American if your grandfather was born in Europe. If your grandmother was born there instead of your grandfather, you were not eligible. The right to citizenship only followed the male line – not the mother.
There is a huge conflict of laws between USA/UK and that of European which is based upon Canon Law from the Catholic Church. Under the Common Law (USA/UK), the only privilege is that a wife cannot testify against her husband. They can force your children to testify against you. Under Continental Law, nobody in your family can testify against you even a brother or sister-in-law – NOBODY. There are those who argueit is time to change that as well
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
!["NO ISLAM WITHOUT JIHAD" - members of the Free Syrian Army. Abu Khuder and his men fight for al-Qaida. They call themselves the ghuraba'a, or "strangers", after a famous jihadi poem celebrating Osama bin Laden's time with his followers in the Afghan mountains, and they are one of a number of jihadi organisations establishing a foothold in the east of the country now that the conflict in Syria has stretched well into its second bloody year. They try to hide their presence. "Some people are worried about carrying the [black] flags," said Abu Khuder. "They fear America will come and fight us. So we fight in secret. Why give Bashar and the west a pretext?" But their existence is common knowledge in Mohassen. Even passers-by joke with the men about car bombs and IEDs.](https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/no-islam-without-jihad.jpg)
Centinel2012 