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.
As part of its daily wrap of the Susan Rice newsflow, which focused on her first media appearance since she was “outed” as the persona responsible for “unmasking” members of team Trump, the WSJ provides two new pieces of incremental information: i) in addition to Michael Flynn, at least one more member of the Trump transition team was “unmasked” in intelligence reports due to multiple foreign conversations that weren’t related to Russia; and ii) Rice wasn’t the administration official who instigated Mr. Flynn’s unmasking, confirming there is at least one more high-level official giving “unmasking” orders.
But first, a brief detour.
“Unmasking” is a term used when the identity of a U.S. citizen or lawful resident is revealed in classified intelligence reports. Normally, when government officials receive intelligence reports, the names of American citizens are redacted to protect their privacy. But officials can request that names, listed as “U.S. Person 1,” for example, be unmasked internally in order to give context about the potential value of the intelligence. Unmasking is justified for national security reasons but is governed by strict rules across the U.S. intelligence apparatus that make it illegal to pursue for political reasons or to leak classified information generated by the process.
It is the accusation that Rice unmasked members for purely political reasons – ostensibly in coordination with president Obama – that has gotten Republican smelling blood in the water. Republicans have for weeks signaled that they saw unmasking as the key to investigating the source of media leaks damaging to the Trump administration — such as the exposure of former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn, who was forced to resign in February after media reports revealed that he misled Vice President Pence about the contents of his discussions with the Russian ambassador.
To that end, earlier this month, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) pressed FBI Director James Comey in a public Intelligence Committee hearing: “It would be nice to know the universe of people who have the power to unmask a U.S. citizen’s name… because that might provide something of a roadmap to investigate who might’ve actually disseminated a masked U.S. citizen’s name.”
He went on to press Comey on whether specific Obama officials, including Rice, would have had the authority to request that a name be unmasked. “Yes, in general, and any other national security adviser would, I think, as a matter of their ordinary course of their business,” Comey answered.
Shortly thereafter, The Hill notes Nunes made his shocking announcement that he — and he alone — had viewed documents that showed inappropriate unmasking by Obama-era officials.
Today, Susan Rice came out to defend herself and told MSNBC that “the allegation is that somehow, Obama administration officials utilized intelligence for political purposes,” Rice told Mitchell. “That’s absolutely false.”
She added that “The notion, which some people are trying to suggest, that by asking for the identity of the American person is the same is leaking it — that’s completely false. There is no equivalence between so-called unmasking and leaking.”
And yet, that is precisely what many republicans are suggesting because otherwise there is no explanation for how the WaPo and NYT received, on a virtual silver platter, stories about Mike Flynn’s communications with intel-level detail.
Perhaps Rice is simply lying as she lied on March 22 when in a PBS interview she said “I know nothing” about unmasking Trump officials. Less than two weeks later, we learn that she did.
But perhaps there is more to the story than what we know so far.
* * *
And this is where the WSJ comes in, with the new info that according to a Republican official familiar with deliberations by GOP lawmakers on the House Intelligence Committee said that the names of two U.S. citizens who were part of Mr. Trump’s transition team have been unmasked in intelligence reports. One is Mr. Flynn and the other hasn’t been identified. The report involving Mr. Flynn documented phone conversations he had in late December with the Russian ambassador to the U.S.
The WSJ then reports that Rice had requested the unmasking of at least one transition official — not Mr. Flynn — who was part of multiple foreign conversations that weren’t related to Russia.
And the punchline: “The Republican official and others said Ms. Rice wasn’t the administration official who instigated Mr. Flynn’s unmasking.”
In other words, the story that Susan Rice is the unmasker is incomplete as there is at least one more person exposing the identities of people in Trump’s circle, and that the NSA and other intel agencies have been surveiling, accidentally or otherwise, at least one, so far unnamed individual, from Trump’s circle. It may well be someone that the WaPo and NYT have already published about, or it may be someone who has yet to hit the newswire, delivering the latest twist of the ongoing intelligence-fed news cycle.
For now the answer is unknown, although when Rice testifies under oath before the House Intel Committee, we hope that all outstanding questions will finally get answers.
Since her awkward March speech in which Hillary vowed she was “ready to come out of the woods,” the world has been anxiously waiting for the two time failed presidential candidate to announce her next move. In the absence of facts, rumors have swirled that she might consider a run for Mayor of New York, start working on a 2020 presidential bid or just return to the Clinton Foundation.
Now, courtesy of The Hill, it seems we can at least knock a return to the Clinton Foundation off the list of possible future careers.
“She’s taking a look at her life and wants to try some different things,” said one ally who has spoken to Clinton in recent weeks. “She’s not tying herself to something that’s always been an option. She wants to figure out what she wants to do.”
Still, those familiar with Clinton’s immediate future say that just because she won’t take an active role in the organization doesn’t mean she won’t give occasional foundation-related speeches or participate in its programs.
“Everyone knows they’ll have access to her whenever they need her,” the confidant said. “This has really become President Clinton and Chelsea’s thing.”
Perhaps the true catalyst is that with prospects for a “Clinton” being the next president no longer imminent – unless of course Hillary or Chelsea confirm their plans to run again – former donors such as Norway and Australia have quietly stopped handing over their cash?
Of course, with the various pay-to-play allegations surrounding the Clinton Foundation during her last presidential campaign, including that time she was offered $12 million for a “meeting” in Morocco, it’s not terribly surprising that Hillary would look to distance herself from the organization if she’s considering a return to public life.
Clinton took an active role in the family’s foundation after leaving the State Department in 2013, working on early childhood development and other issues involving women and girls.
“I am thrilled to fully join this remarkable organization that [former President] Bill [Clinton] started a dozen years ago, and to call it my home for the work I will be doing,” she said in remarks at the Clinton Global Initiative in 2013.
At the same time, in 2013, the foundation changed its name to the Bill, -Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, though it changed back to the Clinton Foundation in 2015.
And while we still don’t know Hillary’s ultimate ambitions, The Hill notes that she’s hard at work making more money and playing with her grandchildren.
For now, Hillary Clinton is focused on her upcoming book, which she is writing with two campaign speechwriters: Dan Schwerin — who also helped write the former secretary of State’s 2014 book, “Hard Choices” — and Megan Rooney.
She is also scheduled for several speeches, including a commencement speech in May at her alma mater, Wellesley College.
In an interview Tuesday on “CBS This Morning,” Chelsea Clinton was asked what her mother’s plans might look like in the coming months.
“She’s focused, thankfully, on her grandchildren,” the former first daughter said. “She’s focused on what she can do to help support work that she’s been engaged in for longer than I’ve been alive, around children, around women, around families.”
Have we seen the end of Hillary’s campaigning days or does she have one more tour of duty in her? A 2020 rematch could be good fun
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?
In 1935, Roosevelt introduced “The Social Security Act” which passed Congress. However, the act was described “Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance.” At first, the Act covered only industry and commerce. It was later extended to include farm operators in 1955. The SS tax was to be at the rate of 3% of income up to an established limit.
The Amish pay taxes because the Bible said: “paying unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.” It was in 1956 that the IRS went to tell the Amish they were now under Social Security and they would have to pay. One Amishman was quoted in a November 1962 Reader’s Digest article: “Allowing our members to shift their interdependence on each other to dependence upon any outside source would inevitably lead to the breakup of our order.” The constitutional question that has never been decided, what happens when the taxing power of government violates the First Amendment and Freedom of Religion? It clearly states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
Then Jefferson wrote in 1802 to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, that there should be “a wall of separation between church and state.” They feared that a minority religion could be subjugated by the Federal Government acknowledging a national religion. The Johnson Amendment, named for Lyndon Johnson, is a provision in the U.S. tax code that prohibits all 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations from endorsing or opposing political candidates. If churches involve themselves in politics, then indeed that creates a reverse problem where the state can be taken over by one religion and oppress all others; so it can go both ways. Historically, religions have often seized governments and outlawed all other religions.
In this instance concerning taxation in direct conflict with religion, a group of Amish presented a petition to Congress, with 14,000 signatures. Naturally, Congress ignored them. The Amish reasonably questioned what possible harm they could do by not paying into Social Security. “We do not want to be burdensome, but we do not want to lose our birthright to everlasting glory, therefore we must do all we can to live our faith!”
The IRS moved to go after the Amish and seize their bank accounts. The problem was – they had none! The IRS then sought to go after anyone buying milk from the Amish and attach their payments to divert them to the IRS. Most simply refused for such a scheme would happen just once and end the business. The IRS, refusing to consider any religious principle, moved in to seize property. In this case of the Amish, that meant cows and horses. They would rather have the Amish die than respect anyone’s rights to religion.
Valentine Byler of the Amish community in Pennsylvania, owed four years of IRS taxes. The IRS, of course, tacked on interest and penalties to raise it up to $308.96. Byler argued his religion forbid paying insurance. The IRS said that was a “technicality” and that it was really just a tax. Vyler has no bank account to seize so they issued a summons to appear in court for a charge of contempt. The judge in Federal District Court in Pittsburgh, Pa, according to a Reader’s Digest article, “angrily demanded of the IRS agents, ‘Don’t you have anything better to do than to take a peaceful man off his farm and drag him into court?’” The Judge then dismissed the case.
The IRS never gives up. The IRS had to issue a statement on April 18, 1961 in which they said:
Since Mr. Byler had no bank account against which to levy for the tax due, it was decided as a last desperate measure to resort to seizure and sale of personal property.
The IRS seized three of Byler’s six horses while he was actually plowing the ground for the spring planting. The IRS then sold the three horses at auction on May 1, 1961 getting $460. They then used this to satisfy the $308.96 and then charged him $113.15 in expenses and graciously returned $37.89. The incident made national news and was being used by the Communists to show how capitalism was ruthless. The New York Herald Tribune, reported the story with the bold headline: “Welfarism Gone Mad.”
The IRS Chief of Collections was forced to respond claiming he was unaware of the plowing situation. “Plowing never occurred to me. I live in an apartment.” To show the mentality of those who are bureaucrats, he then said: “We don’t ask people their race or religion when we administer the tax laws. People have no right to use their religion as an excuse not to pay taxes.”
The IRS was then compelled to issue a press release in 1961, stating the Amish stance that “Social Security payments, in their opinion, are insurance premiums and not taxes. They, therefore, will not pay the ‘premium’ nor accept any of the benefits.”
The Amish met with the IRS Commissioner in September, 1961 in Washington, DC, They cited several Bible passages, including I Timothy 5:8, which says, “But if any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith and is worse than an infidel.”
The public outrage at the conduct of the IRS was international. The Amish argued they were entitled to an exemption based on the First Amendment. The IRS agreed it would stop further seizures until the case was settled. Now, senators promised to try to pass a bill in Congress and everything stopped. The Amish hired a lawyer to challenge this conflict between the taxing power and the First Amendment. However, as the court date approached, they realized if they lost in court, it was over. They then looked to Congress to pursue a legislative exemption. Finally, in 1965, the Medicare bill was passed by Congress. Congress realized that if the Amish went to court and won, then others could challenge the right to tax conflicting with the First Amendment. Congress quietly put in on page 138 a clause exempting the Old Order Amish, and any other religious sect who conscientiously objected to insurance, from paying Social Security payments, providing that sect had been in existence since December 31, 1950. The Senate approved in July, and President Lyndon B. Johnson signed it into law on August 13, 1965.
The open question remains simply this; the first explicit references to the tithe appear in Genesis 14, where Abraham tithes to Melchizedek, and in Genesis 28, where Jacob promises to give God “a full tenth.” But where did the idea to tithe come from? Many argue Abraham and Jacob were simply following the customs of the surrounding nations. But Scripture points in a different direction. In Genesis 26:5, God says, “Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.” In the New Testament, Jesus upholds the tithe in Matthew 23:23 (cf. Luke 11:42). He condemns the Pharisees for their tedious commitment to one part of God’s law, the tithe, while neglecting “the weightier matters of justice, mercy, and faithfulness.” Then he states, “These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.”
One of the Five Pillars of Islam, zakat is a religious obligation for all Muslims who meet the necessary criteria of wealth. This too is not a charitable contribution, but is considered to be an obligatory tax or alms. The payment and disputes on zakat have also been controversial in the history of Islam. The zakat is based on income and the value of all of one’s possessions or property. It has been traditionally set at 2.5% above a minimum amount known as nisab, which has also been greatly debated.
In Judaeo-Christianity, the “tithe” was a one tenth of annual produce or earnings, formerly taken as a tax for the support of the church and clergy in Christianity. The question is, does exceeding the level prescribed as a “tithe” violate the First Amendment? If true, then any income tax imposed beyond 10% would violate the First Amendment. Since the Ten Commandments also prohibits coveting anything that belonged to a neighbor including his wife or property, it would appear that Socialism championed by Karl Marx violates the First Amendment and any tax should not exceed 10%. Hence, progressive taxation would be unconstitutional if not a flat tax. Some argue it also violates Equal Protection of the laws. The Tax at the time of Jesus’s statement of give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, was less than 5%.
Historically during the Roman Republic, the tax imposed was 1%. During time of war, the taxes would rise to 3%. Ever since Karl Marx, who said religion is the opium of the masses, politicians have loved Marxism and used it to exploit the people to the point governments are averaging now 40% of the entire economy. They have outpaced all other businesses beating the bankers and multinational corporations. They have become the 800 pound gorilla in the corner of the room nobody notices is even there. Politicians always preach against the “rich” which increases the wealth of government. As the IRS commented: “We don’t ask people their race or religion when we administer the tax laws. People have no right to use their religion as an excuse not to pay taxes.” This is obviously the spirit of Karl Marx.
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 been warning that we are headed directly into the collapse of socialism; not capitalism, simply because politicians have been bribing people’s votes with all sorts of promises they never planned on providing. Social Security may have began as a good idea, but then the money was really just a tax and the fund was stuffed with government bonds denying the average person the very right to invest for his future as do the “rich” who make most money from investment – not wages.
The core of that crash and burn in socialism is pensions. The scheme of pensions when blended with politics is a lethal combination. Politicians are NEVER prosecuted for fraud. Had any employer promise what politicians did and then engaged in every scheme to circumvent it, they would be in prison or hung by a mob in the good old days of social justice. Today, we have politicians who are just so dishonest and they constantly feed the flames of class warfare to divert any responsibility for what they have done.
Examples are surfacing from every corner. In Ohio, beginning in 2019, retired cops and firefighters will no longer receive health care benefits through the Ohio Police & Firefighters Pension Fund. Instead will receive a stipend to buy coverage on the open market. Why? Because the stipend can be fixed, whereas health care costs keep going up more than 5% annually with no end in sight. Health care is bankrupting the economy and is totally out of control.
The Freedom Caucus, also known as the House Freedom Caucus, is a congressional caucus consisting of conservative and libertarian Republican members of the United States House of Representatives. It was the Freedom Caucus, that brought down John Boehner as the leader of the Republicans. They were the ones constantly blocking the increase in a debt ceiling. It was the Freedom Caucus who stopped the repeal of Obamacare, not because they agreed with it, but because they are ultra conservative trying to stop any new debt. Trump responded: “The Freedom Caucus will hurt the entire Republican agenda if they don’t get on the team, & fast,” in a tweet. He continued: “We must fight them, & Dems, in 2018!”
Big Bang began in 2015.75, with the peak in government and everything has been turning down rapidly ever since with interest rates rising. Even Trump won the presidency effectively as a third party candidate from within the Republican Party. Nothing like that has ever happened in American Politics. Everywhere we look we see the world headed into more chaos with BREXIT and political insanity in Europe, to China regulating Bitcoin to stop the capital outflows.
The Freedom Caucus is out in never-never-land. While yes we are dealing with a debt crisis, their solution of blocking the debt ceiling increases and repealing Obamacare is frivolous. Why? Because it is just totally impractical. To block any increase in debt is to invite Big Bang, social unrest, and the high probability that the USA will be pushed into civil war (Special Report to be published soon). These types of measures will accomplish only bloodshed. We must begin the process of restructuring the entire system. Blocking payments and new debt is inviting the confrontation. It is not a realistic solution.
It is now just a question of when with Big Bang set in motion, when will the whole Socialistic mess erupt and how will the markets respond? We will be looking at Big Bang and how to Trade a Vertical Market at the Hong Kong World Economic Conference in May
Julian Assange told use from the begging that he got the information from leaks not the Russians; now who are you going to believe Obama that lied about just about everything he did i.e. ObamaCare or Assange who has never been caught in a lie.
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 