Apr 282017
 

There was no booing: Ivanka Trump with Christine Lagarde and Angela Merkel in Berlin

There Was No Booing Of Ivanka In Berlin

America’s Leftist Fake News would have you believe otherwise!

From BILD:

Many people were surprised by Ivanka Trump’s performance in Berlin. Contrary to the stereotype, the daughter of the US President made a sophisticated and level-headed impression at the panel discussion with Chancellor Angela Merkel, Queen Máxima of the Netherlands, and head of the IMF, Christine Lagarde. The glamorous White House ambassador also cleverly handled a controversial issue.

US media, however, are focusing on something else: they claim that Ivanka was booed and sneered at.

At the “Women20 Summit”, there was in fact a moment during the panel discussion when the audience began murmuring. Panel moderator Miriam Meckel asked Ivanka whether she was speaking as the First Lady – in Melania Trump’s place – or as the new advisor to the President. Ivanka replied in a disarmingly honest way: „This role is quite new to me, it has been little under 100 days.” She said that she would be happy to bring what she learned here home with her and that she would discuss it with her father.

She also said: “I am very proud of my father. Long before he came into the presidency, he has been a tremendous champion of supporting families and enabling them to thrive.”

At this point, there was some unrest in the audience. There was no booing or heckling at all, however.

US media are outraged about the audience’s reaction

This makes it even more surprising that US media are painting an entirely different picture of Ivanka’s appearance in Berlin. The murmuring that could be heard as Ivanka defended her father against criticism was interpreted as massive booing of the President’s daughter.

The alleged hostility toward Ivanka during her visit to Berlin was a lead headline at US outlets such as ABC, CNN, and Fox, along with several major newspapers.

In a discussion broadcast by the Trump-friendly TV station Fox on Tuesday night (local time), the audience of the Berlin event was heavily criticized. A report on the Fox website featured the headline: “Germans jeer Ivanka Trump for defending her father”.

The fact is: Miriam Meckel pointed out that some of Trump’s past utterances with respect to women do raise doubts about whether he in fact supports the empowerment of women.

In the US, it would be rather unusual to pose such a critical question to the President’s daughter. Ivanka, however, reacted with confidence.

She stated that she did of course follow the media reports about this issue. She also emphasized that her own experience and the fact that “thousands of women” have been working with, and for, Donald Trump for decades when he was in the private sector “are a testament to his belief and solid conviction in the potential of women and their ability to do the job as well as any man”.

She herself grew up in a liberal household, said Trump’s daughter. “There was no barrier to what I could accomplish beyond my own perseverance and my own tenacity. There was no difference between me and my brothers.”

Observers and participants agree that the relaxed mood at the summit in Berlin on Tuesday was somewhat rare.

Even the Chancellor seemed to be more relaxed than usual, as did the head of the IMF, Christine Lagarde, who often makes a tough impression. The great women of world politics welcomed the White House envoy with open arms – and the latter clearly seemed to enjoy herself, laughing, joking, and whispering.

During the joint dinner, Merkel and the “First Daughter” also seemed to get along splendidly.

Merkel explicitly thanked the presidential advisor on Tuesday night for her participation in the W20 Summit. “I am very happy that you travelled to Germany. I hope that we were a good audience for you and that you can also travel back with some new ideas,” the Chancellor said during dinner on Tuesday night.

The Chancellor also promised Ivanka Trump that her idea for a new loan programme for women in emerging countries will be part of the German G20 presidency.

The brief wave of criticism during the podium discussion did not taint the further course of the debate and the subsequent talks with Chancellor Merkel in the slightest. On the contrary – Ivanka Trump has proven that she can also confidently handle delicate questions.

 
 

Apr 192017
 

Democrat Jon Ossoff is headed for a runoff in June against a Republican contender after failing Tuesday to score an upset victory

The Devil Went Down To Georgia

Georgia congressional race: Democrat Ossoff, Republican Handel will go to run-off.

Seems like an appropriate song for today!

The Devil went down to Georgia – He was looking for a soul to steal – He was in a bind, ’cause he was way behind – He was willing to make a deal – When he came across this young man – Sawing on a fiddle and playing it hot – And the Devil jumped up on a hickory stump and said – “Boy let me tell you what:

I guess you didn´t know it, but I’m a fiddle player too,
And if you’d care to take a dare,
I’ll make a bet with you
Now you play a pretty good fiddle,
Boy, but give the Devil his due
I bet a fiddle of gold against your soul
‘Cause I think I’m better than you”
The boy said, “My name’s Johnny and it might be a sin,
But I’ll take your bet, you’re gonna regret,
‘Cause I’m the best there’s ever been”
Johnny, rosin up your bow and play your fiddle hard,
‘Cause hell’s broke loose in Georgia and the Devil deals the cards
And if you win you’ll get this shiny fiddle made of gold,
But if you lose, the Devil gets your soul!
The Devil opened up his case and he said, “I’ll start this show”
And fire blew from his fingertips as he rosined up his bow
And he pulled the bow across the strings and it made an evil hiss
Then a band of demons joined in,
And it sounded something like this
When the Devil finished, Johnny said,
“Well you’re pretty good old son
But sit down in that chair right there
And let me show you how it’s done!”
Fire on the Mountain, run, boys, run
The Devil´s in the house of the rising sun
Chicken in the bread pan a picking out dough,
Granny does your dog bite, “No, child, no”
The Devil bowed his head because he knew that he’d been beat
And he laid that golden fiddle on the ground at Johnny´s feet
Johnny said, “Devil, just come on back
If you ever want to try again,
I done told you once, you son of a bitch,
I’m the best there´s ever been”
He played,
Fire on the Mountain, run, boys, run
The Devil’s in the house of the rising sun
Chicken in the bread pan a picking out dough,
Granny will your dog bite, “No, child, no”

Where is Jon Ossoff’s money coming from?
Watch:

ActBlue is a cousin of ShareBlue.
Ossoff is a Soros pawn.

 

 

Apr 132017
 

Who are the White Helmets? This is a question that everyone should be asking themselves.

Fact-Sheet On Syria’s White Helmets

The White Helmets – here are a few facts that you need to know. Share this with your family and friends who rely on the Western Mainstream Media:

 
• The White Helmets, also called Syria Civil Defence, are not who they claim to be. The group is not Syrian; it was created with USA/UK funding under the supervision of a British military contractor in 2013 in Turkey.

• The name “Syria Civil Defence” was stolen from the legitimate Syrian organization of the same name. The authentic Syria Civil Defence was founded in 1953 and is a founding member of the International Civil Defense Organization (1958).

• The name “White Helmets” was inappropriately taken from the legitimate Argentinian relief organization Cascos Blancos / White Helmets. In 2014, Cascos Blancos / White Helmets was honored at the United Nations for 20 years of international humanitarian assistance.

• The NATO White Helmets are primarily a media campaign to support the ‘regime change’ goals of the USA and allies. After being founded by security contractor James LeMesurier, the group was “branded” as the White Helmets in 2014 by a marketing company called “The Syria Campaign” managed out of New York by non-Syrians such as Anna Nolan. “The Syria Campaign” was itself “incubated” by another marketing company named “Purpose”.

• The White Helmets claim to be “neutral, impartial and humanitarian” and to “serve all the people of Syria” is untrue. In reality, they only work in areas controlled by the violent opposition, primarily terrorists associated with Nusra/AlQaeda (recently renamed Jabhat Fath al Sham).

• The White Helmets claim to be unarmed is untrue. There are photos which show their members carrying arms and celebrating Nusra/AlQaeda military victories.

• The White Helmets claim to be apolitical and non-aligned is untrue. In reality they actively promote and lobby for US/NATO intervention in violation of the norms of authentic humanitarian work.

• The Right Livelihood description that “Syria Civil Defence” saved over 60,000 people and “support in the provision of medical services to nearly 7 million people” is untrue. In reality the zones controlled by terrorists in Syria have few civilians remaining. That is why we see “cat” video/media stunts featuring the White Helmets.

• The NATO White Helmets actually undermine and detract from the work of authentic organizations such as the REAL Syria Civil Defence and Syrian Arab Red Crescent.

• The recent Netflix movie about the White Helmets is not a documentary; it is a self promotional advertisement. The directors never set foot in Syria. The Syrian video, real or staged, was provided by the White Helmets themselves. From the beginning scenes showing a White Helmet actor telling his little boy not to give mommy a hard time until the end, the video is contrived and manipulative. The video was produced by a commercial marketing company Violet Films/Ultra Violet Consulting which advertises its services as “social media management”, “crowd building” and “campaign implementation”.

The true face of the White Helmets:


 


 

References:

“Seven Steps of Highly Effective Manipulators” Origins of the White Helmets

http://dissidentvoice.org/2015/04/seven-steps-of-highly-effective-manipulators/

The REAL White Helmets awarded for 20 years work

http://cascosblancos.gob.ar/en/white-helmets-20-years-international-humanitarian-assistance-portrayed-un

The REAL Syria Civil Defence

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-real-syria-civil-defence-exposes-natos-white-helmets-as-terrorist-linked-imposters/5547528

Who are the Syria White Helmets?

http://21stcenturywire.com/2016/06/21/who-are-the-syria-white-helmets/

White Helmets Deceive Right Livelihood and CodePink

http://truepublica.org.uk/global/white-helmets-deceive-right-livelihood-codepink/

White Helmets cat video showing terrorist zone with no civilians.  “The homeowners abandoned this district and its kittens.”  How fake does it get?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkfcE-Drnas

White Helmets are caught staging rescue only to claim they were making a mannequin challenge video.

http://archive.is/5D2Ew

 


 

 
via

Apr 122017
 

Rich Lowry documents the collusion between Russia and Obama

The Collusion Between Russia and Obama

What Rich Lowry has done here is put it down in a page and a half in almost chronological order, in as simple and understandable a way as possible.

From Rush Limbaugh:

Rich Lowry has done a great piece of work here at National Review. “Turns Out Obama Was the Real Russian Stooge”. All of this that Lowry writes about is known and has been known, but it was known and reported on, discussed in piecemeal fashion. What Rich has done here is put it down in a page and a half in almost chronological order, in as simple and understandable a way as possible. And he has a very clever beginning of the piece.

Rich Lowry“The circumstantial evidence is mounting that the Kremlin succeeded in infiltrating the US government at the highest levels.” Now, the hoi polloi and the great unwashed reading that are obviously going to think that Lowry is talking about the Russians colluding with Trump to beat Hillary.

“The circumstantial evidence is mounting that the Kremlin succeeded in infiltrating the US government at the highest levels. How else to explain a newly elected president looking the other way after an act of Russian aggression? Agreeing to a farcically one-sided nuclear deal? Mercilessly mocking the idea that Russia represents our foremost geo-political foe?”

Let me take each one of these. How else to explain a newly elected president looking the other way after an act of Russian aggression. That’s Obama and Crimea. That’s Obama and Ukraine. And that’s Assad. At every step of the way, when Russia, when Putin commits an act of aggression, Obama said (imitating Obama), “You better cut it out. You better stop doing it,” and with Syria he drew a red line and dared Assad to cross it. Assad crossed the red line; Putin kept acting aggressive. Nothing was done to stop it.

Agreeing to a farcically one-sided nuclear deal, that’s Iran. Agreeing that the region’s number one terror state will be permitted to develop nuclear power under terms of an agreement with the American president, that’s Obama. That is not Trump. And mercilessly mocking the idea that Russia represented our foremost geopolitical foe, that’s the presidential campaign of 2012 when Mitt Romney was doing everything he could to convince people that Russia was a foremost enemy, and it was Obama and his team mocking Romney for seeing a communist behind every rock, making a mountain out of a molehill and being stereotypical in his foreign policy.

It was Obama at every stage of the way aiding and abetting and facilitating Putin and the Russians. But we’re not through. How else to explain a newly elected president “accommodating the illicit nuclear ambitions of a Russian ally?” Of a president, an American president “welcoming a Russian foothold in the Middle East?” Hello, Syria. Hello, Iran.

How about an American president “refusing to provide arms to a sovereign country invaded by Russia?” Hello, Ukraine. An American president “diminishing our defenses and pursuing a Moscow-friendly policy of hostility to fossil fuels?” That would be Obama and climate change, which benefits Putin and the Russians. All of these items, of course, refer to things said or done by Barack Hussein Obama, not by Donald Trump.

“To take them in order: He re-set with Russia shortly after its clash with Georgia in 2008. He concluded the New START agreement with Moscow that reduced our nuclear forces but not theirs. When candidate Mitt Romney warned about Russia in the 2012 campaign, Obama rejected him as a Cold War relic.

“The president then went on to forge an agreement with Russia’s ally Iran to allow it to preserve its nuclear program. During the red-line fiasco, he eagerly grasped a lifeline from Russia at the price of accepting its intervention in Syria. He never budged on giving Ukraine ‘lethal’ weapons to defend itself from Russian attack,” which we had sworn by treaty to do. We were the ones that made Ukraine give up its military in exchange for our defending them against such aggression.

The Collusion Between Russia and ObamaThen when the aggression happened and they had no weaponry to defend themselves, we sided with the aggressor, Russia. All of this, Barack Obama. Not a single instance of this collusion can be laid to Donald Trump because he was not even running for president when this stuff happened. The evidence of Kremlin, Moscow, and Washington collusion is with Obama and Putin. “Finally, Obama cut US defense spending and cracked down on fossil fuels — a policy that Russia welcomes, since its economy is dependent on high oil prices.”

So it is abundantly clear that if anybody in our country was working with Russia to their benefit, it was Barack Obama and the Democrat Party. It was not Donald Trump. All of this business about Russia and Trump colluding to deny the election, it would have made every bit of sense in the world for Putin to want Hillary Clinton to win to continue just this kind of deference.

With this evidence and using common sense guided by intelligence, there is no way Putin would want to deal with some newcomer like Trump who was talking tough. America first and all this sort of stuff. He would much rather prefer Hillary Clinton, guaranteed to continue the same appeasement policies of Barack Obama as she was promising to do.

 

 

 

Apr 122017
 

A CIA document from the early 1980s details a US plan to destroy Syria — in much the same way the United States has been doing for the last few years.

Declassified CIA Document Reveals Plan To Destroy Syria For Oil Pipeline

Geostrategically crucial Syria has been at the center of a decades-long plot by the United States to depose the sovereign government and install one supportive of goals in the Middle East must be revisited — and quickly — before the beating of war drums drowns out the truth of our government’s recently-espoused mission.

President Donald Trump has repeatedly castigated President Bashar al-Assad for ordering a gruesome mass killing of civilians with chemical weapons in Khan Sheikhoun. This accusation sparked a bolstering of support for the Syrian regime from both Moscow and Tehran.

“Syria at present has a hammerlock on US interests both in Lebanon and in the Gulf — through closure of Iraq’s pipeline thereby threatening Iraqi internationalization of the war. The US should consider sharply escalating the pressures against Assad through covertly orchestrating simultaneous military threats against Syria from three border states hostile to Syria: Iraq, Israel and Turkey.”

While the preceding bears the names of leaders and nations familiar to current headlines, that assessment, cogently titled, “Bringing Real Muscle to Bear Against Syria,” from former CIA officer Graham Fuller in actuality discusses Syria under Assad’s predecessor — his father, Hafez al-Assad — and is dated September 14, 1983, amid the Iran-Iraq War.

CIA-RDP88B00443R001404090133-0

 
Fuller’s analysis, points out Activist Post’s Brandon Turbeville, evinces Assad as a nuisance hindering American empire’s lust to control vast fossil fuel stores and protect ally, Israel, against multiple threats in the Middle East. Destabilization of Iraq and Iran also features prominently in the intricate U.S. plan to deal with the irritant, elder Assad — who, incidentally, recognized Western ulterior motives for what they were.

As the six-page document continues,

Syria continues to maintain a hammerlock on two key U.S. interests in the Middle East:

— Syrian refusal to withdraw its troops from Lebanon ensures Israeli occupation in the south;

— Syrian closure of the Iraqi pipeline has been a key factor in bringing Iraq to its financial knees, impelling it towards dangerous internationalization of the war in the Gulf.

Diplomatic initiatives to date have had little effect on Assad who has so far correctly calculated the play of forces in the area and concluded that they are only weakly arrayed against him. If the U.S. is to rein in Syria’s spoiling role, it can only do so through the exertion of real muscle which will pose a vital threat to Assad’s position and power.

CIA Document screen shot

With Iraq seeking to enjoin support internationally in the war, the U.S. had to scramble to prevent the shutdown of a pipeline — a dilemma Fuller suggests could be alleviated through a change in narrative to present Syria as a more deviant enemy than even Iran. That, alone, would have changed the face of the war bearing the names of the two principal adversaries — Sunni majority, Iraq, and Syria-allied, Shi’a, Iran.

Fuller asserted,

“The US should consider urging Iraq to take the war to the other key source of its predicament: Syria.”

Further, he continued,

“The US should consider sharply escalating the pressures against Assad [Sr.] through covertly orchestrating simultaneous military threats against Syria from three border states hostile to Syria: Iraq, Israel and Turkey. Iraq, perceived to be increasingly desperate in the Gulf war, would undertake limited military (air) operations against Syria with the sole goal of opening the pipeline. Although opening war on a second front against Syria poses considerable risk to Iraq, Syria would also face a two-front war since it is already heavily engaged in the Bekaa, on the Golan and in maintaining control over a hostile and restive population inside Syria.

“Israel would simultaneously raise tensions along Syria’s Lebanon front without actually going to war. Turkey, angered by Syrian support to Armenian terrorism, to Iraqi Kurds on Turkey’s Kurdish border areas and to Turkish terrorists operating out of northern Syria, has often considered launching unilateral military operations against terrorist camps in northern Syria. Virtually all Arab states would have sympathy for Iraq.

“Faced with three belligerent fronts, Assad would probably be forced to abandon his policy of closure of the pipeline. Such a concession would relieve the economic pressure on Iraq, and perhaps force Iran to reconsider bringing the war to an end. It would be a sharpening blow to Syria’s prestige and could effect the equation of forces in Lebanon.”

In context, then-President Ronald Reagan faced pressure both to insert military power in Lebanon — a theater of stated neutrality for the U.S. — and to prohibit actual military assistance in the fraught regional entanglement.

That is, until a suicide bomber decimated a U.S. Marines barracks encamped at an airport in Beirut, killing hundreds — just one month subsequent to the date on Fuller’s Syria action plan.

Micah Zenko, Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations — an albeit establishment- and Deep State-connected think tank — in “When America Attacked Syria,” wrote in 2012:

“The October 23, 1983, suicide truck bombing of the Marine barracks at the Beirut International Airport would kill 241 U.S. military personnel; simultaneously, another suicide bomber killed fifty-eight French servicemen of the MNF several kilometers away. (Two weeks later, yet another truck bomb exploded in the Israeli military headquarters in Tyre, killing sixty.) A FBI forensics assessment called the Marine barracks bombing the ‘biggest non-nuclear explosion since World War II.’ According to a Pentagon commission formed to investigate the attack, it was ‘tantamount to an act of war using the medium of terrorism.’ Within weeks, the CIA determined that ‘the bombings…of the United States and French MNF headquarters were carried out by Shia radicals, armed, trained, and directed by Syria and Iran.’”

That the CIA — master meddler in the affairs of sovereign nations — determined fault for the bombings rested with Syria and Iran left both plausibly responsible, with public perception largely following suit.

That a situation eerily similar — in behind-the-scenes string-pulling and long-term U.S. commitment to deposing an Assad from rule in Syria — appears to be playing out nearly three-and-a-half decades later, bellows resoundingly on failures of interventionist foreign policy.

Or, perhaps, its successes.

“Such a threat must be primarily military in nature. At present there are three relatively hostile elements around Syria’s borders: Israel, Iraq and Turkey. Consideration must be given to orchestrating a credible military threat against Syria in order to induce at least some moderate change in its policies,” Fuller explained in the document.

“This paper proposes serious examination of the use of all three states – acting independently – to exert the necessary threat. Use of any one state in isolation cannot create such a credible threat.”

Syria is now a landmine for the Trump administration — as it has been in varying intensity for a lengthy succession of presidents before.

 

 

 
via

Apr 072017
 
Three years ago, the Obama administration was celebrating that they had completely removed chemical weapons from Syria. Obama drew that Red Line and the Syrians and everybody else realized the bad actor they were dealing with, and they cowered in fear, and they did remove 100% of their chemical weapons. Wrong… Trump just removed them!

It is now clear that Obama and everyone in his administration lied to the American people when they said that 100 PERCENT of Syria’s chemical weapons were removed.

Obama was the one in bed with Russia all along. The Trump Russia narrative has been destroyed!

WATCH: Video Shows Obama Administration Bragging About Removing ‘100 Percent’ of Chemical Weapons From Syria

Good analysis on the missle attack from The Lid by Commander J.E. Dyer USN (Ret.):

In the early morning hours of 7 April in Syria – between 8 and 10 PM Eastern on 6 April, in the U.S. – two U.S. Navy Aegis destroyers began launching Tomahawk cruise missiles at an air base in Syria just east of the city of Homs. In total, the ships launched at least 59 cruise missiles. All were reportedly directed at the single air base, indicating the attack was meant to take the facility out of operation.

President Donald Trump, in a recorded address explained that USS Ross (DDG-71) and USS Porter (DDG-78) were striking the air base in Syria from which the chemical weapons attack that inflicted ghastly damage on civilians in Idlib Province was launched on Tuesday.

The target, according to the latest reporting, was Shayrat Air Base, located about 15 miles southeast of Homs. Fox News’s Jennifer Griffin indicated in the 10 PM hour that the Pentagon would be providing a track of the Syrian Su-24 Fencer – a tactical bomber – that it says conducted the chemical weapons attack on 4 April. In other words, the U.S. military has direct evidence that the attacking aircraft was a Syrian bomber jet. (This is not only feasible, it’s probable and routine.)

Shayrat Air Base was never one of Assad’s biggest, most developed bases. It is overshadowed by T4 air base (often referred to as Tiyas Air Base) further east, which has been the front line of the fight against ISIS for some months now.

Shayrat Air Base

But Shayrat has seen a lot of use for combat logistics in the last 18 months.  The Russians persistently denied it, but there have been numerous reports that they made improvements to Shayrat in 2015 in order to use it as a base.  And Arabic and social media have recorded Russian helicopters making use of Shayrat as an interim base for logistics stops, including mission refueling.  (Fox reports that the U.S. military used its hotline with Russian forces to give them warning of the attack.)

Some reporting has indicated that the Iranians have delivered weapons and material there too, and that “Iranian squadrons” were to operate from the base once it was improved by the Russians.  (The Iranian presence in T4/Tiyas has been better documented.)

The Russians’ use of the base means, at a minimum, that the U.S. has put Russia as well as the Assad regime on notice that there will be no tolerance for chemical weapons attacks.

 

Hillary said this yesterday. Is somebody still leaking to her?


 

In January, Susan Rice Assured NPR the Obama Admin Removed Chemical Weapons From Syria


 

 
via

Apr 062017
 

The Chemical attack in Syria has all the hallmarks of a false flag

George Soros Linked Group Behind Chemical Attack In Syria

The White Helmets, an al-Qaeda affiliated group funded by George Soros and the British government, have reportedly staged another chemical weapon attack on civilians in the Syrian city of Khan Shaykhun to lay blame on the Syrian government.

 
A day prior to the attack, Gulf-based Orient TV announced “Tomorrow we are launching a media campaign to cover the airstrikes on Hama country side including the usage of chemical warfare against civilians.” This shows clear foreknowledge that the rebels were going to stage an attack by Orient TV.

George Soros Linked Group Behind Chemical Attack In Syria

The White Helmets filmed much of the footage being released on the chemical attack. They have also been known to stage “rescue” videos in the past. However, this time it appears children were indeed killed in the making of this “media campaign.”

Several children appear in the videos suffocating from an unknown chemical substance, while others appear to have unexplained head injuries. It is known 250 people were kidnapped by Al-Qaeda last week from the nearby city of Hama, which is the same number as the current body count of wounded and killed civilians.

In another “coincidence,” a Pakistani British doctor who at the time of the attack was taking interview requests instead of helping the injured who were flooding in, and additionally received gas masks from a British organization three days prior to the attack.

The doctor, Shajul Islam, is being used as a source by US and UK media, despite facing terror charges for kidnapping and torturing two British journalists in Syria and being struck off the medical register. The organization responsible for sending him equipment is under fire for using donations meant for refugees.

George Soros Linked Group Behind Chemical Attack In Syria

In another suspicious event, the White Helmets operating in the same quarry near the attack received sarin-protective respirator suits one month before the attack, even though the Syrian government no longer possesses sarin.

The al-Qaeda-linked rebels have claimed the chemical was sarin gas used by the Syrian government; however, the OPCW has confirmed Syria no longer has chemical weapons and completely dismantled their stockpiles in 2013.

In contrast, the rebels have not gotten rid of the chemical weapons at their disposal.

According to award-winning journalist Seymour Hersch, intelligence reports show the rebels smuggled in chemical weapons from Libya through Turkey with the approval of Hillary Clinton.

George Soros Linked Group Behind Chemical Attack In Syria

In 2013, so-called moderate rebels had filmed themselves killing rabbits with gas and threatening to kill religious minorities. ISIS is also known to be in possession of chemical weapons having conducted attacks on Syrian forces in Deir Ezzor.

However weaponized, sarin would have killed or at least injured unprotected first responders.  Sarin can be absorbed through skin and requires a full body suit; however, the White Helmets appeared to wear only masks and no gloves while they handled exposed victims. Others in the vicinity appear not to be wearing a mask at all and are yet unaffected.

Weaponized sarin is a Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD) capable of killing thousands. If sarin was indeed used, it must have been a weak, non-weaponized form.

Unsurprisingly, the mainstream media and neo-con politicians have been quick to regurgitate the al-Qaeda-linked rebels version of the events before any investigation takes place.

Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu was quick to lay blame on the Syrian government, as did Amnesty International. France called for a security council meeting over the incident.

Federica Mogherini, the Italian Representative of the European Union (EU), blamed Assad while UK’s Envoy to the United Nations, Matthew Rycroft, blamed both Russia and Syria.

In response to the allegations, the Syrian Military and the Russian Ministry of Defense denied any involvement in the attack.

NATO governments are unhappy with the Trump administration’s recent statements that they no longer see regime change in Syria as a priority. In response to this, British Prime Minister Theresa May made a statement that Britain was still fully committed to regime change in Syria. The UK and France may have seen a staged chemical attack as an opportunity to push Trump into war with Syria.

George Soros Linked Group Behind Chemical Attack In Syria

The chemical attack came at the same time as another media attack was occurring against the Syrian government, which claimed that Syrian hospitals were in fact secret torture “slaughterhouses.”

The last chemical attack false flag attack occurred in 2013, where the Syrian Army was accused of using the WMD on the same day the Syrian government had invited weapon inspectors into Damascus, which resulted in Syria giving up its chemical weapons.

WATCH: Video Shows Obama Administration Bragging About Removing ‘100 Percent’ of Chemical Weapons From Syria

In the near future neocons may accuse Syria of failing to give up all chemical weapons, in spite of assurances by the OPCW. This is what happened to Iraq in 2003, which was invaded despite surrendering their chemical weapons in the 1990s.

No one questions how the Syrian government could possible use a weapon it doesn’t have, nor what motive it could possibly possess.

For the moment however, the narrative being pushed by neo-cons is “Trump should do what Obama failed to do, bomb Syria for al-Qaeda” and it seems that narrative is winning.

 

 
via

Apr 042017
 

What if James Comey and the FBI are actually investigating the former Obama Administration?

Time To Re-read The James Comey / Michael Rogers Testimony

We all know that FBI Director James Comey and NSA head Michael Rogers testified before the House Intelligence Committee on March 20. Given recent developments with Evelyn Farkas admissions and Susan Rice evidence – I invite you – NO I IMPLORE YOU – to read again the testimony from the FBI and NSA.

I respectfully suggest that new insight can be gleaned from this testimony that indicates any investigation by the FBI regarding Trump and Russia is not necessarily directed at Trump or his Administration but is in fact directed at the former Obama Administration and the leaking of classified materials.

This may explain why Trump hasn’t fired Comey yet.

Full transcript: FBI Director James Comey testifies on Russian interference in 2016 election
Full transcript: FBI Director James Comey testifies on Russian interference in 2016 election

 

 

Apr 042017
 
If Susan Rice did nothing wrong, and was just “doing her job” then why did she FLAT-OUT LIE and claim she “knew nothing” about the unmasking?

 

FLASHBACK: Susan Rice said ‘I know nothing about this. I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that account today’.

 

Susan Rice lies effortlessly. Now, we know for a fact, each time she blinks is a lie.

Let’s face it… our whole political system could be compromised. How many Republicans have been surveilled (probably all of them, because we’re all surveilled now) and changed their votes because they’ve been compromised in this or other ways? Will we ever know?

Why did Supreme Court Justice Roberts change his vote on ObamaCare at the last-minute with a nonsensical decision? What convinced him to change his vote and damage his reputation?

Why did Republicans so often, so inexplicably, cave under Obama when it mattered most? Why do reformers, who are sent to Washington to – you know – reform, so often turn to swamp rats? Why do the conservative wolves always turn to wimps when it really matters? It can’t just be just about the money.

Why does so much of what we’re told, and even the way these people talk on TV, look like C-grade kabuki theater or something out of the Soviet Kremlin? Why does so much of what these people say look like bad acting? Why were most political speeches so damn hollow before Trump came on the scene? Hmm…

We don’t live in the free country we thought we lived in. Many of us just didn’t know it. We live in the Invasion of the Body Snatchers. More specifically, the Soul Snatchers.

Fake News?! We’re a Fake Republic. Let’s face it. And just electing Trump doesn’t begin to restore what the Founders gave us (and we lost).

We live in a world where the CIA is funding ISIS, pretending to be Russian hackers and actively working to take out an American President. And top Republicans support them!

It seems like between the CIA, NSA, IRS, DOJ, the State Department, refugee policy, etc., etc. Obama, weaponized the entire American government against its own citizens and targeted political opponents.

The former national security adviser — THE FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER — uses the national intelligence system to spy on political opponents. And the top Mainstream Media news agencies — CBS, CNN, ABC and NBC — just don’t think it’s worth reporting as front-page news.

If Trump accomplishes nothing else, he deserves praise for exposing all of this!

 

 

Apr 042017
 

Susan Rice ordered U.S. spy agencies to produce “Detailed Spreadsheets” of LEGAL phone calls involving Donald Trump and his aides when he was running for president!

Susan Rice was clearly a point person in a major spying operation of Donald Trump, his campaign, his transition team, and his family.

WHO ASKED HER TO SET UP THIS SPYING OPERATION!?!? This wasn’t her idea and she didn’t wake up one day and say “I’m going to start an effort to spy on the Trump team and get as much info as I can.” Obviously someone told her to do this.

My money is on Malik Obama’s half brother.

This is a HUGE deal. It’s over for the Democrats, Obama, the complaisant Mainstream Media and Hillary.

From the Daily Caller:

Former President Barack Obama’s national security adviser Susan Rice ordered U.S. spy agencies to produce “detailed spreadsheets” of legal phone calls involving Donald Trump and his aides when he was running for president, according to former U.S. Attorney Joseph diGenova.

“What was produced by the intelligence community at the request of Ms. Rice were detailed spreadsheets of intercepted phone calls with unmasked Trump associates in perfectly legal conversations with individuals,” diGenova told The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group Monday.

“The overheard conversations involved no illegal activity by anybody of the Trump associates, or anyone they were speaking with,” diGenova said. “In short, the only apparent illegal activity was the unmasking of the people in the calls.”

Other knowledgeable official sources with direct knowledge and who requested anonymity confirmed to TheDCNF diGenova’s description of surveillance reports Rice ordered one year before the 2016 presidential election.

Also on Monday, Fox News and Bloomberg News, citing multiple sources reported that Rice had requested the intelligence information that was produced in a highly organized operation. Fox said the unmasked names of Trump aides were given to officials at the National Security Council (NSC), the Department of Defense, James Clapper, President Obama’s Director of National Intelligence, and John Brennan, Obama’s CIA Director.

Joining Rice in the alleged White House operations was her deputy Ben Rhodes, according to Fox.

Critics of the atmosphere prevailing throughout the Obama administration’s last year in office point to former Obama Deputy Defense Secretary Evelyn Farkas who admitted in a March 2 television interview on MSNBC that she “was urging my former colleagues,” to “get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can, before President Obama leaves the administration.”

Farkas sought to walk back her comments in the weeks following: “I didn’t give anybody anything except advice.”

Col. (Ret.) James Waurishuk, an NSC veteran and former deputy director for intelligence at the U.S. Central Command, told TheDCNF that many hands had to be involved throughout the Obama administration to launch such a political spying program.

“The surveillance initially is the responsibility of the National Security Agency,” Waurishuk said. “They have to abide by this guidance when one of the other agencies says, ‘we’re looking at this particular person which we would like to unmask.’”

“The lawyers and counsel at the NSA surely would be talking to the lawyers and members of counsel at CIA, or at the National Security Council or at the Director of National Intelligence or at the FBI,” he said. “It’s unbelievable of the level and degree of the administration to look for information on Donald Trump and his associates, his campaign team and his transition team.  This is really, really serious stuff.”

Michael Doran, former NSC senior director, told TheDCNF Monday that “somebody blew a hole in the wall between national security secrets and partisan politics.” This “was a stream of information that was supposed to be hermetically sealed from politics and the Obama administration found a way to blow a hole in that wall.”

Doran charged that potential serious crimes were undertaken because “this is a leaking of signal intelligence.”

“That’s a felony,” he told TheDCNF. “And you can get 10 years for that. It is a tremendous abuse of the system. We’re not supposed to be monitoring American citizens. Bigger than the crime, is the breach of public trust.”

Waurishuk said he was most dismayed that “this is now using national intelligence assets and capabilities to spy on the elected, yet-to-be-seated president.”

“We’re looking at a potential constitutional crisis from the standpoint that we used an extremely strong capability that’s supposed to be used to safeguard and protect the country,” he said. “And we used it for political purposes by a sitting President. That takes on a new precedent.”

Susan Rice is the Missing piece in ObamaGate!

Susan Rice is the Missing piece in ObamaGate!

“What was produced by the intelligence community at the request of Ms. Rice were detailed spreadsheets of intercepted phone calls with unmasked Trump associates in perfectly legal conversations with individuals,”… but of course, she’s on video saying she was doing this so she could turn the sheets over to the incoming administration and they would have the information available to them – but on the other hand, Evelyn Farkas is on video saying she was urging more collection because she was afraid the incoming administration would destroy it after they gained power – these two should have at least gotten their stories straight before going rogue…..