Saturday, October 15, 2016

WikiLeaks: Email Shows Bernie Sanders Was Paid Off to Support Hillary

The Libertarian Republic
October 15, 2016

A new email uncovered by WikiLeaks heavily suggests that Brent Budowsky, an ex-legislative director to Congressman Bill Alexander and oddly short-lived political blogger, was involved in an initiative to pay off the Sanders campaign to support Hillary Clinton.
In the email, written to Clinton 2016 campaign chair John Podesta, Budowsky states the following strategy for defeating Sanders:
Screen Shot 2016-10-15 at 3.40.30 PM
(scan courtesy of WikiLeaks)

In other words, Budowsky suggested the HRC campaign and the DNC ingratiate Bernie and his supporters by speaking and writing positively about him until the right time… Then pay him off and get him to back Clinton officially so the game can go according to plan. Or at least, that is what is being alleged by those who have read the email.
Libertarian Party chair Nicholas Sarwark called it a “double-cross” on his official Twitter upon reading it:
Screen Shot 2016-10-15 at 3.46.05 PM
And mainstream news sources have picked up the leak of Podesta’s gmail account and pulled other gems from it, as well.
The most interesting thing about this email is that it corresponds directly with Budowski’s evidenced behavior regarding the Sanders campaign – he did precsicely what he promised he would do in the email. He wrote and spoke publicly about Sanders until it was the right time to stop doing so. His blog posts on LAprogressive.com show as much, where we can see Budowski posting pro-Bernie content until May, and then suddenly ceasing his output never to write again during the election cycle.
If the emails are in fact pointing to a “double-cross” or bribe like it appears, this is by far some of the most compelling evidence yet of the Clinton campaign’s string-pulling and underhanded campaign tactics.

Wednesday, October 12, 2016

ARMS DEALER SAYS ADMINISTRATION MADE HIM SCAPEGOAT ON LIBYA OPERATION TO ‘PROTECT’ CLINTON

Fox News
October 12, 2016

Clinton’s State Department -- tried and failed to make him the scapegoat for a 2011 covert weapons program to arm Libyan rebels that spun out of control


American arms dealer Marc Turi, in his first television interview since criminal charges against him were dropped, told Fox News that the Obama administration — with the cooperation of Hillary Clinton’s State Department — tried and failed to make him the scapegoat for a 2011 covert weapons program to arm Libyan rebels that spun out of control. 
“I would say, 100 percent, I was victimized…to somehow discredit me, to throw me under the bus, to do whatever it took to protect their next presidential candidate,” he told Fox News chief intelligence correspondent Catherine Herridge.
The 48-year-old Arizona resident has been at the epicenter of a failed federal investigation led by the Justice Department spanning five years and costing the government an estimated $10 million or more, Turi says.
Turi says the Justice Department abruptly dropped the case to avoid public disclosure of the weapons program, that was designed to force the ouster of Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi during the 2011 Arab Spring.

Pentagon Begins Low-Intensity, Stealth War in Syria

Washington's Blog
October 12, 2016


By Mike Whitney. Originally published at CounterPunch (republished with permission of the author).
“Last Wednesday, at a Deputies Committee meeting at the White House, officials from the State Department, the CIA and the Joint Chiefs of Staff discussed limited military strikes against the (Assad) regime … One proposed way to get around the White House’s long-standing objection to striking the Assad regime without a U.N. Security Council resolution would be to carry out the strikes covertly and without public acknowledgment.”
– Washington Post
Call it stealth warfare, call it poking the bear, call it whatever you’d like. The fact is, the Syrian war has entered a new and more dangerous phase increasing the chances of a catastrophic confrontation between the US and Russia.
This new chapter of the conflict is the brainchild of Pentagon warlord, Ash Carter, whose attack on a Syrian outpost at Deir Ezzor killed 62 Syrian regulars putting a swift end to the fragile ceasefire agreement. Carter and his generals opposed the Kerry-Lavrov ceasefire deal because it would have required “military and intelligence cooperation with the Russians”. In other words, the US would have had to get the greenlight from Moscow for its bombing targets which would have undermined its ability to assist its jihadist fighters on the ground. That was a real deal-breaker for the Pentagon. But bombing Deir Ezzor fixed all that. It got the Pentagon out of the jam it was in, it torpedoed the ceasefire, and it allowed Carter to launch his own private shooting match without presidential authorization. Mission accomplished.
So what sort of escalation does Carter have in mind, after all, most analysts assume that a direct confrontation between the United States and Russia will lead to a nuclear war. Is he really willing to take that risk?
Heck no, but not everyone agrees that more violence will lead to a nuclear exchange. Carter, for example, seems to think that he can raise the stakes considerably without any real danger, which is why he intends to conduct a low-intensity, stealth war on mainly Syrian assets that will force Putin to increase Russia’s military commitment. The larger Russia’s military commitment, the greater probability of a quagmire, which is the primary objective of Plan C, aka–Plan Carter. Take a look at this clip from an article in Tuesday’s Washington Post which helps to explain what’s going on:
“U.S. military strikes against the Assad regime will be back on the table Wednesday at the White House, when top national security officials in the Obama administration are set to discuss options for the way forward in Syria…
Inside the national security agencies, meetings have been going on for weeks to consider new options to recommend to the president to address the ongoing crisis in Aleppo,…A meeting of the National Security Council, which could include the president, could come as early as this weekend.
Last Wednesday, at a Deputies Committee meeting at the White House, officials from the State Department, the CIA and the Joint Chiefs of Staff discussed limited military strikes against the regime…
The options under consideration… include bombing Syrian air force runways using cruise missiles and other long-range weapons fired from coalition planes and ships… One proposed way to get around the White House’s long-standing objection to striking the Assad regime without a U.N. Security Council resolution would be to carry out the strikes covertly and without public acknowledgment, the official said.” (Obama administration considering strikes on Assad, again, Washington Post)
Don’t you think the Washington Post should have mentioned that Carter’s sordid-little enterprise is already underway?
Consider the bombing of Deir Ezzor, for example. Doesn’t that meet the Post’s standard of “U.S. military strikes against the Assad regime”?
Sure, it does.
And what about the two Syrian bridges US warplanes took out over the Euphrates last week? (making it more difficult to attack ISIS strongholds in the eastern quadrant of the country) Don’t they count?
Of course, they do.
And let’s not forget the fact that Carter’s jihadist buddies on the ground launched a mortar attack on the Russian embassy in Damascus on Tuesday. That’s another part of this low-intensity war that’s already underway. So all this rubbish about Obama mulling over these “new options” for “military strikes” is complete hogwash. Plan Carter is already in full swing, the train already left the station. The only thing missing is presidential authorization which probably isn’t necessary since Il Duce Carter decided that it was his turn to run the country.
Now check out this clip from a Memo to the President from a group of ex-U.S. intelligence agents who compelled to warn Obama about (among other things) “asserting White House civilian control over the Pentagon.” Here’s an excerpt:
“In public remarks bordering on the insubordinate, senior Pentagon officials showed unusually open skepticism regarding key aspects of the Kerry-Lavrov deal. We can assume that what Lavrov told his boss in private is close to his uncharacteristically blunt words on Russian NTV on Sept. 26:
“My good friend John Kerry … is under fierce criticism from the US military machine. Despite the fact that, as always, [they] made assurances that the US Commander in Chief, President Barack Obama, supported him in his contacts with Russia… apparently the military does not really listen to the Commander in Chief.”
Lavrov’s words are not mere rhetoric … Policy differences between the White House and the Pentagon are rarely as openly expressed as they are now over policy on Syria.”
(Obama Warned to Defuse Tensions with Russia, Consortium News)
How shocking is that? When was the last time you read a memo from retired Intel agents warning the president that the Pentagon was usurping his Constitutional authority? That sounds pretty serious, don’t you think?
Bottom line: The Pentagon is basically prosecuting their own little war in Syria and then chatting up the policy with Obama when they damn-well feel like it. Here’s more from the Washington Post:
“The CIA and the Joint Chiefs of Staff … expressed support for such “kinetic” options, the official said … That marked an increase of support for striking Assad compared with the last time such options were considered.” (Washington Post)
Of course they want to bomb Assad. They’re losing! Everyone wants to bomb someone when they’re losing. It’s human nature. But that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. It’s a very bad idea. Just like supporting Sunni extremists is a bad idea. Just like giving shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles (MANPADS) to fanatical crackpots is a bad idea. How crazy is that? And how long before one of these religious nutcases use their new toys to take down an Israeli or American jetliner?
Not very long, I’d wager. The idea of doubling-down on homicidal maniacs (By providing them with more lethal weapons) is really one of the dumbest ideas of all time, and yet, the Pentagon and CIA seem to think that it’s tip-top military strategy. Here’s one last blurb from the WA Post article:
“Kerry’s deputy, Antony Blinken, testified last week that the U.S. leverage in Russia comes from the notion that Russia will eventually become weary of the cost of its military intervention in Syria. “The leverage is the consequences for Russia of being stuck in a quagmire that is going to have a number of profoundly negative effects,” Blinken told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.” (Washington Post)
See? There it is in black and white. “Quagmire”. The new “Plan C” strategy is designed to create a quagmire for Putin by gradually ratcheting up the violence forcing him to prolong his stay and deepen his commitment. It’s a clever trap and it could work, too. The only hitch is that Putin and his allies appear to be making steady headway on the battlefield. That’s going to make a lot harder for Syria’s enemies to continue the provocations and incitements without triggering massive retaliation.
But maybe Carter hasn’t thought about that yet.
NOTE: Russia issues warning to Pentagon; Hostile aircraft that threatens Syrian troops will be shot down
This is from a Thursday report on Sputnik International:
“The Russian Minister of Defense said “that “Russian S-300, S-400 air defense systems deployed in Syria’s Hmeymim and Tartus have combat ranges that may surprise any unidentified airborne targets. Operators of Russian air defense systems won’t have time to identify the origin of airstrikes, and the response will be immediate. Any illusions about “invisible” jets will inevitably be crushed by disappointing reality.”
No More Deir ez-Zors
“I point out to all the ‘hotheads’ that following the September 17 coalition airstrike on the Syrian Army in Deir ez-Zor we took all necessary measures to exclude any similar ‘accidents’ happening to Russian forces in Syria,” Konashenkov said. (Sputnik)
MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at fergiewhitney@msn.com.

EU anti-globalization politician allowed to stay in Canada

Yahoo News
October 12, 2016
French environmentalist Jose Bove attends a demonstration as part of the World Climate Change Conference 2015 (COP21), in Paris, France, December 3, 2015. REUTERS/Eric Gaillard




OTTAWA (Reuters) - European Parliament member and anti-globalization activist Jose Bove will be allowed to stay in Canada after earlier being told to leave the country, according to organizers of an event where he had been scheduled to speak.
The Council of Canadians, a social justice non-profit, said on Wednesday that a decision to expel Bove from Canada had been reversed.
Ralph Goodale, Minister of Public Safety, tweeted that "an appropriate outcome has been achieved" in the Bove case, though he said privacy rules block public comments on admissibility issues.
The Council of Canadians said Bove had been held by customs for several hours on Tuesday, causing him to miss a planned appearance at a public forum the group had organized in Montreal on the Canadian-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA).
Bove tweeted on Tuesday evening that he had been blocked at Montreal airport for three hours and blamed it on his opposition to CETA.
Bove had said in an earlier interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that he had been allowed to go to his hotel, but his passport was confiscated and he was told he would have to leave the country Wednesday afternoon.
A spokeswoman for the Canada Border Services declined to comment on the specific case.
Bove is the keynote speaker at a separate conference in St. John's, Newfoundland on Friday and he will speak at the conference as originally planned, the Council of Canadians said in a statement.
Bove is known as an anti-globalization activist and for participating in the vandalism of a McDonald's restaurant in 1999. He was elected to the European Parliament in 2009.
(Reporting by Leah Schnurr; Editing by Andrew Hay, Bernard Orr)

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

Hillary In Leaked Email: Saudi Arabia And Qatar Are Funding ISIS

Daily Caller 
October 10, 2016
From left to right: United Arab Emirates' Foreign Minister Abdallah bin Zayed al-Nahyan, Omani Minister of Foreign Affairs Yussef bin Alawi bin Abdullah, Kuwaiti Foreign Minister Sheikh Sabah Khaled al-Hamad Al-Sabah, US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal, Qatar's Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Sheikh Hamad Bin Jassim Bin Jabr Al-Thani, Bahrain's Foreign Minister Khalid bin Ahmed al-Khalifa, pose for a group photo before a US- Gulf Cooperation Council forum at the Gulf Cooperation Council Secretariat on March 31, 2012 in Riyadh. Secretary Clinton promoted a missile shield to protect Gulf Arab states from Tehran and sought to work with them to help end the violence in Iran's ally Syria during her visit to Saudi Arabia. AFP PHOTO/FAYEZ NURELDINE (Photo credit should read FAYEZ NURELDINE/AFP/Getty Images)




Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton sent an email to her campaign chairman John Podesta in 2014, who was then-counselor to President Barack Obama, that said Saudi Arabia and Qatar are both giving financial and logistical support to the Islamic State and other extremist Sunni groups, according to a recent Wikileaks release.
Clinton sent the email on August 17, 2014 to Podesta. It was an eight-point plan to defeat ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Clinton’s email said that the United States should support Kurdish forces on the ground with U.S. military advisers and avoid the use of a conventional ground operation.
“While this military/para-military operation is moving forward, we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region,” Clinton wrote.
The former secretary of state added: “This effort will be enhanced by the stepped up commitment in the [Kurdish Regional Government]. The Qataris and Saudis will be put in a position of balancing policy between their ongoing competition to dominate the Sunni world and the consequences of serious U.S. pressure.”

Monday, October 10, 2016

Houthi rebels fire 2 missiles at US Navy destroyer in Red Sea


FOX News
October 10, 2016


Iranian-backed Houthi rebels fired two missiles at a U.S. Navy destroyer operating off the coast of Yemen in the Red Sea on Sunday -- though neither missile hit the ship, the Pentagon said in a statement.
Though the American warship wasn't struck, the ship was definitely targeted, a U.S. defense official told Fox News. This dramatic escalation comes a week after the U.S. Navy sent warships to the area when a United Arab Emirates flagged auxiliary ship was destroyed off the coast of Yemen by the Houthis.
"We assess the missiles were launched from Houthi-controlled territory in Yemen," Pentagon spokesman Capt Jeff Davis said. "The United States remains committed to ensuring freedom of navigation everywhere in the world, and we will continue to take all necessary steps to ensure the safety of our ships and our servicemembers."
It was not immediately clear how close the missiles came to the destroyer.
Read the entire article

Sunday, October 9, 2016

It’s Official: European Scientific Journal Concludes 9/11 was a Controlled Demolition

Educateinspirechange
October 9, 2016


15-years after the attacks on September 11th, the European Scientific Journal, a publication of theEuropean Scientific Institute (ESI), published an article titled “15 Years Later: On the Physics of High-Rise Building Collapses,” in which they analyze the collapse of all three World Trade Center buildings. The results of their findings continue to indicate that the WTC towers were destroyed by controlled demolition, and the fact that this controversial topic was covered by a publication that boasts aneditorial committee from reputable colleges and universities around the world (despite the article’s disclaimer), can be considered yet another small victory for 9/11 Truthers.
The study was written in collaboration by Steven Jones of Brigham Young University (now retired), Robert Korol of McMaster University – a Mechanical Design Engineer in the aerospace industry, Anthony Szamboti, and Ted Walter of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. The highly-sourced study breaks down the scientific evidence while revealing the discrepancies in NIST’s official report, and we suggest our readers – especially the skeptics – read it in its entirety.
One of the most important testimonies on the collapse of the World Trade Towers that was brought to attention in the study comes from the head structural engineer of the towers, John Skilling. It is apparently not enough for skeptics to take the findings of thousands of architects and engineersseriously, but should a skeptic choose not to at least consider the expertise of one of the men who built the WTC towers, then they are purposefully remaining blind.
Every sort of catastrophe that can happen to a high-rise building has to be taken into consideration during the design and construction processes, including the impact of an airplane. According to a 1993report from The Seattle Times, the Trade Towers were analyzed years ago, after concern was raised over a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building. It was concluded at the time that the Trade Towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.
In a statement made to The Seattle Times by Skilling:
We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side, however back in those days people didn’t think about terrorists very much.” He continues, “Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane)would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. The building structure would still be there. However, I’m not saying that properly applied explosives – shaped explosives – of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage. I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it.”

WikiLeaks Dump: Hillary Dreams of ‘Open Trade and Open Borders’

Lifezette 
October 10, 2016

In excerpts from paid speeches, Clinton admits to taking different public and private positions


Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton admitted she takes two positions on policy issues.
One in private — ostensibly, the “real” position — and one for the public, according to a damaging email leak released on Friday by WikiLeaks that included clips of Clinton’s paid speeches to Wall Street banks and other organizations.
WikiLeaks released emails reportedly from John Podesta, chairman of the Clinton campaign, on Friday, around 6 p.m.
Podesta received comments made in past Hillary Clinton speeches flagged as potential liabilities.

TERROR CAMPS:The Global Agenda

TERROR CAMPS:The Global Agenda
Watch Full Length Movie Here

Libyan Violence: Globalist Plan for the Domination of Eurasia

Left-Right Paradigm and the Coming Election

More White House Propaganda... "The Unemployment Rate is Only 8.25%!!!!"

Defense Cuts Harmful to Economy or National Security?

The Obama Catholic Connection

The Globalists Plan for a Coming World Currency

Four Mega Banks Dubbed "The Four Horsemen of U.S. Banking"

New World Order Rising-Documentary

New World Order Rising-Documentary
Watch Here

ObamaCrimes.com

ObamaCrimes.com
Find out Why Here...

My Other Passions

My Other Passions
Aikido and Iaido