Who REally Runs the Banks? The Banking Hierarchy of Power

Hitler’s War Crimes vs. Those of Churchill & the Americans

When we want to demonize someone the worst epithet we can think of is to call him a Nazi or compare the person to Hitler, as Hillary Clinton did when she declared Russia’s President Putin “the new Hitler.” This ingrained habit comes from the influence of the massive anti-German World War II propaganda. Revisionist historians who have actually dug up the buried evidence and examined it have made a case that whatever the Nazi crimes, they were rivaled, if not exceeded, by those of Churchill and the Americans.

Unz, a prolific reader with a knack for tying things together reviews some of the true history in what follows. To condition yourself for the coming shock, keep in mind that the same Hitler that is said to have hated Jews and systematically gassed and burnt them, had 150,000 half-and quarter-Jews serving in his armies, “mostly as combat officers, and these included at least 15 half-Jewish generals and admirals, with another dozen quarter Jews holding those same high ranks. The most notable example was Field Marshal Erhard Milch, Hermann Goering’s powerful second-in-command, who played such an important operational role in creating the Luftwaffe. Milch certainly had a Jewish father, and according to some much less substantiated claims, perhaps even a Jewish mother as well, while his sister was married to an SS general.”

When truth-tellers rattle our cages, we get upset over having our comfortable make-believe world disturbed and shout invectives. Rather than condemn the messanger, the more mature response would be to condemn those who lied to us and institutionalized false history into our consciousness. Keep in mind that the few who tell you the truth pay a high price for doing so; therefore, you should refrain from adding your invective to the copious amount heaped on them by the Establishment. Think about it. Which is your true friend, the one who tells you the truth, or the one who controls the explanations you receive in order to advance his own agenda?

I again state my admiration of Ron Unz. He is Jewish. He is highly intelligent. He is a Harvard graduate. He is an entrepreneur who made himself a multi-millionaire. He could have held his fire and risen to the top of the establishment. Instead, he chose to tell us the truth. Ron Unz is the person who should be President. Unlike Trump, Unz would know how to staff a government that would put truth and morality back in charge of our future.

Read the entire article

Communist China’s Encroachment on Hong Kong Is a Warning to All Free Nations—Alan Leong

Non-Intervention: An Imperfect Solution to a Terrible Problem

On November 27, US president Donald Trump signed the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act.

The bill, passed by veto-proof majorities in Congress amid large protests in the “special administrative region,” allows the president to impose sanctions on officials who violate human rights there, and requires various US government departments to annually review Hong Kong’s political status with a view toward changing trade relations if the US doesn’t like what it sees.

In response to the bill’s passage and Trump’s signature, the Chinese government in Beijing denounced US “meddling” in China’s “internal affairs” and threatened “countermeasures.”

Some non-interventionists agree with Beijing’s line on the matter, claiming that Hong Kong is intrinsically part of a thing called “China” and that the US simply has no business poking its nose into the conflict between pro-democracy (and increasingly pro-independence) protesters and mainland China’s Communist Party regime.

I happen to disagree with Beijing’s line, but that doesn’t mean I think the bill is a good idea. Non-interventionism is sound foreign policy not because the situation in Hong Kong is simple, but because it’s complex.

Read the entire article

Patriot Act on Steroids: Surveillance State Beyond Section 215

Second Amendment Sanctuary” Idea Gaining Ground as Dems Push for More Gun Control

RICHMOND — In the wake of the Democrat takeover of Virginia, the newly empowered Left is unapologetic about plans to disarm residents of the Old Dominion. Governor Ralph Northam — having previously failed to get any traction for his citizen-disarmament policies — now appears to see his way clear to implement them. But partisan victories do not necessarily equal a carte blanche mandate. Virginians across the state are prepared to resist his gun grab, and they have the law — and some in law enforcement — on their side.

As a result of the Maoist-assisted shift to the Left in Virginia, Democrats in the birthplace of a nation appear to believe they can run roughshod over the God-given, constitutionally protected rights of Virginians. While Northam may not have expressed it quite the way former Texas Congressman Beto O'Rourke did in his bid for the DNC presidential nomination, he nonetheless promised that he will press forward with “common sense” gun-control laws. “Common sense” is a liberal buzz-word for repressive restrictions on the Second Amendment’s guarantee of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

Northam and other Democrats had tried on previous occasions to enact restrictive gun laws, but were held at bay by the Republican-controlled General Assembly. With the recent election giving Democrats control of both houses, Northam has promised to press his agenda through. That agenda includes universal background checks; child access prevention; a one-gun-per-month purchase limit; bans on all so-called assault weapons, including bump stocks and high-capacity magazines; legal responsibilities for lost or stolen guns; allowing municipalities to ban guns from municipal buildings; and so-called red flag laws.

“Red flag laws” are laws that prevent a person who has not committed a crime from buying a gun. All that is necessary is that the person is accused of being “dangerous.” As the Virginia Citizens Defense League, a gun-rights group active in Virginia since 1994, explains:

The person accused of being “dangerous” has not committed a crime and has no notice there is a problem until the police show up, pre-dawn, with guns drawn and confiscate the accused’s firearms. The accused is not given due process to defend himself or herself in court from the accusation for weeks or months after the confiscation. It is up to the accused to prove that he or she is not dangerous! (How do you prove a negative? How do you prove you are not dangerous?) Until such proof is provided to the Court's satisfaction, the guns are not returned. This could drag on for months, years, or indefinitely!

So, claims of “common sense” duly noted, the reality is that Democrats plan to not only limit Virginians’ ability to purchase guns, but also to confiscate them without anything resembling due process.

Read the entire article

Chuck Schumer Outs Lt. Vindman as One of the Whistleblowers - Giuliani Obama Pay-To-Play Scheme

Here is a List of FBI, DOJ Officials Who Signed Off on Carter Page FISA Documents

Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham announced this week that he will hold a public hearing on Dec. 11 featuring Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz.

And the Deep State-media complex is already spinning ahead of the IG report on FISA abuses which is expected out before the hearing on Wednesday December 11th.

CNN reported Thursday that one FBI official is under criminal investigation for altering surveillance documents on Carter Page.

According to CNN, one FBI official, who was not named, has already admitted to making the drastic changes to the documents, which Horowitz turned over to US Attorney from Connecticut John Durham.

The alterations were significant enough to have shifted the document’s meaning and came up during a part of Horowitz’s FISA review where details were classified, according to the sources, reported CNN.

In February of 2018, then-Chairman of the House Intel Committee Devin Nunes (R-CA) released a 2-page FISA memo revealing who signed off on the FISA application and three subsequent renewals on Trump campaign advisor Carter Page.

The FBI and DOJ obtained one FISA warrant in October of 2016 and three subsequent renewals on Carter Page, and the fourth and final FISA renewal was signed in June of 2017.

As required by law, a FISA order must be renewed by the FISC [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court] every 90 days and each renewal requires a separate finding of probable cause.

Despite being spied on for nearly one year, Carter Page was never charged with a crime, so what did the FBI present to the FISA judges on Carter Page that was so damning that it prompted the judges to grant a total of FOUR FISA warrants?

According to Nunes’ FISA memo, then-FBI Director James Comey signed the first three FISA applications on behalf of the FBI and then-Deputy Director Andrew McCabe signed the fourth one.
Then-DAG Sally Yates, then Acting DAG Dana Boente, and DAG Rod Rosenstein signed one or more FISA applications on behalf of the DOJ, according to the FISA memo. (Rosenstein signed the fourth one along with McCabe in June of 2017).


Read the entire article

Lindsey Graham Gets Official To Admit FBI Is Looking At "Criminal Enterprise" For Epstein's Death

China signs defence agreement with South Korea as US angers Seoul with demand for $5bn troop payment

The defence ministers of South Korea and China have agreed to develop their security ties to ensure stability in north-east Asia, the latest indication that Washington’s long-standing alliances in the region are fraying. 

On the sidelines of regional security talks in Bangkok on Sunday, Jeong Kyeong-doo, the South Korean minister of defence, and his Chinese counterpart, Wei Fenghe, agreed to set up more military hotlines and to push ahead with a visit by Mr Jeong to China next year to “foster bilateral exchanges and cooperation in defence”, South Korea’s defence ministry said.  

Seoul’s announcement coincided with growing resentment at the $5 billion (£3.9bn) annual fee that Washington is demanding to keep 28,500 US troops in South Korea.

That figure is a sharp increase from the $923 million that Seoul paid this year, which was an 8 per cent increase on the previous year. 

An editorial in Monday’s edition of The Korea Times warned that the security alliance between the two countries “may fall apart due to Washington’s blatantly excessive demands”. 
Mr Trump has previously threatened to withdraw US troops if his demands are not met, with the editorial accusing the president of regarding the Korea-US mutual defence treaty “as a property deal to make money”.

The vast majority of Koreans agree, with a recent survey by the Korea Institute for National Reunification showing that 96 per cent of people are opposed to Seoul paying more for the US military presence. 

There is also irritation at the pressure that Washington is applying to the South to make Seoul sign an extension to a three-way agreement on sharing military information with the US and Japan.

The General Security of Military Information Agreement is due to expire at midnight on November 23 and South Korea insists that it will only agree to an extension if Japan cancels restrictions on exports of chemicals critical to the South’s microchip industry. 

Japan is widely believed to have imposed the restrictions as the latest incident in its troubled relationship with South Korea, which includes the issue of compensation for labourers put to work during Japan’s colonial rule of the Korean Peninsula. 

Read the entire article

Why Does Billionaire George Soros Need American Taxpayer Dollars for His Organizations?

National populists in Spain promise to build ‘impassable wall’

Spain’s national populist party Vox, the country’s third-largest party as of this week, has pledged to erect an “impassable wall” around its North African exclaves to prevent illegal immigration.

Ahead of the country’s national elections that were held on last Sunday, Vox presented a list of 100 proposals which included policies that would work to drastically reduce the number of illegal migrants living in Spain.

Increased deportations of illegal migrants, more stringent border controls, and the construction of an “impassable wall” around the country’s North African exclaves were among Vox’s top priorities, online newspaper El Confidencial reports.

Security barriers that separate Spain’s North African exclaves – Melilla and Ceuta – from Morocco have continually proven themselves to be ineffective over the years, with hundreds of migrants scaling the existing fences on several occasions in the past few years.

In July, six Spanish border guards were injured in Melilla after 200 illegal migrants attempted to scale the security barrier which separates Europe from North Africa.

Also within the 100 proposals Vox outlined for voters, the party promised that it would provide additional material and financial support to police, armed forces, and security personnel in charge of patrolling the Spanish border.

Vox leader Santiago Abascal also has said that he would criminalize NGO boats operating in the Mediterranean Sea that assist human traffickers in the ferrying of migrants into Europe from North Africa.

Read the entire article

What You Are Hearing Are the Real Reasons the War Mongers Want Trump Out; They Want War

Sandy Hook Lawsuit Against Remington Sent Back to State Court

When Connecticut’s Supreme Court overturned a lower court’s ruling last March that Remington Arms was protected from a lawsuit by families of victims of the Sandy Hook shooting, Remington appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Without comment, the Supreme Court on Tuesday turned back the appeal that allows the lawsuit against Remington to proceed.

The essence of the case against Remington is this: The company is accused of violating Connecticut’s fair trade laws by deceptively marketing its Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle. The company’s ads touted the rifle’s looks and expressed its benefits in ways that the families considered deceptive. That’s important because one of the exceptions to the federal law protecting arms manufacturers from such lawsuits — the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA — is that victims are allowed to sue if a manufacturer “knowingly violated a state or federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing” of a firearm.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs claimed that Remington’s Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle — the one Adam Lanza stole from his mother Nancy (before murdering her) and used to murder 20 children and six teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012 — was “designed as a military weapon” and “engineered to deliver maximum carnage” with great efficiency.

They argued that Remington touted the rifle’s military appearance as a marketing strategy, including an ad showing a large picture of the rifle along with the text: “Forces of opposition, Bow down. The only rifle you need to master the infinite number of extreme scenarios you’ll face in the worlds of law enforcement and personal defense.” The ad called the rifle the “ultimate military combat weapons system,” adding that “It’s tested and proven reliable in the most brutal conditions on earth, truly ambidextrous and the uncompromising choice when you demand a rifle as mission-adaptable as you are.”

Another ad touted the rifle’s masculinity: “Consider your man card reissued.”

The attorneys chimed that somehow these influenced Adam Lanza to use the Bushmaster in his killing spree — that he was “encouraged” by those ads to use it to commit his atrocity at Sandy Hook. In its ruling last March that overturned the lower court, the state’s Supreme Court obliquely agreed: “If the defendants’ marketing materials did in fact inspire or intensify the massacre, then there are no more direct victims than these plaintiffs.”

Chief Justice Richard Robinson spoke for the Connecticut court’s majority:

If the defendants did indeed seek to expand the market for their assault [sic] weapons through advertising campaigns that encouraged consumers to use the weapons not for legal purposes such as self-defense, hunting, collecting, or target practice, but to launch offensive assaults against their perceived enemies, then we are aware of nothing in the text or legislative history of PLCAA to indicate that Congress intended to shield the defendants from liability for the tragedy that resulted.

Read the entire article

Tulsi Demands Info On Saudi Involvement In 911 Attacks

The End Of NATO?

With less than a month until the next big NATO meeting, scheduled for the first week of December, France’s Macron has jumped into public relations mode to prepare the public for some big changes on the horizon. Indeed, Macron’s major interview with the Economist on November 7th on the question of the US’s alleged wavering commitment to NATO is a stunning sign of the times.

Cutting through a lot of intentionally confusing messaging, is that France and Germany are just fine with any end to NATO because it helps justify the coming European Army – one that they want, and believe they need anyhow. It only happens to be part of the same reality that US hegemony, and its ability to finance NATO in turn, are coming to an end. In sounding more like a radical post-structuralist international relations theorist than a fiscally conservative leader of a capitalist democracy, Macron shocked the world when he stated in no uncertain terms that this period we are in marks the end of ‘Western Hegemony’.

The real facts of motives behind big changes have an odd way of ultimately making themselves known for what they are at the end of the day. Often these are cloaked in the underlying framework of the politics of the time. Revealing these in the case of France and NATO can show some top-level word salad at play: justify independence not on the basis that being controlled isn’t fair, but rather that those doing the controlling aren’t doing it well enough and don’t seem committed to it as much as they ought to be. Macron is doing this very well, and mirrors Trump’s own discursive games.

Occupiers aren’t doing their job – the End of Trilateralism
Imagine if you will a French argument against the Nazi occupation not because it placed Germany in control of France’s fate, but rather on the basis that the Wehrmacht was decreasing its troop presence in France, or conversely appeared to be wavering on the Eastern Front, and as a consequence France was worried about Germany’s commitment to the Reich. This is, in short, what Macron is arguing today regarding the US and NATO.

Imagine likewise, that the Wehrmacht said it was considering abandoning its occupation of France not because it had to move resources to the Eastern Front, but because France wasn’t giving enough to the war effort. This is the crux of Trump’s argument for public consumption.

Under any other prior historical iterations, the US’s moves to reduce its NATO commitments to Western Europe would be hailed by progressives in the Democratic Party in the US as a step in the right direction. Yet now in this exciting time, one in which the US Empire is down-sizing and adjusting itself to its real force potential, progressives in the US are making geopolitical realism into a partisan issue: since the most obvious or observable stage is happening under a nominally conservative, Republican administration, it must therefore be a Democratic Party talking point to oppose this in principle.

The matter is of course deeper than this, and the Democratic Party’s investment in the trilateralism (US + EU + Japan) of Rockefeller and Brzezinski has been at odds with the unilateralism of the neoconservatives. We will recall when President George W Bush attacked Iraq, it came not long after moves by the Iraqi government to do their oil dealings in Euros. The Europe-wide hatred for Bush’s war on Iraq seemed to the politically naïve as an expression of social-democratic pacifism, but in reality was an expression of Europe’s sovereign financial interests versus dollar hegemony. These questions really have not gone away.

When NATO came onto the stage, it was couched in terms of protecting Western Europe from the growth of the Soviet sphere of influence which the latter had won from its victory over Germany in WWII.

The idea that NATO was not a collaborative and mutual effort of freely-acting European states in defense of market freedoms and Western values, but instead more like a US led and sustained military occupation in Western Europe, in the past could be criticized as either Communist or even neo-Nazi propaganda. Against this view the entire media-academic industry was mobilized, assuring the public that all the European countries of NATO were members of their own accord and will: an outgrowth of the democratic mandate from the peoples of the member states, arrived at through fair parliamentary processes.

Macron still needs to make everyone look good
All this places Macron in an odd position. NATO is the military component of economic Atlanticism, but this transatlantic relationship experienced a major breach of trust in the years following the US market crash in 2007. This was because US based banks and government colluded to deceitfully push a significant portion of its liabilities onto the EU all the while claiming these were investments – who in turn placed an undue burden in PIIGS countries, in particular Greece. This all in turn has fueled a marked increase in Eurosceptic and ‘exit’ movements across the beleaguered EU.

Read the entire article

A New Inspector General Report Is Coming

OMNICIDE: More People Than You Think Want to Destroy Humanity

Omnicide is defined as the extinction of humans at the hands of humans.  And more people than you could imagine want humanity to become extinct and eerily enough, we now have the technology to make it possible.

With the invention of the atomic bomb, the ultimate self-destruction of humanity and our extinction became possible. Right now, the governments of the world could eliminate humanity with nuclear weapons if they choose to do so.  They could also, most likely, exterminate everyone but themselves, as they relax in their safe houses and bunkers built to withstand a nuclear apocalypse.

My own research suggests that the percentage of people who would push a doomsday button, if it were placed within finger’s reach, is fairly small, but the absolute number is unacceptably high. Even a quick Google search seems to affirm this. –OneZero.Medium

Some groups, such as the Gaia Liberation Front (GLF), an ecoterrorist group, want everyone dead. GLF says that their mission is  “the total liberation of the Earth, which can be accomplished only through the extinction of the Humans as a species.” In advocating this, they argue that “if any Humans survive, they may start the whole thing over again. Our policy is to take no chances.”

GLF contends that bioengineering is “the specific technology for doing the job right of annihilating humanity — and it’s something that could be done by just one person with the necessary expertise and access to the necessary equipment.” They continue: “…genetically engineered viruses… have the advantage of attacking only the target species. To complicate the search for a cure or a vaccine, and as insurance against the possibility that some Humans might be immune to a particular virus, several different viruses could be released (with provision being made for the release of a second-round after the generals and the politicians had come out of their shelters).”

Read the entire article

Julian Assange's Extradition Process Is 'A Charade'

Sidney Powell Again Destroys DoJ/FBI in Flynn Case — When Will William Barr End This Nonsense?

Reconstructing Justice – Flynn Defense Submits Outstanding Sur-Surreply to Counter Prosecution….

In the case against Lt. General Michael Flynn, his lawyer Sidney Powell previously filed a motion to compel (MTC) Brady material from the prosecution (here).  Because the MTC raised stunning, potentially game-changing, legal and ethical issues the prosecution requested the opportunity to file a surreptitious reply to the court; a “surreply”. (here)

Judge Sullivan directed the prosecution to file their surreply, and then granted the defense the opportunity to file a sur-surreply, a response to the prosecution’s last argument. Today Flynn’s attorney Sidney Powell filed that response (full pdf below).

Read the entire article

America heading into a Civil War if Democrats continue with Impeachment push

Former CIA Boss Celebrates Impeachment: 'Thank God for the Deep State!'

On Wednesday, just before House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led the formal vote to open an impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump, a former CIA boss praised the "whistleblower" behind the impeachment push. Adopting President Donald Trump's language, former acting CIA Director John E. McLaughlin declared, "Thank God for the 'deep state.'"

CBS News's Margaret Brennan asked an incisive question about the impeachment inquiry — which Pelosi announced last month before she led the House in formalizing it on Thursday.

"Now the impeachment inquiry is underway, sparked by a complaint from someone within the intelligence community. It feeds the president’s concern — and often used term — about a 'deep state' being there to take him out," Brennan suggested.

To this, McLaughlin somewhat ironically responded, "Thank God for the 'deep state.'"

While the audience laughed, it does not seem McLaughlin was merely telling a joke. He may reject Trump's language about the deep state, but he seemed to express genuine appreciation for members of the intelligence community who really did aim to take down the president.


Responding to the question about taking Trump out, McLaughlin insisted that the people in the intelligence community "are doing their duty or responding to a higher call." He noted that many of the Trump administration staff knew about the July 25 call between Trump and the president of Ukraine, but only a former and current CIA analyst went to Democrats in Congress with the story.

"With all of the people who knew what was going on here, it took an intelligence officer to step forward and say something about it, which was the trigger that unleashed everything else," McLaughlin said. "This is the institution in the U.S. government, that with all of its flaws — and it makes mistakes — is institutionally committed to objectivity and to telling the truth … Its whole job is to speak the truth. It’s engraved in marble in the lobby."

With all due respect, the intelligence community's record is not something to brag about at the current time, with John Durham's investigation into the roots of the Trump-Russia investigation and after the release of Andrew McCarthy's important book Ball of Collusion: The Plot to Rig an Election and Destroy a Presidency.

Read the entire articlehttps://pjmedia.com/video/former-cia-boss-celebrates-impeachment-thank-god-for-the-deep-state/

THIS WILL COLLAPSE WORLD GOVERNMENTS!! MAJOR EVENT APPROACHING!

The Case for Indicting John Brennan

Former CIA director John Brennan calls the Justice Department’s widening probe into Spygate’s origins “bizarre.” It has no “legal basis,” he bleats.

What’s bizarre is that the expanding inquiry didn’t happen earlier. Brennan’s responsibility for criminal leaks during the Obama administration’s investigation of Trump has been obvious for at least two years. Even Trump hater Peter Strzok, the FBI liaison to John Brennan, couldn’t believe the leaks coming out of his shop. Referring to Brennan’s agents as “sisters,” Strzok said to his mistress Lisa Page, “our sisters have begun leaking like mad. Scorned and worried and political, they’re kicking in to overdrive.”

The “leaking like mad” began in the thick of the 2016 campaign, as the feverishly partisan John Brennan sought to sabotage Donald Trump before Election Day. Has John Durham, the U.S. attorney assigned to the probe of the Obama administration’s spying on Trump, talked to Harry Reid about Brennan’s leaking? He should. Recall Brennan’s blatant disclosure of classified information about the investigation to the former Nevada senator in the late summer/early fall of 2016. Reid has told reporters that Brennan used him as the conduit for that leak against Trump during the campaign: “Why do you think he called me?”

In other words, Brennan knew damn well that he was criminally leaking to a fellow anti-Trump partisan. That’s enough to indict him right there. Reid, of course, was happy to broadcast the leak to the media, but even he found Brennan’s “ulterior motive” for a senatorial briefing a little odd, as he explained to David Corn and Michael Isikoff in their book Russian Roulette. Corn and Isikoff write that Reid “had concluded the CIA chief believed the public needed to know about the Russian operation, including the information about the possible links to the Trump campaign.”

Brennan has said that the widening probe “concerns” him. It should. He is guilty as hell. The news that his subordinates are lawyering up suggests that he is perhaps hoping that one of those saps takes the fall for him. But the fact remains that he conducted the briefing with Reid in the hopes of dirtying up Trump before election day.

Durham could also nail Brennan for perjury — his most obvious whopper being his denial before Congress of knowledge of the Hillary-financed Christopher Steele dossier. Reid had told Brennan about the Steele dossier in the summer of 2016. So, too, did Steele’s old colleagues in British intelligence, whose well-publicized role in feeding Brennan information about alleged Trump–Russia ties depended at least in part on Steele’s recycled yarns. Peter Strzok, to whom Brennan gave a special CIA award, would have also alerted him to Steele’s role in Crossfire Hurricane.

The same de

Read the entire article

The True History of ISIS - Jake Morphonios in 2014

Fliers accusing Jews of being behind 9/11 attacks appear near San Francisco

Antisemitic fliers saying that Jews and Israel were behind the 9/11 attacks appeared in Northern California about 30 miles from San Francisco.

The fliers discovered last weekend in Novato, a city of about 52,000 in the North Bay area, were plastered on telephone poles, storefronts and a high school campus. They said Israelis were seen dancing on the site of the collapsed Twin Towers, that a Jewish-Israeli man made billions in insurance money and that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised the attacks.

At the bottom of the page it says, “Wake up USA!”

Police Chief Adam McGill urged citizens to “stand up to hate,” but told the Marin Independent Journal that the fliers are protected by the First Amendment and there would be no investigation. No group has claimed responsibility for them. […]

Read the entire article

Schiff Hits An Impeachment Roadblock, [DS] Feeling The Pain, Next Wave Coming

Elizabeth Warren is open to the idea of conditioning aid to Israel

Last month, the progressive think tank Data for Progress released report showing that a net majority of Democratic voters are receptive to the idea of cutting aid to Israel in order to curb their human rights violations.

These statistics certainly didn’t line up with the Beltway consensus on the issue, where it’s assumed that touching the issue could amount to political suicide. When the report was published, only two presidential candidates had floated such an idea: South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who said he’d block any funding that might be used to annex the West Bank, and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, who has floated the idea of conditioning aid to impact Israel’s policies multiple times.

We can now add a third name to that list: Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren.

On a Saturday, Warren said she was open to the idea of conditioning aid if Israel continued to expand its settlements:

Right now, Netanyahu says he is going to take Israel in a direction of increasing settlements, [but] that does not move us in the direction of a two-state solution. It is the official policy of the United States of America to support a two-state solution, and if Israel is moving in the opposite direction, then everything is on the table…Everything is on the table.

Read the entire article

Durham/Horowitz Sets Sights on Senate Intel Committee - A Deep Dive

Interference by Unnamed “Foreign Powers” in Canada’s Elections? The Invasion of “America’s Backyard”

Intervention of an Unnamed Foreign Power: The United States of America

There is ample of evidence of foreign interference by an “unnamed foreign power”, which has barely been mentioned in the course of the election campaign.

In Canada’s history, as well as during the mandate of the Justin Trudeau’s government, the United States of America (rather than “unnamed foreign powers”) has intervened in what is euphemistically called  “America’s Backyard”, i.e. a nation state inside America’s sphere of influence.

And I am not referring to former president Obama’s recent statement in support for Justin Trudeau.

Washington is on record of having interfered in elections  in 45 countries according to political scientist Dov H. Levin of Carnegie Mellon University.  

While Canada is not mentioned in Don H Levin’s study, the history of US interference in Canada’s internal affairs goes far beyond the process of meddling in Canadian elections.

Canadian farmers are acutely aware of how the Trump administration in 2017 imposed without real negotiation, a complete overhaul of trade and investment relations leading to the formation of the so-call United States, Mexico, Canada USMCA trade agreement which is intended to replace NAFTA.

Read the entire article