Saturday, October 24, 2020

PRINCE PHILIP’S UNCLE CLAIMS AN ALIEN SPACESHIP LANDED ON HIS ESTATE (DRAWINGS INCLUDED)

by Arjun Walia, Collective Evolution:

You might be surprised to learn that Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh and husband of the queen of England, is fascinated by the UFO phenomenon. It’s not surprising to me, however, because his family is most likely comprised of people involved with Deep State institutions and the Black Budget programs (Special Access Programs) that these oversee.

Although the group that maintains all oversight on the extraterrestrial phenomenon remains hidden, if we follow the money, the royal families of the world is where the line seems to go.

As I’ve furthered my research into the phenomenon over the years, what’s become even more evident is that, whoever these people are, they’re most likely the Bilderberg type or beyond, and they too are curious about what exactly is going — and that’s despite the fact that they probably know a whole lot more than we do.

Prince Philip documents his interest in UFOs, but as always, we must be wary of comments coming from the government, or those who puppet these governments, about UFOs, because those comments could perhaps be used to push forth a fear agenda. First the threat was the Russians, and now it’s the “Islamic State,” which itself seems to be the creation of the Western Military Alliance.

So why should UFOs be any different? Just look at this statement from the biography of Lord Mountbatten, Prince Philip’s uncle, as shared in the Huffington Post a couple of years ago:

[We were] both convinced that they come from another planet but we mutually and independently came to the conclusion that they were not ‘aeroplanes’ with silly little almost human pilots but are themselves the actual inhabitants: Martians, Venusians, Jupiterians or what have you. Why should life in another planet with entirely different conditions in any way resemble life on our planet? Their inhabitants might be ‘gaseous’ or circular or very large. They certainly don’t breathe, they may not have to eat and I doubt if they have babies—bits of their great discs may break away and grow into a new creature. The fact that they can hover and accelerate away from the earth’s gravity again and even revolve round a V2 in America (as reported by their head scientist) shows that they are far ahead of us. If they really come over in a big way that may settle the capitalist-communist war. If the human race wishes to survive they may have to band together.

In fact, fear propaganda was also alluded to in some of the John Podesta Wikileaks emails, when Dr. Edgar Mitchell and Carol Rosin expressed their concern for peace in outer space. Rosin herself has told the world a very interesting story with regards to what she heard from her mentor, Dr. Wernher Von Braun:

“The enemy as first he said, the enemy against whom we’re going to build a space based weapons system. . . . First the Russians are going to be considered the enemy . . . then terrorists would be identified and that was soon to follow. . . . Then we were going to identify third world crazy’s, we now call them nations of concern. . . . The next enemy was asteroids…and against asteroids we’re going to build space based weapons, and the funniest one of all, was against what he called aliens, extraterrestrials, that would be the final card. And over, and over during the four years that I knew him and was giving his speeches for him, he would bring up that last card.”

After all, the global financial elite have a long history of imposing their will on others, by any means necessary, and that includes a lot of mainstream media brainwashing.

You can read more about that agenda, perhaps one to further heighten the global national security state, one in which fear rules, in an article we published about it here.

So, again, this is why it’s always interesting to hear what these “elites” have to say about UFOs, because it always gets mainstream media attention, though that does not mean it represents any truth at all.

The UFO/extraterrestrial issue is engulfed in secrecy, and very compartmentalized, and anybody who claims to know what exactly is going, no matter who they are, is suspect. That shouldn’t detract from the fact that they may know a whole lot too, but as far as I am concerned, mainstream media, governments, and royal families are not your greatest source for truth.

That being said, there still remains the very clear fact that the UFO/extraterrestrial phenomenon is full of evidence and truth, and there are those, like the ones mentioned above, who want to manufacture their own truth about it, all while studying it for themselves and perhaps using it for their own advantage.

It’s noteworthy to mention here that Mountbatten was also Admiral of the Fleet, one of many military men with a heavy interest in the subject.

Take Lord Admiral Hill-Norton, for example, a former Chief of Defence Staff, 5 Star Admiral of the Navy, and Chairman of the NATO military committee, who said:

“There is a serious possibility that we are being visited and have been visited for many years by people from outer space, from other civilizations . . . and it behooves us, in case some of these people in the future or now should turn hostile, to find out who they are, where they come from, and what they want. This should be the subject of rigorous scientific investigation and not the subject of ‘rubishing’ by tabloid newspapers.

The UFO At Mountbatten’s Estate

According to an article written by the Sun, who placed within their article the document found by them within the Broadlands Archives:

Back in February, 1955, Mountbatten…made an official report about a strange encounter his bricklayer Fred Briggs allegedly had with a flying saucer and an alien creature. The report, which was uncovered after Mountbatten’s 1979 death at the hands of the IRA, describes how a silver spaceship landed in the grounds of his Broadlands estate in Romsey, Hampshire. The flying saucer hovered above the ground before a man dressed in overalls and a helmet descended from the bottom of the craft, according to the documents. Fred was then reportedly knocked off his bike and held on the ground by an “unseen force.” 

What further lends legitimacy to this story is the fact thatGordon Creighton, a veteran of the British Service, also describes a UFO landing that took place on the estate of Lord Mountbatten in the south of England, near Southampton.

Below is a picture of Mountbatten’s description.

 

Read More @ CollectiveEvolution.com

It Begins. Owner of Historic US Clothing Company Pulls Ads from NFL Games

0

by Jim Hoft, The Gateway Pundit:

Allan Jones, CEO of Hardwick Clothing and Check Into Cash payday loan company, announced on Tuesday he is through with sponsoring the wardrobes and advertising on the NFL.

Hardwick Clothing is America’s oldest suit maker.

In his statement Jones said“Our companies will not condone unpatriotic behavior!”
The Times Free Press reported:

Two years ago, Cleveland, Tenn., businessman Allan Jones was proudly showing off his newly acquired Hardwick Clothing-brand suits by providing the wardrobe for NBC’s on-air talent during the network’s broadcasts of NFL football games.

But after NFL players and coaches challenged President Donald Trump and many took a knee during the national anthem played before their games over the weekend, Jones said he is through sponsoring the wardrobes or advertising on stations that air the National Football League.

Jones, CEO of the payday lending chain Check Into Cash and owner of Hardwick Clothes — America’s oldest suit maker — tweeted his criticism and change of heart Tuesday.

Read More @ TheGatewayPundit.com

Leaked Descriptions Of Infamous “Russia Ads” Derail Collusion Narrative “They Showed Support For Clinton”

0

from ZeroHedge:

That was quick.

Less than a week after Facebook agreed to turn over to Congressional investigators copies of the 3,000-odd political advertisements that the company said it had inadvertently sold to a Russia-linked group intent on meddling in the 2016 presidential election, the contents of the ads have – unsurprisingly – leaked, just as we had expected them to.

Congressional investigators shared the information with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team, which has repeatedly allowed information about its investigation into whether members of the Trump campaign actively colluded with Russian operatives to leak to the press. Once this happened, we knew it was only a matter of time before the ads became part of the public record.  

And, shockingly, descriptions of the ads provided to the Washington Post hardly fit the narrative that Democratic lawmakers have spun in recent weeks, claiming the ads – which didn’t advocate on behalf of a specific candidate, but rather hewed to political issues like abortion rights – were instrumental in securing Trump’s victory.

After initially denying the story this spring, Facebook came clean earlier this month, saying its investigators had discovered that the company sold at least $100,000 worth of ads – and possibly as much as $150,000 – to Russia-linked group that bought the ads through 470 phony Facebook pages and accounts.

WaPo reports that the ads represented issues on both sides of the ideological spectrum, which would suggest that the buyers didn’t intend to support a specific candidate, but rather their own unique agenda.

The batch of more than 3,000 Russian-bought ads that Facebook is preparing to turn over to Congress shows a deep understanding of social divides in American society, with some ads promoting African-American rights groups including Black Lives Matter and others suggesting that these same groups pose a rising political threat, say people familiar with the covert influence campaign.

The Russian campaign — taking advantage of Facebook’s ability to simultaneously send contrary messages to different groups of users based on their political and demographic characteristics – also sought to sow discord among religious groups. Other ads highlighted support for Democrat Hillary Clinton among Muslim women.

Of course, support for Hillary Clinton among minority groups was less enthusiastic than it was for Barack Obama, suggesting that the ads perhaps weren’t as effective as some Democratic lawmakers would have voters believe. Despite the innocuous description, WaPo insisted on reporting that the ads were meant to “sow dischord” among different voting blocs that supported Clinton. The paper of record also reported that the targeted messages “highlight the sophistication of an influence campaign slickly crafted to mimic and infiltrate US political discourse”…again without explaining exactly how they accomplished this.

These targeted messages, along with others that have surfaced in recent days, highlight the sophistication of an influence campaign slickly crafted to mimic and infiltrate U.S. political discourse while also seeking to heighten tensions between groups already wary of one another.

Yet, WaPo reports that the “nature and detail” of the ads has bothered investigators at Facebook and the Justice Department, as well as those working on behalf of the Congressional committees that are conducting independent investigations. The House and Senate Intelligence committees plan to begin reviewing the Facebook ads in the coming weeks.

Furthermore, the paper ran quotes from Sen. Mark Warner and Rep. Adam Schiff, two of the most vocal proponents of the Russia election-hacking conspiracy theory (it is only a theory, after all), describing the ads as part of a sinister effort to undermine the democratic process.

“Their aim was to sow chaos,” said Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.), vice-chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. “In many cases, it was more about voter suppression rather than increasing turnout.”

The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Adam Schiff of California, said he hoped the public would be able to review the ad campaign.

“I think the American people should see a representative sample of these ads to see how cynical the Russian were using these ads to sow division within our society,” he said, noting that he had not yet seen the ads but had been briefed on them, including the ones mentioning “things like Black Lives Matter.”

Read More @ ZeroHedge.com

Politicians Start to Run Away from Global Warming

0

by Martin Armstrong, Armstrong Economics:

Politicians have been confronted with the real cost of their support for global warming. France has suddenly come out in support of diesel because of the jobs that could be lost. The diesel crisis may have started in Germany, but there are more diesel car owners in Europe as a whole.

Suddenly, when confronted with the loss of jobs, the politicians are turning against global warming and revealing that the scientists have been WRONG! Indeed, the politicians were eager to jump on the global warming theory because they have been able to raise taxes without providing a corresponding cost. The estimated cost to the private sector for global warming has reached about $1 trillion globally. The price of everything from electricity to gasoline has risen due to global warming taxes. Not to mention, it is driving the cost of meat and dairy products higher with claims that cows, the second-leading culprit behind cars, produce damaging gas to the environment. Look at the taxes on air travel. On average, 50{5f621241b214ad2ec6cd4f506191303eb2f57539ef282de243c880c2b328a528} of the price goes toward taxes.

We are starting to now see more and more articles in the major press exposing that global warming is a fraud (see SunIndependentAustralianNational Geographic).

Read More @ ArmstrongEconomics.com

PEAK PONZI: Teachers Demand $3,200 From Each Kentucky Household To Fund Pension Ponzi For 2 Years

from Zero Hedge:

We have written frequently over the past couple of weeks about the disastrous public pension funds in Kentucky that are anywhere from $42 – $84 billion underfunded, depending on which discount rate you feel inclined to use. As we’ve argued before, these pensions, like the ones in Illinois and other states, are so hopelessly underfunded that they haven’t a prayer of ever again being made whole.

That said, logic and math have never before stopped pissed off teachers and/or clueless legislators from throwing good money after bad in an effort to ‘kick the can down the road’ on their pension crises. As such, it should come as no surprise at all that the Lexington Herald Leader reported today that Kentucky’s 365,000 teachers and other public employees are now demanding that taxpayers contribute a staggering $5.4 billion to their insolvent ponzi schemes over the next two years alone. To put that number in perspective, $5.4 billion is roughly $3,200 for each household in the state of Kentucky and 25{5f621241b214ad2ec6cd4f506191303eb2f57539ef282de243c880c2b328a528} of the state’s entire budget over a two-year period.

 

Kentucky’s General Assembly will need to find an estimated $5.4 billion to fund the pension systems for state workers and school teachers in the next two-year state budget, officials told the Public Pension Oversight Board on Monday.

That amount would be a hefty funding increase and a painful squeeze for a state General Fund that — at about $20 billion over two years — also is expected to pay for education, prisons, social services and other state programs.

“We realize this challenge is in front of us. That’s obviously part of the need for us to address pension reform,” said state Sen. Joe Bowen, R-Owensboro, co-chairman of the oversight board.

“In the short-term, yeah, we’re obligated to find this money,” Bowen said. “And everybody is committed to do that. We have revealed this great challenge. We have embraced this great challenge, as opposed to previous members of the legislature, perhaps.”

In presentations on Monday, the pension oversight board was told that total employer contributions for KRS in Fiscal Years 2019 and 2020 would be an estimated $2.47 billion each year, up from $1.52 billion in the current fiscal year. Nearly $995 million of that would be owed by local governments. The remaining $1.48 billion is what the state would owe.

The Teachers’ Retirement System estimated that it would need a total of $1.22 billion in Fiscal Year 2019 and $1.22 billion in Fiscal Year 2020. That would include not only an additional $1 billion to pay down the system’s unfunded liabilities but also $139 million to continue paying the debt service on a pension bond that won’t be paid off until the year 2024.

Of course, the $5.4 billion will do absolutely nothing to avoid an inevitable failure of Kentucky’s pension system but what the hell…

As we’ve said before, the problem is that the aggregate underfunded liability of pensions in states like Kentucky have become so incredibly large that massive increases in annual contributions, courtesy of taxpayers, can’t possibly offset liability growth and annual payouts.  All the while, the funding for these ever increasing annual contributions comes out of budgets for things like public schools even though the incremental funding has no shot of fixing a system that is hopelessly “too big to bail.”

 

So what can Kentucky do to solve their pension crisis?  Well, as it turns out they hired a pension consultant, PFM Group, in May of last year to answer that exact question.  Unfortunately, we suspect that PFM’s conclusions, which include freezing current pension plans, slashing benefit payments for current retirees and converting future employees to a 401(k), are somewhat less than palatable for both pensioners and elected officials who depend upon votes from public employee unions in order to keep their jobs…it’s a nice little circular ref that ensures that taxpayers will always lose in the fight to fix America’s broken pension system.

Be that as it may, here is a recap of PFM’s suggestions to Kentucky’s Public Pension Oversight Board courtesy of the Lexington Herald Leader:

An independent consultant recommended sweeping changes Monday to the pension systems that cover most of Kentucky’s public workers, creating the possibility that lawmakers will cut payments to existing retirees and force most current and future hires into 401(k)-style retirement plans.

If the legislature accepts the recommendations, it would effectively end the promise of a pension check for most of Kentucky’s future state and local government workers and freeze the pension benefits of most current state and local workers. All of those workers would then be shifted to a 401(k)-style investment plan that offers defined employer contributions rather than a defined retirement benefit.

PFM also recommended increasing the retirement age to 65 for most workers.

The 401 (k)-style plans would require a mandatory employee contribution of 3 percent of their salary and a guaranteed employer contribution of 2 percent of their salary. The state also would provide a 50 percent match on the next 6 percent of income contributed by the employee, bringing the state’s maximum contribution to 5 percent. The maximum total contribution from the employer and the employee would be 14 percent.

For those already retired, the consultant recommended taking away all cost of living benefits that state and local government retirees received between 1996 and 2012, a move that could significantly reduce the monthly checks that many retirees receive. For example, a government worker who retired in 2001 or before could see their benefit rolled back by 25 percent or more, PFM calculated.

The consultant also recommended eliminating the use of unused sick days and compensatory leave to increase pension benefits.

Meanwhile, PFM warned that the typical “kick the can down the road approach” would not work in Kentucky and that current retiree benefits would have to be cut.

Read More @ ZeroHedge.com

Why Left Wing Nuts Get Away with Murder

0

from BATR:

“Once Upon A Time, In a Galaxy Far, Far Away” the left wing of the political spectrum were the vanguard of opposing the globalist warfare matrix. The anti-war movement changed the world in the 1960’s and stopped the bloody carnage in Viet Nam. Judging by today’s standards, that world is forgotten and the replacement culture has an attitude that preserving the empire is necessary no matter how trumped up the rationale is to maintain perpetual conflict. Choose the newest enemy; Jihad Islam, Russian nationalism, Chinese supremacy or North Korean belligerence and any dedicated internationalist can spin an argument why fighting the next war is necessary.   

Now we all know just how half-crazed the foreign policy of mentally deranged “Bomber” McCain and his NeoCon warmonger comrades has been over the decades, but what is the excuse from the Looney Left for abandoning their moral argument that underpinned opposition to the establishment’s persistent drive to maintain a permanent war environment?

Remember the Democratic left is the party that purged the righteous and enlightened foreign policy opposition from the likes of Dennis Kucinich, Cynthia McKinney and Eric Massa; forcing each from office. Throwing them under the bus is much different from having them sitting in the back of the coach.  

While regrettable these expulsions from Congress are consistent with the radical purity litmus tests required to remain within the club of ecumenical warfare. The informative site with accompanied link resources, Neoliberalism as Trotskyism for the rich makes an important point.

“Like Trotskyism, neoliberalism consider wars to impose a liberal-democratic society on weaker countries (which in modern times are countries without nuclear weapons) which cannot give a fight to Western armies are inherently just (“regime change” mentality). So both ideologies are ready to bring revolution to new countries on the tips of (USA in case of neoliberalism) bayonets.”

Once the resistance to imperialism was seen as a desired objective for liberal wing exponents of the anti-war factions. Sadly, that is no longer the case. The persistent and expansive dominance within the deep state of the most notable NeoCon proponents has worked their way into the entire professional establishment. As the NeoLibs become indistinguishable with the fake conservatives, the liberal cause is relegated to the trash bin.

Doug Bandow writes in Forbes, Americans Should Reject Bipartisan Warmongering: Base Foreign Policy On Reluctance To Go To War and acknowledges the failure the post 911 era.

“After 9/11, President George W. Bush abandoned his campaign pledge of a “humble” foreign policy and instead unleashed America’s military throughout the Middle East, with disastrous results.

Fifteen years and another administration later, the U.S. is more entangled in violent conflicts throughout the world than ever before and there’s no end in sight. The American people understandably have rejected a foreign policy driven by regime change and nation building.”

Well, this last conclusion is debatable. Has the public truly scorned the interventionist involvement policy? The grassroots Trump supporters were certainly onboard, but the cold hard fact is that the will of the people has little to do with the design and implementation of foreign policy. Just as President Trump, has been held captive to the careerists from Foggy Bottom.

This brings up the discussion, why is it acceptable in the controlled and manufactured culture for liberals to jump on the train of the arms munitions machine and always get a pass on their bellicose advocacy?    

The short answer, they can get away with it in a culture that blames right wing conservatives for all wars. However, this is not based upon the real historic record. According to Willie Osterweil in the essay, Democrats Are the Real Party of Warpresents a compelling argument.

“Indeed, all of the major U.S. wars in the 20th century—World War I, II, Korea and Vietnam—were entered by Democratic administrations. Harry Truman, a Democrat, is still the only world leader to use a nuclear bomb on a population. And with the exception of World War II, where almost all anti-war sentiment collapsed after Pearl Harbor, these wars were entered over the objections of the left wing of the Democratic Party. But while the presence of that left wing has guaranteed that anti-war liberals rally to the Democratic side, it not yet stopped a Democratic administration from going to war.

It’s important to face this fact squarely: in the 20th century, it was the Democratic party that was the more aggressive pursuer of foreign wars. You can make whatever claim you like about historical contingency, necessity, or immediate context. None of them should convince anyone that the Democrats, as a party, are opposed to war. They’re not even more opposed to war than Republicans. They are a party of warmongers.

Many of those young anti-war Obama voters learned a hard lesson: when you put your faith, energy or activism into electing Democrats, no matter what domestic policy you support, you’re also putting your weight behind militarism, a crackdown on civil liberties, and foreign wars of aggression. Perhaps the most surprising thing about Obama’s wars, ultimately, is how, despite it all, many continue to hope for change from the Democratic Party.”

Folks, there are no successors to Eugene Joseph McCarthy a Man of Courage. The Democratic Party is every bit of a fraud as the Republican NeoCons. As for the ideological inept supporters of progressive nihilism, they are irrelevant and act as dreadful fools of the Pelosi contingent wing of the sham two party systems.

The fake news offered up by the corporatist media is so slanted to maintain the protection racket for their heroes and heroines on the left that the condemnation of that other famous McCarthy, “Tail Gunner Joe“, applies to anyone on the right; especially if they propose an American First, non-interventionism populist viewpoint.

Back to, Once Upon A Time, the populism on the left and that of the right shared most of the same basic distrust of the political and economic elites. Not that way anymore. Even the liberal site Vox asks, Why Democrats have no foreign policy ideas.

“Washington’s foreign policy debate tends to be mostly conducted between the center and the right. The issue is typically how much force America should use rather than whether it should use it at all, or how to tweak a free-trade agreement rather than whether it should be accepted at all. Debates over pressing policy issues — from fighting ISIS to the crisis in Venezuela to handling Chinese provocations in the South China Sea — lack a left-wing voice of any prominence.

Dan Drezner, a professor at Tufts University’s Fletcher School admits:

“As progressives, we believe in government. And yet, the logic of a security state tends in directions that are antithetical to things we believe as progressives,” Hurlburt says. “As a security progressive, you’re constantly riding that contradiction, and you’ll never get away from it.”

His conclusions are void of the definite criticism that the Liberal Wing Nuts actually are in basic agreement with the prevailing war imposition objectives of the permanent foreign policy consortium.

So when the self-proclaimed indignation of the pseudo holier than thou libtards rationalize that their complicity in murder comes with the territory, just remember that infamous admission from war criminal, Madeleine Albright in her 60 Minutes interview.

Lesley Stahl, speaking of US sanctions against Iraq: “We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And – and you know, is the price worth it?”

Madeleine Albright: “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price – we think the price is worth it.

Who can or has the will to bring justice to the establishment elites for waging war for their globalist masters? Liberals are virtually immune to the silence of condemning progressives. This “PC” distortion of reality seldom penetrates the bubble of cover-up. When the echo chamber for leftist exemption from responsibility forgoes accountability, the entire society is drained of an opportunity for social justice. 

Read More @ BATR,org

WEEKS BEFORE HIS ASSASSINATION, JFK ORDERED FULL WITHDRAWAL FROM VIETNAM

by Rachel Blevins, via The Daily Sheeple:

Before the Gulf of Tonkin incident was used as an excuse to incite major U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, the United States was already deploying thousands of troops to Vietnam—and a recently recovered audio recording reveals that the deployments were occurring against the wishes of the president in office.

Former President John F. Kennedy was planning for a full withdrawal from Vietnam during his last months in office. His exit strategy is featured on the Ken Burns/Lynn Novick documentary series on Vietnam, in an episode that looks at U.S. involvement in Vietnam from when Kennedy took office in January 1961, to when he was assassinated in November 1963.

The episode includes an audio recording from Nov. 4, 1963, in which Kennedy shares his reaction to the military coup d’état that resulted in the assassination of US-backed, South Vietnam leader Ngo Dinh Diem, and his brother Nhu:

“Over the weekend, the coup in Saigon took place, culminated three months of conversations dividing the government here, and in Saigon. I feel that we must bear a good deal of responsibility for it, beginning with our cable of August, in which we suggested the coup. I should not have given my consent to it without a roundtable conference. I was shocked by the deaths of Diem and Nhu, the way [they were] killed made it particularly abhorrent. The question now is whether the generals can stay together and build a stable government, or whether public opinion in Saigon will turn on this government as repressive and undemocratic in the not-too-distant future.”

While the program glazes over Kennedy’s comments about wanting a full withdrawal from Vietnam, and goes on to talk about his assassination less than three weeks later, his rhetoric is incredibly important.

“We don’t have a prayer of staying in Vietnam,” Kennedy confided to a friend in April 1963. “Those people hate us. They are going to throw our asses out of there at any point. But I can’t give up that territory to the communists and get the American people to re-elect me.”

According to reports, there were around 3,200 American troops in Vietnam when Kennedy took office in 1961. The number of troops increased to 11,300 in 1962, and then to 16,300 in 1963. But that increase escalated drastically in 1965 with 184,300 troops. By 1968, there were over 536,000 American troops deployed to a country that is smaller than the state of California.

In the months before Kennedy’s assassination, he pushed for his administration to draft a plan for withdrawal from Vietnam. The National Security Action Memorandum was drafted by Secretary of State Robert McNamara and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Maxwell Taylor.

An audio recording was also released in which Kennedy was heard discussing what led to the approval of NSAM 263 (National Security Action Memorandum), which implemented the plan get out of Vietnam. Only weeks later, Kennedy would be killed.

In a previously classified memorandum to his fellow chiefs that was delivered on Oct. 2, 1963, Taylor wrote:

A program be established to train Vietnamese so that essential functions now performed by U.S. military personnel can be carried out by Vietnamese by the end of 1965. It should be possible to withdraw the bulk of U.S. personnel by that time.

In accordance with the program to train progressively Vietnamese to take over military functions, the Defense Department should announce in the very near future presently prepared plans to withdraw 1000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963. This action should be explained in low key as an initial step in a long-term program to replace U.S. personnel with trained Vietnamese without impairment of the war effort.

Read More @ TheDailySheeple.com

Obama Is Funding The Anti-Trump Movement With Sleazy Backdoor Policies And Taxpayer Money

0

by Mac Slavo, SHTFPlan:

Barack Obama is funding the anti-Trump movement through a series of backdoor deals and policies.  Wall Street may be surprised to learn that it is also helping bankroll the anti-Trump “resistance” whether they wanted to or not. Wall Street is fighting policies which would heavily favor it, including corporate tax cuts and the repeal of Obama-era banking and health-care regulations.

We have the Obama administration to thank for the harsh anti-Trump movement by far left groups, according to an article by the New York Post. 

The Obama administration’s massive shakedown of Big Banks over the mortgage crisis included unprecedented back-door funding for dozens of Democratic activist groups who were not even victims of the crisis. At least three liberal nonprofit organizations the Justice Department approved to receive funds from multibillion-dollar mortgage settlements were instrumental in killing the ObamaCare repeal bill and are now lobbying against GOP tax reform, as well as efforts to rein in illegal immigration. An estimated $640 million has been diverted into what critics say is an improper, if not unconstitutional, “slush fund” fed from government settlements with JPMorgan Chase and Co., Citigroup Inc. and Bank of America Corp., according to congressional sources.

The payola is potentially earmarked for third-party interest groups approved by the Justice Department and HUD without requiring any proof of how the funds will be spent. Many of the recipients so far are radical leftist organizations who solicited the settlement cash from the administration even though they were not parties to the lawsuits, records show.

“During the Obama administration, groups committed to ‘revolutionary social change’ sent proposals and met with high-level HUD and Justice Department officials to try to get their pieces of the settlement pie,” Cause of Action Institute vice president Julie Smith told The Post. –New York Post

It isn’t immediately clear how much money, in all, has been diverted from settlement funds to these and other hardcore left-wing organizations. Attorney General Jeff Sessions has ordered a full audit of the funds while discontinuing the practice of funneling Justice Department settlements to third-party groups, but not before the Obama administration doled out massive amounts of money to groups with “anti-Trump” sentiments. “Any settlement funds should go first to the victims and then to the American people [through the US Treasury] — not to bankroll third-party special interest groups or the political friends of whoever is in power,” Sessions said in a recent statement.

Which means that Obama himself didn’t fund the anti-Trump movement; the taxpayers did – whether they liked it or not.

Read More @ SHTFPlan.com

The White House as Donald Trump’s New Casino

0

by Nomi Prins, Daily Reckoning:

During the 2016 election campaign, Donald Trump repeatedly emphasized that our country was run terribly and needed a businessman at its helm. Upon winning the White House, he insisted that the problem had been solved, adding, “In theory, I could run my business perfectly and then run the country perfectly. There’s never been a case like this.”

Sure enough, while Hillary Clinton spent her time excoriating her opponent for not releasing his tax returns, Americans ultimately embraced the candidate who had proudly and openly dodged their exposure. And why not? It’s in the American ethos to disdain “the man” — especially the taxman. In an election turned reality TV show, who could resist watching a larger-than-life conman who had taken money from the government?

Now, give him credit. As president, The Donald has done just what he promised the American people he would do: run the country like he ran his businesses. At one point, he even displayed confusion about distinguishing between them when he said of the United States: “We’re a very powerful company — country.”

Of course, as Hillary Clinton rarely bothered to point out, he ran many of them using excess debt, deception, and distraction, while a number of the ones he guided personally (as opposed to just licensing them the use of his name) — including his five Atlantic City casinoshis airline, and a mortgage company — he ran into the ground and then ditched. He escaped relatively unscathed financially, while his investors and countless workers and small businesses to whom he owed money were left holding the bag. We may never fully know what lurks deep within those tax returns of his, but we already know that they were “creative” in nature. As he likes to put it, not paying taxes “makes me smart.”

To complete the analogy Trump made during the election campaign, he’s running the country on the very same instincts he used with those businesses and undoubtedly with just the same sense of self-protectiveness. Take the corporate tax policy he advocates that’s being promoted by his bank-raider turned Treasury secretary, Steve Mnuchin. It’s focused on lowering the tax rate for multinational corporations from 35{5f621241b214ad2ec6cd4f506191303eb2f57539ef282de243c880c2b328a528} to 15{5f621241b214ad2ec6cd4f506191303eb2f57539ef282de243c880c2b328a528}, further aiding the profitability of companies that already routinely squirrel away profits and hide losses in the crevices of tax havens far removed from public disclosure.

We, as citizens, already bear the brunt of 89{5f621241b214ad2ec6cd4f506191303eb2f57539ef282de243c880c2b328a528} of U.S. tax revenues today. If adopted, the new tax structure would simply throw yet more of the government’s bill in our laps. Against this backdrop, the math of middle-class tax relief doesn’t work out — not unless you were to cut $4.3 trillion from the overall budget for just the kinds of items non-billionaires count on like Medicaid, education, housing assistance, and job training.

Or put another way, Trump’s West Wing is now advocating the very policy he railed against in the election campaign when he was still championing the everyday man. By promoting tax reform for mega-corporations and the moguls who run them, he’s neglecting the “forgotten” white working class that sent him to the Oval Office to “drain the swamp.”

Since entering the White House, he’s also begun to isolate our country from the global economy, essentially pushing other nations to engage in more trade with each other, not the United States. Whether physically shoving aside the leader of Montenegro, engaging in tweet-storms with the President of Mexico over his “big, fat, beautiful wall,” or hanging up on the prime minister of Australia, Trump has seemingly forgotten that diplomacy and trade matter to the actual American economy. His version of “America First” has taken aim at immigrants, multinational trade agreements, regulations, and the U.N. Calvin Coolidge acted in a somewhat similar (if far less flamboyant) manner and you remember where that led: to the devastating crash of 1929 and the Great Depression of the 1930s.

What’s In a Shell?

As a new report by Public Citizen makes clear, the glimpses we’ve gotten of inner Trumpworld from the president’s limited financial disclosures indicate that his business dealings, by design, couldn’t be more complex, shadowy, or filled with corporate subterfuge.  He excels, among other things, at using shell companies to hide the Trump Organization’s profits (and losses) in the corporate labyrinth that makes up his empire. And even though the supposedly blind trust run by his sons is designed to shield him from that imperial entity’s decision-making, it still potentially allows him maneuver room to increase his own fortune and glean profits along the way.

So, what’s in such a shell? The answer: another shell, a company that usually has no employees, no offices, and no traceable capital.  Think of such entities as financial gargoyles. They offer no real benefits to the economy, create no jobs, and do nothing to make America great again. However, they have the potential to do a great deal for the bottom lines of Donald Trump and his offspring.  

Think of the corporate shell game he’s been engaged in as his oyster.  After all, anonymous buyers now make up the majority of those gobbling up pieces of his empire. Two years prior to his presidential victory, only 4{5f621241b214ad2ec6cd4f506191303eb2f57539ef282de243c880c2b328a528} of the companies affiliated with people buying his properties were limited-liability, or LLC corporations, which are secretive in nature. Following his victory, that number jumped to 70{5f621241b214ad2ec6cd4f506191303eb2f57539ef282de243c880c2b328a528}.

What that means in plain English is that there’s simply no way of knowing who most of those investing in Trump properties actually are, what countries they come from, how they made their fortunes, or whether there might be any conflicts between their buy-ins to Trumpworld and the national interest of this country.

Trump Lawsuits Meet Pennsylvania Avenue

Secret as so many of his dealings may be, there’s a very public aspect to them that Donald Trump has brought directly into the White House: his pattern of being sued. He’s already been sued 134 times in federal court since he assumed the presidency. (Barack Obama had 26 suits against him and George W. Bush seven at the same moment in their presidencies.)

In other words, one of the nation’s most litigious billionaires is in the process of becoming its most litigious president. A pre-election analysis in USA Today found that Trump and his businesses had been “involved in at least 3,500 legal actions in federal and state courts” over the previous three decades. That volume of lawsuits was unprecedented for a presidential candidate, let alone a president.

Read More @ DailyReckoning.com

Washington Has Initiated Military Conflict With Russia

0

by Paul Craig Roberts, Paul Craig Roberts:

Russia has provided evidence that Washington is collaborating with ISIS in attacks on Russian forces. http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/breaking-russia-presents-satellite-proof-us-troops-collaborating-isis-syria/ri21030

In one Washington-directed attack, ISIS tried to capture 29 Russian military policemen. However, Russian special forces entered the fray, and the result was spectacular losses for ISIS. http://russia-insider.com/en/military/us-secret-services-tried-nab-29-russian-troops-syria-and-got-their-butts-kicked-russian

In another attack Washington-directed attack, Russian General Valery Asapov and two Russian colonels were killed in an attack that violated agreements. http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/09/syria-us-centcom-declares-war-on-russia.html#more

Sooner or later it will dawn on the Russian government that Washington is not a rational government with which diplomacy can be practiced, peace pursued, and agreements reached. Sooner or later it will dawn on the Russian government that far from being rational, Washington is a criminally insane collection of psychopaths in thrall to the military/security complex which, in turn, is in thrall to its massive profits.

In other words, for the powerful interest groups that control the US government, war is a profit center. No amount of Russian diplomacy can do anything about this fact.

It is unfortunate that the Russian government did not realize what it was dealing with. If the Russian government had not projected its own rationality on Washington, the war in Syria would have been over a couple of years ago. Instead, hoping for a settlement, the Russians were stop-go/stop-go, which gave Washington time to recover from the shock of Russian intervention and put in place plans to partition Syria in order to keep the conflict alive forever. Having dallied in hopes of a settlement, the danger of which The Saker warns us is real. http://thesaker.is/very-dangerous-escalation-in-syria/

Read More @ PaulCraigRoberts.org

The Real Constitution

by Clyde Wilson, The Abbeville Institute:

The real U.S. Constitution, which was scrapped long ago, does not permit judges to be its final interpreters, executive orders, coercion of the people of a State by the federal government, delegation of control of the currency to a private banking cartel, the subsidy of private corporations, or calling the militia to active service except in case of invasion or rebellion and at the request of the State.

The Constitution should have been reverently buried long ago. Except that its rotting corpse provides lucrative pickings for lawyers and pseudo-respectable cover for power seekers. The central government has no check on its power that is not determined by the politicians in control of its various branches. They seldom check each other but frequently check the people and the States. The 14th Amendment, illegitimately promulgated in the wake of Lincoln’s revolution, has provided power seekers with everything they need to fulfill their limitless ambitions.

 

The Constitution died when Abraham Lincoln decided to treat the solemn constitutional acts of the people of eleven states as mere “combinations of lawbreakers” to be destroyed by the force at the command of the party in control of the federal executive. One may celebrate or abhor that fact, but fact it is. And Lincoln so acted even though in the election that brought him to power, 60 per cent of the people had voted against “a policy of coercion.”

The document that was designed to provide specified operational powers to a federal government was changed into an unappealable instrument of power. There is a great unnoticed peculiarity in the name of this country. Before Lincoln, “United States” was a plural—in all laws, treaties, proclamations, and in the Constitution itself. It was a “Constitution FOR the United States of America.” And while Americans sometimes referred to a common identity as a “nation,” their common government was usually referred to as the “Union” or the “general government.”

We now assume that the Constitution is something to be interpreted by “constitutional lawyers,” especially those on the federal bench. “Constitutional lawyers” busy themselves with “emanations” and a “living document,” or else they talk about stare decisis and “original intent.” Usually they cite “original intent” from “The Federalist,” a series of deceitful essays put forward by the defeated centralist party in the Philadelphia Convention, which was never ratified by any people. The “original intent” of the real Constitution can only be interpreted by the intentions of the people of the States who ratified (gave their consent) and thus made the document valid. Their intentions were made clear when they ratified and in the clarifying Ten Amendments upon which they insisted. The real Constitution did not belong to lawyers, who obfuscate for a living, but to the people of the States. The proper meaning of the Constitution is not a legal question but a historical one. Citizens did not need lawyers and judges to tell them what THEIR Constitution meant. A truly living Constitution would be one in which the people take continuing active part.

Contrary to “democratic capitalists” and other Marxists, economics does not determine history. However, it is regrettably true that money, the love of which is the root of much evil, explains a lot of human motivation. The goal of centralising power in Washington has ALWAYS been part of a wealth distribution agenda. The efforts of Hamilton and his successors intended to use the government to transfer weath from the agricultural class to the speculator class. They even made a plausible defense of this as a patriotic program for national “development.”

It is equally true of Lincoln. The PRIMARY accomplishment of his revolution was a permanent national debt and to establish the federal government as the handmaiden of corporations, which has continued to this day. You may deplore or applaud this fact, but it is a fact. It is hardly a secret. Northern leaders at the time said plainly, frequently, and emphatically that crushing the South was necessary to Northern prosperity. Lincoln’s self-contradictory but pretty words about government of the people was window-dressing. Truly, slavery was the most visible issue, though the division over that was not as great as is usually supposed. Plenty of Northerners moved to the South and owned slaves. Without any question Lincoln’s goal of forbidding slavery in the territories was not a matter of benevolence toward black people but of keeping the West as the domain of “free white men,” i.e., government sponsored capitalists. (The new States created by the Republicans west of the Missouri were not real States but pocket boroughs of the Copper Trust, the Union Pacific Railroad, etc.) The essential cause of the Republicans’ war against other Americans was that slave-owning Southerners had too much power and would not get with the self-evidently righteous program of Northern prosperity.

It is the lack of the real Constitution destroyed by Lincoln’s violence that today guarantees that the government primarily functions to transfer wealth from the productive classes to the rich and their nonproductive clients.

Hindsight has presented the crushing of the South not only as a great crusade of benevolence, but has obliterated consciousness of how revolutionary it was and the degree to which it was necessary to crush the North as well as the South. There is a sense in which the North was crushed by Lincoln’s party as well as the South. For Lincoln’s party the government was a. money-making proposition, not a focus of patriotism. That they destroyed constitutional government was of little concern to the rent-seekers.

Read More @ The AbbevileInstitute.com

 

Thoughts on Trump, Fake Patriotism and ‘Taking a Knee’

0

by Michael Krieger, Liberty Blitzkrieg:

Americans do not and should not worship idols. We do not and should not worship the flag. As a nation we stand in respect for the national anthem and stand in respect for the flag not simply because we were born here or because it’s our flag. We stand in respect because the flag represents a specific set of values and principles.

– From the recently published piece: I Understand Why They Knelt

I almost always disagree with mainstream critiques of Trump, which is why I tend to stay away from commenting on the endless battles between the destructive and dangerous status quo and the dangerous and destructive Donald Trump. Critiques of Trump from status quo types and their supporters are almost always hysterical and superficial, based upon the false premise that everything was going just fine until Trump was elected.

I believe that sort of myth making is as dangerous as Trump himself, and I’ll never support a preposterous “resistance” strategy which elevates Wall Street CEOs, the CIA, neo-cons, neo-liberals and all sorts of other destructive elements of our society into saviors. These shallow resistance types focus on the symptom of the disease versus the disease itself, and therefore can never offer a constructive path to a batter future. That said, in this instance I completely agree with the view that Trump’s authoritarian tweets with regard to NFL player protests in recent days are extremely dangerous and encourage his supporters to rally around a debased and superficial fake patriotism based on symbolism as opposed to ideals and values.

First, let’s start with a little history. Former 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick started his protest in August 2016 when Barack Obama was still President and the mainstream narrative assumed Hillary Clinton would defeat Donald Trump handily later that year. He was clear about the intentions behind his protest from the beginning, which related to his disgust with unaccountable police brutality against people of color. Here’s some of what he had to say when asked about his actions a year ago:

“I’m going to continue to stand with the people that are being oppressed. To me, this is something that has to change. When there’s significant change and I feel that flag represents what it’s supposed to represent, and this country is representing people the way that it’s supposed to, I’ll stand.”

“This stand wasn’t for me. This is because I’m seeing things happen to people that don’t have a voice, people that don’t have a platform to talk and have their voices heard, and effect change. So I’m in the position where I can do that and I’m going to do that for people that can’t.”

“It’s something that can unify this team. It’s something that can unify this country. If we have these real conversations that are uncomfortable for a lot of people. If we have these conversations, there’s a better understanding of where both sides are coming from.”

“I have great respect for the men and women that have fought for this country. I have family, I have friends that have gone and fought for this country. And they fight for freedom, they fight for the people, they fight for liberty and justice, for everyone. That’s not happening. People are dying in vain because this country isn’t holding their end of the bargain up, as far as giving freedom and justice, liberty to everybody. That’s something that’s not happening. I’ve seen videos, I’ve seen circumstances where men and women that have been in the military have come back and been treated unjustly by the country they fought have for, and have been murdered by the country they fought for, on our land. That’s not right.”

Kaepernick has suffered the consequences of his actions, as he remains unsigned by any NFL team following last season’s protest and the controversy that followed. This is what tends to happen when someone sticks their neck out to make a point and enough people, especially extremely wealthy people like the owners of NFL teams, don’t like it. As anyone who’s ever held a job knows, if you act in a way that the boss doesn’t like and you do it consistently enough, you’ll get fired. This is simply how power dynamics work.

I’m sure Kaepernick knew this going in, yet he stuck to his principles irrespective of the likely negative consequences that would follow. Whether you agree or not with how he decided to make his point, I think it’s disingenuous to argue he wasn’t coming from a genuine place. If he had started this protest after Trump’s election, I would have seen it as superficial and fame-whoring, but that’s not what happened. He started it while the first black President was in office. Like it or not, the guy was clearly coming from a genuine place and sacrificed a lot to stand his ground.

Which brings me to Trump’s commentary on the subject. Much can be revealed about his nature and his plans for the future by analyzing some of what he said. First, here’s what got the whole thing going. During a Friday rally in Alabama, Trump said the following:

“Wouldn’t you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, ‘Get that son of a bitch off the field right now. He is fired.”

In subsequent days, he added to that angry, authoritarian rant with a stream of related tweets, some of which are highlighted below:

These tweets are interesting. He conflates wealth and success with a requirement to be submissive. This is an implied threat that if you want to be successful in America, you’d better learn to stay in line.

Read More @ LibertyBlitzkrieg.com