Hillary Clinton was struggling so badly with a severe head injury in 2012 that her State Department staff took it upon themselves to reach out to the NFL Commisioner to request expert help.
Hillary Clinton thanked her adviser, Phillipe Reines, and added, “Having a cracked head is no fun at all.”
Hillary first fell ill with a stomach virus, then reportedly suffered a fall and a concussion and was then hospitalized for a blood clot near her brain.
That’s what was reported, at least. Many Americans believe Hillary Clinton is sick and is hiding her medical history, with a recent poll showing 59% of voters want to see her medical records.
This WikiLeaks email, exposing that her staff were so concerned about her health that they took it upon themselves to seek medical advise, only adds to the suspicions that Clinton is hiding her ill health from the public.
The mainstream media claims it is a conspiracy, but it appears Bill Clinton had the same concerns about Hillary. Excerpts from a new book by bestselling author Ed Klein reveal Bill Clinton thought his wife was too sickly to run for President, and that she was “in denial” about her “life-threatening symptoms”
Bill Clinton questioned whether Hiklary had the stamina to endure the demands of a presidential campaign:
Turkish special forces have entered Syrian territory.
Turkey has launched a ground incursion into Syria targeting ISIS and Kurdish fighters near the Syrian city of Jarablus close to the Turkish border
The operation, called Euphrates Shield, is supported by Turkish air forces, as well as warplanes from the US-led coalition.
The offensive began hours before the US vice president Joe Biden, arrived in Turkey, the most senior US official to visit the country since an attempted coup last month.
Press TV reports:
Turkish officials said anonymously that units of special forces entered Syria through the Turkish border after firing artillery rounds into the Syrian city of Jarablus, in the northern province of Aleppo and some 398 kilometers (248 miles) northeast of the capital, Damascus, at around 4 a.m. local time (0100 GMT) on Wednesday.
The Turkish air force and aircraft from a US-led military coalition have pounded targets in and around the Syrian city.
The Turkish officials said the special forces are in Syrian territory to open a passage for Turkish ground forces for a larger-scale incursion into Jarablus.
They asserted that the operation is aimed at “clearing Turkish borders of terrorist groups, helping to enhance border security and supporting the territorial integrity of Syria.”
The officials further said that the prevention of a new flow of refugees and facilitating the distribution of basic commodities among the region’s civilian population were also among the goals of the operation.
Meanwhile, reports say Turkish tanks have entered Syrian territory to conduct operations in Jarablus.
With Syrian interests in mind
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan later on Wednesday announced the beginning of the military operation against Daesh in Jarablus.
“At 4:00 this morning, operations started in the north of Syria against terror groups which constantly threaten our country, like Daesh and the PYD,” he said in a speech in Ankara.
The Democratic Union Party, or PYD, is a Kurdish group based in Syria. Ankara considers it a “terrorist group.”
In rare remarks, Erdogan said Turkey “only ever sought to help the people of Syria” and that no other intentions were involved. He seemed to contradict himself, though, when he said Turkey also wanted to put an end to the frequent attacks on the Turkish border.
Observers believe Turkey is more concerned about Kurdish forces inside Syria. The Kurdish population in the region has long been seeking to establish an independent country by potentially taking territory from Turkey, Syria, Iraq and even Iran.
However, the Ankara government has recently been speaking somewhat more softly about the Syrian government, which it has long opposed.
On Tuesday, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu vowed that Ankara would give “all kinds of support” to efforts to free Jarablus from the grip of Daesh terrorists. “We do not want Daesh to exist in Iraq and Syria,” he told reporters.
Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Numan Kurtulmus also said recently that Turkey saw Jarablus “as a national security matter.”
“What we have said, since the beginning, is that having Jarablus or any other city held by Daesh is unacceptable,” he said.
Earlier, Turkish officials said projectiles fired from Jarablus hit downtown Karkamis, a city in southeast Turkey.
On Tuesday, authorities in the southeastern Turkish town of Karkamis asked locals to evacuate the town and nearby areas for safety reasons. There were no reports of casualties, though.
The Turkish military retaliated against both attacks with counterattacks on Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) positions and purported Daesh targets inside Syria.
Despite government data supporting Donald Trump’s claim that blacks are worse off under President Obama, the White House insisted Thursday that blacks have made progress under the first black president and that the Republican nominee would reverse those gains.
Mr. Trump’s pitch that black Americans have “nothing to lose” by voting for him is clearly irritating the White House, which tried but failed to muster much convincing evidence that life for blacks in America has improved much over the past eight years.
“I think you’d be very hard pressed to make the case that somehow the African-American population in the United States is somehow not better off,” said White House press secretary Josh Earnest.
The black unemployment rate in July was 8.4 percent, compared with 12.6 percent when Mr. Obama took office in January 2009. But the jobless rate for whites, now at 4.3 percent, has fallen slightly more than it has for blacks in the past eight years — down 37 percent for whites and 33 percent for blacks.
On a range of other government data, blacks are faring worse under Mr. Obama. The black labor force participation rate has fallen from 63.2 percent in 2009 to 61.2 percent last month — down 3.1 percent.
Black home ownership last month was 41.7 percent, down from 46.1 percent in 2009 — a drop of nearly 10 percent.
The percentage of black Americans living below the poverty line has risen from 25.8 percent in 2009 to 26.2 percent in 2014, according to the most recent Census Bureau data. The number of black food-stamp participants spiked from 7.3 million to 11.7 million, an increase of 58 percent.
Confronted with such statistics, the White House said it’s important for Hillary Clinton to build on Mr. Obama’s legacy.
“The president’s never made the case that the work is finished, that the job is done,” Mr. Earnest said. “The point is, President Obama’s interested in being succeeded in office by someone who is committed to building on the progress we’ve made thus far as opposed to tearing it down.”
Hillary Clinton claimed that Donald Trump was embracing “dark conspiracy theories” before going on a conspiracy theory-obsessed rant in which she attacked Alex Jones and claimed that Vladimir Putin was the villainous mastermind behind the ‘Alt-Right’ movement.
The speech in Reno was billed as Hillary’s moment to demonize Trump by equating him with racist, white supremacist conspiracy theorists, but she ended up weaving a giant fairytale of her own, reinvoking the vast “right wing conspiracy” that she has been ridiculed for hammering on in the past.
Except this time it’s former KGB agent and Russian President Vladimir Putin who is somehow the evil genius secretly controlling Infowars, Breitbart, Nigel Farage and the entire Alt-Right. Hillary said Putin is, “The godfather of this global brand of extreme nationalism.”
But Trump is the conspiracy theorist.
Yeah, OK Hillary.
Hillary also accused Trump of “taking hate groups mainstream,” the very thing that her and Barack Obama have done by supporting ‘Black Lives Matter’ – a group that has inspired the murder of police officers and whose ideological inspiration is a convicted cop killer on the FBI’s Most Wanted Domestic Terrorists list.
Clinton attacked Trump for appearing on the Alex Jones Show, claiming that Jones “said the victims of the Sandy Hook massacre were child actors and no one was actually killed there.”
In reality, Jones has never claimed that nobody died at Sandy Hook. As Infowars Editor-at-Large, I’ve been attacked repeatedly for saying the very opposite.
Hillary also savaged Trump for becoming embroiled in 9/11 conspiracy theories for saying that Muslims celebrated on 9/11. As we have documented, reports from the day itself clearly suggest that yes Muslims in New Jersey did indeed celebrate the 9/11 attacks.
Clinton is nervous about 9/11 because of her connections with the Saudi government, which as the leaked 28 pages prove, was directly involved with the hijackers who carried out the attacks.
Clinton was also forced to address concerns about her health during the bizarre speech, another nod to the fact that her campaign is rocked about an issue that has gone viral since our video re-ignited the controversy earlier this month.
The fact that Hillary is being forced to resort to the tired old mantra of demonizing her political opposition as “racists” – the same tactic that spectacularly failed during the Brexit campaign in the United Kingdom, proves that she has run out of ideas.
In the days to follow, the Clinton mouthpiece media will dutifully regurgitate Hillary’s race-baiting talking points, absent the fact that she praised Ku Klux Klan leader Robert Byrd as her “friend and mentor,” a man who called black people “mongrels” and fought against the Civil Rights Act.
Hillary’s rampant paranoia about Infowars, Breitbart and the ‘Alt-Right’ illustrates how panicked her campaign is about this movement.
The fact that she committed the ridiculous mistake of driving hundreds of thousands and potentially millions of new people our way by directly attacking us proves that her campaign has absolutely no idea about how the Internet works or how the ‘Alt-Right’ actually operates.
Hillary’s attacks will only succeed in amplifying the message of Infowars, Breitbart and the ‘Alt-Right’ – which is that Hillary is a hideously corrupt career politician who represents the interests of the globalists and the Washington elite and is not fit to serve as President of the United States.
Syria has slammed Turkey’s military incursion, backed by the US-led coalition, into Syrian territory saying that the offensive violates the country’s sovereignty.
The Syrian Foreign Ministry condemned and called for an end to Turkey’s military aggression adding that the operation was being carried out under the pretext of fighting terrorism.
Press TV reports:
“Any party conducting a battle against terrorism on Syrian soil must do so in coordination with the Syrian government and the Syrian army,” the statement read, adding, “Chasing out Daesh and replacing them with terrorist groups backed by Turkey is not fighting terrorism.”
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said the operation in northern Syria was launched in the early hours of Wednesday morning “against terror groups” such as Daesh and the Democratic Union Party (PYD) – a US-backed Kurdish group based in Syria – that “constantly threaten” Turkey.
The epicenter of the military action, dubbed “Euphrates Shield,” is the Syrian border town of Jarablus, from where Ankara says militants have fired rockets into Turkey.
Source: William F. Jasper
Hedge fund billionaires, Wall Street mega-bankers, Hollywood movie moguls, RINOs (Republicans In Name Only), ultra-Left “Progressive” Democrats, and Big Media journalistas have all ganged up on one man. Together with an AstroTurf army of neocon pundits, radical academics, student activists, and street agitators funded by the Big Foundations and Big Government, they have united to stop that one man: Donald J. Trump.
George Soros, David Rockefeller, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Michael Bloomberg, Steven Spielberg, Jeff Bezos, and a bevy of other uber-rich titans have teamed up with National Review, the Weekly Standard, the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NPR, et al., to ensure that “The Donald” never makes it into the White House. Some of these plutocrats — Soros, Buffett, and Spielberg — have taken the full “I’m With Her” Hillary Rodham Clinton loyalty pledge. Many of the anti-Trump “Republican” and “conservative” poseurs, on the other hand, have not formally taken the Hillary plunge, but their implacable “Never Trump” stance amounts to the same thing.
Not since 1964 has the political and financial establishment gone into such full-tilt mode against a presidential candidate. In fact, the establishment elites are shamelessly recycling the same vicious propaganda tactics against Donald Trump that they employed against Republican U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater, then the rising star of the conservative/anti-communist movement.
Piling On the Propaganda
Goldwater, the establishment media choir relentlessly chimed, was an “extremist” and a “racist,” and was responsible for the “climate of hate” that was somehow responsible for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and the race riots that were then rocking many American cities. Sound familiar? Moreover, voters were repeatedly told, the Arizona solon did not have the “temperament” to be the man with his finger on the nuclear trigger: His “extremism” and “warmongering” could lead to atomic war and global incineration. The anti-Goldwater character assassination campaign culminated with the infamous “daisy ad,” the television commercial in which a winsome young girl counting daisy petals disappears in a mushroom cloud.
A remake of the “daisy ad” aimed at Trump is rumored to be in the offing. Back in May, Politico interviewed the admen who created “Daisy” and other notorious hit pieces for President Johnson’s venomous 1964 TV campaign that revolutionized political commercials.
In the Politico interview (“LBJ’s Ad Men: Here’s How Clinton Can Beat Trump”), two of the still-living members of Johnson’s ad team explained how the successful formula they used to smear Goldwater could be used to undermine Trump. Sid Myers, former art director at Doyle Dane Bernbach, the LBJ campaign’s advertising firm, and Lloyd Wright, the Democratic National Committee’s media coordinator at the time, detailed how some of their dirty tricks that were so effective in 1964 could also work well today.
Actually, some of those tricks were already under way against Trump before the Politico article appeared. One of the 1964 slime attacks employed the favorite libel of liberals, that conservatives and Republicans are racist KKKers. (The inconvenient reality is that, historically, it has been the Democratic Party and Democratic politicians that have been most closely associated with the Ku Klux Klan.) Myers and Wright led the team that filmed LBJ’s commercial featuring a KKK cross-burning with voice-over endorsements of Goldwater. Over the past several months, Big Media reporters and commentators have been churning and rechurning a contrived non-story: that Donald Trump received a KKK endorsement that he did not “immediately” disavow. Why is that a contrived non-story? Well, for several reasons. First of all, there’s good reason to believe that this is a “political stunt,” which is to say that it is very likely that the whole “endorsement” was a set-up by Trump’s opposition to create precisely that slime effect it is having — or that they hope it is having.
The Myers-Wright LBJ hitmen parlayed the KKK smear into another infamous ad known as “Confessions of a Republican,” a four-minute monologue in which actor William Bogert, posing as a lifelong Republican coming from a long family history of Republicans, worriedly explained that Goldwater “scares me.” “When the head of the Ku Klux Klan, when all these weird groups, come out in favor of the candidate of my party — either they’re not Republicans, or I’m not,” Bogert said.
Truth be told, Bogert was/is a Republican In Name Only (a RINO), as his most recent performances confirm. The 80-year-old actor has been trotted out by Team Hillary and her media allies over the past several months to reprise his anti-Goldwater “Confessions” against the current Republican presidential nominee. As the Republican National Convention was getting under way in Cleveland this past July, the Clinton campaign released a new ad featuring Bogert replaying his 1964 role and explaining why Trump “scares me.” However, before the Clinton/Bogert spot was actually run as a commercial, Bogert was featured in friendly interviews with CNN’s Don Lemon and MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, and in articles for Time, U.S. News & World Report, and other similar organs, where he has invariably been presented as a “moderate” Republican, the same as in 1964.
But how “moderate” is a Republican who can support left-wing “Progressive” Democrat Lyndon Johnson in 1964 and left-wing “Progressive” Democrat Hillary Clinton in 2016? Rather, Bogert, like other (real or alleged) Republicans jumping on the anti-Trump/pro-Clinton bandwagon, may be best described as a “Rockefeller Republican.” That was a much-used and well-understood political term in the 1960s and 1970s, and still is a very relevant label today describing the pro-Big Government, liberal-left, globalist, one-world GOP operatives that masquerade as “moderates.” Specifically, it referred to the elitist wing of the GOP led by Nelson Rockefeller (governor of New York, 1959-1973, and vice president, 1974-1977). Nelson, the scion of the ultra-rich Rockefeller banking dynasty and a perennial presidential wannabe, was ignominiously defeated by Goldwater in the 1964 primaries. But for those in the know, “Rockefeller Republican” more accurately described (and still describes) the GOP leaders and agents associated with the “Eastern Establishment” presided over by Nelson’s brother David, then chairman of the Chase Manhattan Bank, as well as chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the “brain trust” of the Eastern Establishment.
The Rockefeller Republicans of the Eastern Establishment represented the moneyed Wall Street interests that were allied to the Big Government, internationalist agenda of the New Deal/New Frontier Democrats. Like the Democrats, they favored more government spending, more federal regulation and intervention, foreign aid, the United Nations, entangling treaties, judicial activism, abortion, etc. The Rockefeller Republicans were/are a mere echo of the Democrats, thus Goldwater’s pledge to offer “a choice, not an echo” to the American people.
But the idea of offering a real choice of political leaders to the American people is actually anathema to the establishment that has captured both the Democrat and Republican parties, and held them under tight control for decades. The reality of American politics was described this way in 1966 by the late Professor Carroll Quigley in his famous book Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time: “The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.”
Quigley’s description above is important not because it represents his own views (although that may also be the case), but because, according to him, it represents the views and operational plans of the ruling elite, the Eastern Establishment, that, de facto, has usurped control over America’s financial and political system. Even more importantly, the results of one election cycle after another, over the past 50-60 years, have clearly demonstrated that the change of party does not bring “any profound or extensive shifts in policy.”
Dominant Political Desires
Dr. Quigley, a professor of history at Princeton, Harvard, and Georgetown Universities, and a mentor of Bill Clinton, was one of the rare academics who was privileged to study the “secret records” of the Council on Foreign Relations and the “network of power” of which it is a key component.
“There does exist,” wrote Quigley, “and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so.” The chief Round Table Groups to which he refers are the CFR (in the United States) and the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA, also known as Chatham House, in Britain). “I know of the operations of this network,” Quigley explained, “because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960’s, to examine its papers and secret records.” “I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments,” he continued. “I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies … but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.”
Indeed, now more than ever, the role of this secretive power network “is significant enough to be known.” But, unfortunately, far too few are courageous enough to truly “speak truth to power” and expose the increasing stranglehold it exercises over our entire nation, and much of the planet.
Hillary Rodham Clinton’s close ties to the globalist establishment, particularly as embodied in its chief operations arm, the CFR, explains why the world government lobby — both Republicans and Democrats — has rushed to her aid and is viciously attacking Trump. By both word and deed, she has proven herself to be a thoroughgoing internationalist, an anti-national sovereignty one-worlder. Although she is not herself a CFR member, her daughter, Chelsea, and husband, Bill, are both members. However, official membership is a mere formality that she, undoubtedly, is forgoing for the time being to avoid needless controversy. Like Bill, she is certain to become an official member when it is expedient. In the meantime, she has left no doubts as to where she stands, having infamously lauded the CFR for guiding the U.S. State Department in “what we should be doing and how we should think,” and having referred to Pratt House, the CFR headquarters in New York City, as “the mother ship.”
Those paeans of praise came from Hillary Clinton during a July 2009 speech she delivered at the CFR’s new Washington, D.C., headquarters, while she was still serving as President Obama’s secretary of state. She was introduced by her “good friend,” CFR President Richard Haass, who leads the organization’s calls for “global governance” and regularly supports ceding U.S. national sovereignty to international bodies. (Naturally, he is also harshly critical of Trump.)
Following her introduction by Haass, Secretary Clinton made this remarkable admission:
Thank you very much, Richard, and I am delighted to be here in these new headquarters. I have been often to, I guess, the mother ship in New York City, but it’s good to have an outpost of the Council right here down the street from the State Department. We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.
As U.S. senator for New York and secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton has reliably promoted the CFR “mother ship’s” agenda: the UN’s International Criminal Court, the UN’s Small Arms Treaty, the UN’s Convention on the Rights of the Child, the UN’s Law of the Sea Treaty, the UN’s population control and sexual perversion agenda, the World Trade Organization, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, and much more. She has also pushed many of these same (and related) programs through the Bill and Hillary Clinton Foundation, while also enriching herself under the guise of philanthropy.
Clinton’s words and deeds more than confirm the severe critique of the organization by the late Admiral Chester Ward, who was himself a CFR member for nearly two decades. Admiral Ward, writing in 1977 on the powerful control the private and secretive CFR exercises over official U.S. policy, noted:
Once the ruling members of CFR have decided that the U.S. Government should adopt a particular policy, the very substantial research facilities of CFR are put to work to develop arguments, intellectual and emotional, to support the new policy, and to confound and discredit, intellectually and politically, any opposition. The most articulate theoreticians and ideologists prepare related articles, aided by the research, to sell the new policy and to make it appear inevitable and irresistible. By following the evolution of this propaganda in the most prestigious scholarly journal in the world, Foreign Affairs, anyone can determine years in advance what the future defense and foreign policies of the United States will be. If a certain proposition is repeated often enough in that journal, then the U.S. Administration in power — be it Republican or Democratic — begins to act as if that proposition or assumption were an established fact.
Admiral Ward, a former judge advocate general of the U.S. Navy and a CFR member from 1959-1977, became one of the organization’s chief critics. According to Ward, the goal of the CFR is the “submergence of U.S. sovereignty and national independence into an all-powerful one-world government.” He charged that “this lust to surrender the sovereignty and independence of the United States is pervasive throughout most of the membership.” The CFR elite and their allied globalists in the RIIA, the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group, the Brookings Institution , the Aspen Institute, the Ford Foundation, and other internationalist centers, have for decades referred to their world government plans as the New World Order.
The roadblock of national sovereignty, and specifically the U.S. Constitution with its structural checks and balances, is standing in the way of this grand scheme. This is why, Admiral Ward noted, “In the entire CFR lexicon, there is no term of revulsion carrying a meaning so deep as ‘America First.’”
Trying to Tame Trump
It was Goldwater’s “America First” philosophy that caused the CFR establishment to unleash the hellish hordes of Mordor against him, and it is Trump’s “America First” comments that have, likewise, sent the orchestrated waves of revulsion crashing upon him from the globalist chorus.
Let’s briefly examine the very carefully choreographed outpouring of outrage from the Rockefeller Republicans and the Clinton Democrats. Although scripted to appear spontaneous and uncoordinated, the critically time-released statements by high-profile politicians and the stories and op-eds by their media allies are about as spontaneous as a Super Bowl halftime show.
One of the most recent anti-Trump hit pieces by the CFR’s “Republocrats” came in the form of a letter to the New York Times (for nearly a century the CFR’s prime propaganda transmission belt) on August 8, from, as the Times put it, “Fifty of the nation’s most senior Republican national security officials.”
The letter, signed by former officials of the National Security Council and the Departments of State, Defense, and Homeland Security, accuses Donald Trump of lacking the “character, values, and experience” to be president, and charge that he would “put at risk our country’s national security and well-being.”
“We know the personal qualities required of a President of the United States,” the letter states, and continues: “None of us will vote for Donald Trump.” The letter by ostensible Republicans reads like a rip-and-read press statement from Team Hillary, utilizing all the Clintonian buzzwords about Trump’s “temperament” and “ignorance,” and his “dangerous” and “reckless” tendencies. The list of signatories to the letter is a veritable Who’s Who of Rockefeller Republicans from the past several GOP administrations. Among the prominent CFR members who signed on are John B. Bellinger III, Robert Blackwill, Eliot A. Cohen, Richard Fontaine, Jendayi Frazer, Aaron Friedberg, Brian Gunderson, Michael Hayden, Carla A. Hills, John Negroponte, Nicholas Rostow, Shirin R. Tahir-Kheli, William H. Taft IV, Dov Zakheim, Philip Zelikow, and Robert Zoellick.
Trump responded to the attack, charging that the letter’s signers are “the ones the American people should look to for answers on why the world is a mess, and we thank them for coming forward so everyone in the country knows who to blame for making the world such a dangerous place.” These supposedly important critics, he said, are “nothing more than the failed Washington elite looking to hold onto their power.” It is difficult to dispute Trump on this key point, which is why the CFR-aligned media focus instead on trumped up stories, such as the “crying baby fiasco,” and his supposed “Second Amendment threat” against Hillary.
Another member of the “failed Washington elite,” Maine Senator Susan M. Collins (CFR), penned a similar anti-Trump letter for the Washington Post (another longtime CFR transmission belt) on the same day, August 8, entitled “Why I Cannot Support Donald Trump.” Senator Collins, who has an abysmal 40 percent rating on this magazine’s Freedom Index, says in her letter that she is “a lifelong Republican.” “But Donald Trump,” she insists, “does not reflect historical Republican values nor the inclusive approach to governing that is critical to healing the divisions in our country.” Apparently, in Collins’ view, “historical Republican values” include supporting bigger government, more taxes, more debt, more regulation (except when it comes to auditing the unaccountable Federal Reserve, a common-sense proposal she opposes), more undeclared wars, and more surveillance-state measures, as well as support for the militant pro-abortion and LGBTQ agendas.
Also on August 8, much of the CFR-aligned blogosphere and Big Media universe celebrated the announcement by Republican Evan McMullin (CFR) that he is entering the presidential race as an “independent” #NeverTrump candidate. McMullin, who recently left his job as the chief policy director for Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives, claims to be a conservative, but is more likely a neoconservative of the Susan Collins/Paul Ryan/John McCain/Mitch McConnell stripe. Besides being a CFR member, he is ex-CIA (favorite intel-disinformation apparat of the CFR), and ex-Goldman Sachs (favorite Wall Street firm of Hillary).
A couple of weeks earlier, in a July 24 column for the left-wing Daily Beast, liberal-left Democrat “journalist” Eleanor Clift (the veteran commentator for PBS and MSNBC) reported, with apparent glee, “Some of the GOP’s best brains” are now going for Hillary. Among the supposed Republican brainiacs that are joining the Clinton camp, says Clift, are Robert Kagan (CFR), a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a co-founder of the all-war-all-the-time Project for the New American Century; Brent Scowcroft (CFR), an advisor to four GOP presidents; Henry Paulson, Jr. (CFR), former treasury secretary under President George W. Bush and former chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs; Kori Schake (CFR), former George W. Bush National Security official; Max Boot, a CFR senior fellow and former advisor to John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Marco Rubio; retired Army Colonel Peter Mansoor (CFR), former top aide to General David Petraeus (CFR); and Larry Pressler (CFR), former U.S. senator for South Dakota.
It’s easy to see why a “progressive” such as Eleanor Clift would consider these Rockefeller RINOs to be the GOP’s “best brains,” but most thinking Republicans with any constitutional conviction would say “good riddance,” and would urge these longtime globalists to stay in the party of Bernie, Barack, and Hillary, where they belong. There are too many like Larry Pressler posing as “moderate Republicans” as long as it is politically expedient. But this is not the first time he has jumped ship: He also voted and campaigned for Obama in 2012.
Many more of the CFR Republican elite can be expected to make highly public defections in the coming days and weeks. Maybe not all the way over to an endorsement of Hillary, but certainly condemning Trump and warning voters of the grave “dangers” he would pose if he occupied the White House. Between now and November 8, we can be sure there will be coordinated waves of RINO Rockefeller Republicans attacking Trump and embracing Clinton, all in a scripted effort to cripple and defeat the Republican nominee.
The Team Hillary message is, “See, Trump is so toxic and unpresidential that even all these famous Republicans are fleeing him.” That message will work — and is working — with ill-informed voters. For truly informed voters, however, the RINO exodus is a good thing to cheer, and one of the best endorsements for Donald Trump. Yes, from a solid, constitutionalist perspective, he has many faults, warts, and deficiencies. However, it should be clear from the unprecedented magnitude and ferocity of the attacks leveled against him that Trump represents an existential threat to the CFR insiders’ grand schemes for a New World Order. And it should be equally clear that Hillary Clinton is viewed by these same globalists as the chosen one to further extend their subversive schemes. Whatever his faults, Trump is seen by the globalists as their adversary, because they see in him a nationalist, a patriot, who will stand athwart their schemes for global empire. Moreover, due to his independent wealth, he is uniquely positioned to challenge and monkey-wrench their schemes. And for these reasons, between now and election day, their attacks on him will be relentless and ever more vicious.
* * *
Hillary’s Wall Street Fat Cats and Billionaire Boys’ Club
Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and other Democrats lambasted Hillary Clinton for her scandalously enormous campaign donations from Wall Street’s biggest banks and hedge funds. Her response has been to double down and take still more campaign lucre, while feigning outrage that anyone would think that any amount of money, no matter how large, could ever corrupt a paragon of virtue such as herself. “Anybody who knows me, who thinks they can influence me, name anything they’ve influenced me on. Just name one thing,” Clinton defiantly charged at a February 3, 2016, televised CNN forum in New Hampshire. “I’m out here every day saying, ‘I’m going to shut them down; I’m going after them.’” At an earlier campaign stop in Iowa on January 24, she declared, “I believe strongly that we need to make sure that Wall Street never wrecks Main Street again…. No bank is too big to fail, and no executive is too powerful to jail.”
In an internal memo on August 8, Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager Robby Mook crowed that the campaign had hauled in $90 million in July, and “we are very proud of the more than $469 million our campaign has raised so far.” It is certain to hit well over a half billion dollars before Election Day. And here are some of the principal Lords of Mammon who are providing it: George Soros, hedge fund investor, $9 million to pro-Clinton SuperPACs; Alex Soros, son of George Soros, $1 million to pro-Clinton groups; Steven Spielberg, Hollywood producer/director, $1 million to pro-Clinton SuperPACs; Donald Sussman, Paloma Partners hedge fund, $8.1 million to pro-Clinton SuperPACs; James Simons, Renaissance Technologies investment firm, $9.5 million to pro-Clinton groups; Bernard L. Schwartz, investment banker, $1 million to pro-Clinton groups; Herbert M. Sandler, banker, $3 million to pro-Clinton SuperPACs; Jay Robert and Mary Katherine Pritzker, investors, $6.5 million to pro-Clinton groups.
Additional “Billionaire Club” Hillary supporters include Warren Buffett, the world’s second-wealthiest billionaire (according to a July 2016 Forbes rating); Jeff Bezos, Amazon.com founder, owner of the Washington Post, the world’s third-wealthiest billionaire (Forbes); Michael Bloomberg, former New York City mayor, Bloomberg News CEO, gun control/global-warming activist; Elon Musk, tech magnate (PayPal, Tesla Motors, SpaceX); Oprah Winfrey, entertainer; Jeffrey Katzenberg, Hollywood movie mogul; Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman Sachs CEO; Meg Whitman, Hewlett Packard CEO; Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook COO; Mark Cuban, Dallas Mavericks owner, reality TV show star; Mortimer Zuckerman, owner/publisher of the New York Daily News and U.S. News & World Report; Tom Steyer, hedge fund manager/environmental activist; Barry Diller, media and entertainment mogul; and Eric Schmidt, former Google CEO.
This video was produced by Melissa Dykes and originally published at TruthstreamMedia.com.
Editor’s Comment: The sordid history of U.S.-sponsored regime change is a sad note in history, but a lesson that needs to be learned.
There are forces at work to destroy the United States from within – Obama, Hillary and Soros are but a few prime examples. The barbarians are at the gate, and the age-old formula of divide and conquer is changing America. With astroturf support, they set out to undo the constitution and take the country over as a collective from within.
Could it happen here? The better question is: how long do we have left?
A History Of Manufactured Regime Change And Civil Unrest: Is America Next?
by Melissa Dykes
“These revolutions are portrayed in the western media as popular democratic revolutions, in which the people of these respective nations demand democratic accountability and governance from their despotic leaders and archaic political systems.”
“However, the reality is far from what this utopian imagery suggests. Western NGOs and media heavily finance and organize opposition groups and protest movements, and in the midst of an election, create a public perception of vote fraud in order to mobilize the mass protest movements to demand ‘their’ candidate be put into power”
“It just so happens that “their” candidate is always the Western US-favoured candidate, whose campaign is often heavily financed by Washington; and who proposes US-friendly policies and neoliberal economic conditions.”
“In the end, it is the people who lose out, as their genuine hope for change and accountability is denied by the influence the US wields over their political leaders.”