Sunday, January 12, 2020

AMERICA'S ONGOING COUP D'ETAT... FOR MY FOREIGN READERS


Adam Schiff: “Donald Trump Is Definitely Going To Jail” - News Punch




THIS IS A SUMMATION OF 5 OTHER ARTICLES I HAVE POSTED:


1- UKRAINE ADMITS IT AIDED CLINTON IN 2016 ELECTION

2- 7 TIMES LEFT-WING MEDIA REPORTED THAT UKRAINE INTERFERED IN 2016 U.S. ELECTION

3- CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS BY CRIMINALS BUT NO POLITICIANS GO TO JAIL FOR TAKING THE MONEY

4- UKRAINIAN TIMELINE, FROM PRE-COUP 2014 TO ELECTION 2016, OBAMA, BIDEN AND THE CIA INTERFERED

5- TRUMP IS THE LAST REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT YOU MAY EVER SEE


A coup d'etat is the illegal, often violent overthrow of an existing government or leader by a small group.

Coups d'etat are typically conducted by aspiring dictators, military forces, or opposing political factions.

Unlike revolutions, coups d'etat usually seek only to replace key government personnel rather than forcing sweeping changes to the country’s fundamental social and political ideology.


“The matter before the House today is based solely on a fundamental hatred of our president,” Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) said. “It’s a sham, a witch hunt—and it’s tantamount to a coup against the duly elected president of the United States.”


AS OF TODAY, JANUARY 12, 2020, THIS IS WHERE WE ARE HERE IN AMERICA. 


Having cleared the House, the Democrats’ impeachment articles SHOULD HAVE BEEN SENT to the Senate by now, just as they were sent within the week when we saw the impeachments of Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton.

"The Framers never envisioned that the speaker of the House would withhold the articles of impeachment from the Senate," said Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett.

But Nancy Pelosi, 'Speaker of the House' (which, by the way, many here refer to as 'The Domed Whorehouse on the Hill') REFUSED to present the articles to our Senate, although she now "promises" she'll send them to the Senate next week.  

She and other Democrats "in charge" hurried us through closed-door, SECRET 'hearings' into which few Republican representatives were even allowed, transcripts of which have been classified by the Democrats as "SECRET", and then they continued their show with a few days of "open" testimonies which were highly publicized and shown live, in some instances, on national TV.

They never produced their "STAR WITNESS", whom they initially credited with the beginning of their "investigation", a man whom they demanded remain SO anonymous that they refused, in the end, to even allow him to testify, and instead produced "witnesses" from the Obama administration who, naturally, want Trump deposed.

The anonymous one is most likely a CIA/Anti-Trump gossip-monger named Eric Ciaramella.
He has been busted for lying on his submitted form to start an investigation, and others in the Trump White House/Intelligence community as well as Adam Schiff and other Democrats have been busted trying to help him cover up his failed cover-up.

His statements are all hearsay, he did NOT hear anything in Trump's phone conversation that at least 15 other listeners heard, as his boss, another traitor and liar, has stated.

THIS MAY BE THE PROVERBIAL "ICING ON THE CAKE" THAT SHOWS THIS HAS BEEN A COUP ATTEMPT, NOT A FAIR NOR HONORABLE HEARING: 

In late November, an ace investigative reporter, Paul Sperry, tweeted out a question related to secret impeachment inquiry testimony before the House Intelligence Committee related to Michael Atkinson, the inspector general for the intelligence community:
"Specifically, though House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Intelligence Community chair Adam Schiff have released 15 transcripts of testimony, the transcript of Atkinson’s testimony has yet to be made public.

Why?"


Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas), a former federal prosecutor, responded: 

"I know why @paulsperry_ It’s because I asked IG Atkinson about his “investigation” into the contacts between Schiff’s staff and the person who later became the whistleblower. The transcript is classified “secret” so Schiff can prevent you from seeing the answers to my questions."

Then, on December 9, while our attention was focused on the release of Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s do-nothing report on FBI abuses of the FISA Court, Ratcliffe was banging away at Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee, trying to persuade them to release Atkinson’s testimony.

In doing so, Ratcliffe managed to essentially lay out why Schiff & Co. are sitting on Atkinson’s testimony.
Directing his attention to Democratic counsel Daniel Goldman, RATCLIFFE asked if the counsel was present for Atkinson’s testimony, to which he responded in the affirmative. Ratcliffe noted:

"…On pages 53-73, the Inspector General’s testimony confirms the following: That the whistleblower (HE'S NO WHISTLEBLOWER. HE'S A GOSSIP, AN OBAMA HOLD-OVER, A FRIEND OF BIDEN'S, WITH A LONG HISTORY OF OPPOSING TRUMP) made statements to the Inspector General under the penalty of perjury that were not true and correct. That the whistleblower first made statements in writing under the penalty of perjury that were not true and correct.

The whistleblower then made statements under the penalty of perjury that were not true and correct in his or her verbal responses to the Inspector General’s investigative team.
Because of the whistleblower’s statements in writing and verbally, that were neither true, correct or accurate, pages 53 to 73 of that testimony reveal that the IG was not able to answer any questions.
None, from me, about the whistleblower’s contact or communication with Mr. Schiff’s staff of which Mr. Goldman is a member.

After the IG testified on October 4th and after media reports revealed that the whistleblower and Mr. Schiff did not disclose their prior contacts or communications with each other, the whistleblower contacted the IG to explain why he or she made statements under penalty of perjury in writing or verbally that were true, correct and accurate…

Ratcliffe then noted further that no changes made by the whistleblower regarding prior contact with Schiff were made to the report:

On October 2, Patrick Boland, Mr. Schiff’s spokesman, acknowledged publicly that the outlines of the whistleblower’s accusations against the President had been disclosed to the House Intelligence staff and shared with Chairman Schiff.

Once again, Ratcliffe notes that the contact information was excluded from the report, as he requests release of pages 53-73, which he further notes would not reveal the whistleblower’s identity:

Look, maybe there’s a good reason why the whistleblower made statements that weren’t true about his or her contact with Schiff in writing…Maybe there’s a reason why Chairman Schiff was not truthful about his staff’s previous contact with the whistleblower…

Additionally, several weeks ago, we learned that the day after the July 25th conversation between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Schiff hired Sean Misko, a close friend and former colleague of the whistleblower, who is alleged to be Eric Ciaramella, as an aide. Misko and Ciaramella worked together on the National Security Council and are said to have a “bro-like” relationship."

Radcliffe’s request didn’t work.
The entire transcript remains hidden from the American people.

Judicial Watch founder Tom Fitton announced that his organization filed FOIA lawsuits against the CIA and the DOJ to obtain Ciaramella’s communications. We know that Ciaramella “worked on Ukraine issues while on CIA detail to both the Obama and Trump White Houses.”

Fitton explained that the lawsuit was filed because neither the CIA nor DoJ had responded to FOIA requests. 
The Democrats also REFUSED to allow the Republicans (GOP) to call ANY witnesses or to deeply (and without interference from one Adam Schiff, a Democrat representative from California) question the Democrat-called 'witnesses'.
Schiff would pound his little gavel and make the GOP congressmen cease questioning, time and time again.

Still, the GOP House members who were allowed questions managed to show that the charges against Trump were ALL based on hearsay evidence and did NOT constitute impeachable offenses.

Many of the Democrats' own witnesses surprised them by stating publicly in open hearings that Trump had NOT bribed or coerced anyone during his phone conversations with the two Ukraine presidents and BOTH those presidents have said publicly that they never felt threatened, intimidated, or coerced in ANY way by Trump or anyone on his staff.
They have BOTH stated that they had for years wanted AND SOUGHT their own investigation into Burisma, including a long look into the Bidens' part in that very shady deal.

BOTH Ukrainian presidents and MANY more high-level Ukrainian government officials have repeatedly, FOR OVER A DECADE BEFORE TRUMP WAS ELECTED, called for the U.S. to STOP interfering with Ukrainian governance and their position in the international community, and wanted America to STOP forcing the dismissal of their prosecutors and to STOP allowing American businessmen to swarm into the Ukraine to make big profits there and deprive Ukraine of any benefits.

They had also asked REPEATEDLY that the U.S. RECALL both Pyatt and Yovanovitch and replace them.   


If the U.S. House's 'articles of impeachment' are ever presented to the U.S. Senate, as prescribed by our Constitutional LAW, the Senate will hold another historic impeachment trial in 2020 on whether to acquit the 45th president or convict and remove him from office. The Senate will then be able to FINALLY call their own witnesses to defend Trump, who, up to this point, has been denied defense of any kind.

A 'super-majority vote' by two-thirds of the Senate (67 votes of our 100 Senators) is required to convict and remove the president, meaning 20 Republicans would need to get onboard with the Democrats.

Republicans control the Senate with 53 seats currently, while Democrats occupy 45 and Independents have 2 seats, usually voting with Democrats.

Democrats would need an additional 22 Republican votes in order to impeach Trump. 


Republicans in the Senate have shown no interest in removing Trump, who wields a 95 percent approval rating among Republican voters.

"This is a political trial not a judicial trial. If this was a Judicial trial the whole gang would have been laughed right out of court."

Well, when their initial charges of bribery, something they called "quid pro quo", interfering in the upcoming 2020 election by asking that Ukraine look into the role Joe Biden played during the 2013-2014 Obama-funded coup in the Ukraine, thereby misusing his presidential powers didn't hold up, as their own witness after witness stated Trump did none of the above, they held yet another "secret meeting" and came up with the latest two NEW "articles of impeachment', neither of which constitutes an impeachable crime, neither of which can ever be proven by hearsay evidence and third-party opinion.


House Democrats 'probed' the events surrounding a July 25, 2019 phone call between President Donald Trump and newly elected Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, during which Trump asked the Ukrainian leader to “look into” the firing of former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, something Joe Biden had demanded or else the U.S. would withhold loans to Ukraine in 2014-2015.

Ukraine, according to its own government websites, had already been looking long and hard since 2013 at not just Joe Biden, but also at John Kerry and Joe's son Hunter.

Weeks before his ouster, Shokin had seized the property of the owner of a Ukrainian gas firm which, at the time, paid Joe Biden’s son Hunter tens of thousands of dollars a month to sit on its board of directors, something he was unqualified to do.

Joe Biden has bragged, in a well-publicized filmed interview with the Council on Foreign Relations, about how he FORCED Shokin’s ouster by threatening then-president Porshenko that Obama would withhold from Ukraine $1 billion in much needed loans if Shokin wasn't fired.
Shokin WAS fired and, months later, the U.S. authorized the loans.

THAT WAS 'QUID PRO QUO'! 

Obama's Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland and Obama's appointed ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt were recorded and then outed having conversations about how to DEPOSE the elected Ukrainian president,  and deciding whom the U.S. wanted to be appointed instead.

Other Ukrainian prosecutors and MPs had complained of CIA involvement in the coup, suggested that CIA snipers had assisted in the 'Maidan Massacre', protested American involvement in Ukraine's business dealings, American meddling in Ukraine's dealings with the European Union and the UK, Russia and Germany, and pointed out the withholding of funds (designated to Ukraine's internal investigations) by TWO of Obama's ambassadors in Kiev over a period of years.

They had also protested the U.S. allowing a Burisma-connected tycoon to take refuge in America to avoid prosecution in Ukraine and that America was the cause of the siphoning of almost $18 BILLION of Ukraine's wealth to offshore banks, suggesting also that the Bidens and John Kerry benefited from that siphoning.

ALLEGATIONS THAT YOVANOVITCH'S EMBASSY HAD PERHAPS EMBEZZLED OVER $4 MILLION IN DESIGNATED FUNDS FOR UKRAINE'S INVESTIGATIONS HAD ALSO BEEN MADE PUBLICLY BY UKRAINE BEFORE TRUMP TOOK OFFICE.

SO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES HERE DECIDED TO INVESTIGATE, NOT OBAMA, BIDEN, JOHN McCAIN, JOHN KERRY, TWO U.S. AMBASSADORS AND NULAND, BUT INSTEAD OPENED HEARINGS ON....DONALD J. TRUMP.

WELCOME TO AMERICAN 'JUSTICE', DEAR READERS FROM OUTSIDE THE U.S.
BUT THEN, I'M SURE YOU'VE ALL BEEN VICTIMS OF THAT MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE IN SOME WAY WHEREVER YOU ARE ON THE GLOBE.

I CAN'T SAY THAT THE MAJORITY OF US U.S. CITIZENS LOATHE INJUSTICE AND LIES, BUT MANY OF US DO.

BY THE WAY, I DID NOT VOTE FOR TRUMP NOR ANY NAME ON THE BALLOT IN ANY YEAR SINCE GOLDWATER RAN.


David Plouffe was the campaign manager for Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign.
What he tweeted is precisely what drives the Democrats today.



MORE RECENTLY, WE LEARNED THAT THE FBI HAS LIED TO THE FISA COURT IN ORDER TO OBTAIN THEIR OKAY TO SPY ON MEMBERS OF TRUMP'S CAMPAIGN, AND POSSIBLY ON TRUMP HIMSELF. 

POSTED TO TWITTER, AUGUST 29, 2018

Donald J. Trump
Verified account
@realDonaldTrump

Ohr told the FBI it (the Fake Dossier) wasn’t true, it was a lie and the FBI was determined to use it anyway to damage Trump and to perpetrate a fraud on the court to spy on the Trump campaign. This is a fraud on the court. The Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court is in......
...charge of the FISA court. He should direct the Presiding Judge, Rosemary Collier, to hold a hearing, haul all of these people from the DOJ & FBI in there, & if she finds there were crimes committed, and there were, there should be a criminal referral by her....” @GreggJarrett
6:51 PM - 29 Aug 2018     



August 30, 2018 in Courts, Crime, Current Events
"Criminal Misconduct:
During an appearance Wednesday night on Fox News, network legal analyst and attorney Gregg Jarrett suggested that judges on the secretive FISA court should call in Deep State figures from Obama’s FBI and Justice Department and press charges against them for allegedly misrepresenting information used to get a spying warrant on a Trump campaign figure.

The entire concept of a “secret court” in the United States of America is anathema to our founding principles of open, transparent government and judicial processes.

We understand why the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court exists in secret — because the judges serving on the court must review highly classified information before making the determination to allow the federal government to spy on an American citizen."

But as we’ve seen, Obama and those working for him have completely abused the system and destroyed the court’s credibility and Americans’ trust in it.

The only way to restore trust and send an unmistakable signal that such abuses cannot and will not be tolerated in the future is to hold people accountable for those abuses.

The ability of the federal government to collect intelligence so it can protect all of us is a power that we can’t undermine, and yet Obama and his sycophantic Deep State have done just that.     

We need to repair the damage.

People have to be held accountable.
That’s the only way to fix this.


Former officials who signed off on four FISA warrants allowing the FBI to spy on Trump campaign figure Carter Page over a bogus “Russian collusion” narrative using a fake ‘dossier’ include James Comey, Sally Yates, Andrew McCabe and current Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

They have to be deposed by the FISA court.

They have to be held responsible if they’re determined to be guilty of breaking laws just so they could spy on a rival political campaign and a presidential candidate they despise.

Our system of justice and intelligence-gathering depend on it.




IT TOOK 15 MONTHS FOR FISA TO ADMIT IT WAS 'DUPED'.


THE HOROWITZ INVESTIGATION THAT WAS ONGOING FOR OVER A YEAR MADE EXCUSES FOR THE CIA, FBI AND FISA AND DID NOT WANT TO MENTION THAT POLITICAL BIAS CAME INTO PLAY.

"FUNNY THING" ABOUT MICHAEL HOROWITZ...HE'S SERVED REPEATEDLY FOR DEMOCRAT ADMINISTRATIONS.
 From 1999-2000 he worked in Bill Clinton's Department of Justice headquarters in Washington D.C., first as a deputy assistant attorney general, then as chief of staff.
In 2002 he returned to private practice as a partner at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, where he focused on white collar defense, internal investigations, and regulatory compliance.
Horowitz was sworn in as the Inspector General of Obama's United States Department of Justice on April 16, 2012.
Since 2015, he has also been the chair of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE), an organization consisting of all 73 federal Inspectors General.

HOROWITZ IS MERELY ANOTHER CLINTON/OBAMA HOLDOVER WHOM TRUMP SHOULD HAVE REMOVED SOMEHOW. 


His wife Alexandra Leigh Kauffman is a former field producer for CNN, one of mainstream media's most vicious anti-Trump ragsheets. 
ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM BARR HAD WARNED ABOUT BIAS BEFORE THAT LONG-AWAITED HOUSE VOTE TO IMPEACH.

"Ahead of President Donald Trump’s historic impeachment on Dec.18, Attorney General William Barr warned against the president’s indictment being “trivialized” and used as a “political tool” by Democrats.

In an interview with Fox News on Wednesday as the House of Representatives debated two articles of impeachment against the president, Barr argued that the allegations against Trump do not meet the high standard for impeachment required by the Constitution.

Barr added that the two articles of impeachment “do not allege a violation of law.”

STOP RIGHT THERE AND REMEMBER THAT BARR IS EX-CIA (1971-1977), WAS ATTORNEY GENERAL UNDER REAGAN DURING THE IRAN-CONTRA YEARS, OVERSAW 2 OTHER INVESTIGATIONS OF CORRUPTION IN THE DEPT. OF JUSTICE (DoJ), ONE IN 1991, THE OTHER IN 1992, AND BOTH FAILED TO FIND WHAT EVERYONE KNEW WAS THERE...CORRUPTION.

AND...In 1992, Barr launched a surveillance program to gather records of innocent Americans' international phone calls.
The DoJ inspector general concluded that this program had been launched without a review of its legality.
On December 5, 2019, Democratic Senators Ron Wyden and Patrick J. Leahy asked the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility to investigate Barr for approving an illegal surveillance program without legal analysis.


PELOSI PRESSES ON, STALLING ALL THE WAY

Mark Levin, a well-known attorney who worked in the administration of President Ronald Reagan and was a chief of staff for Attorney General Edwin Meese, recently spoke out to offer a solution to Nancy Pelosi’s sham impeachment of President Trump:

"Nancy Pelosi was apparently advised by left-wing Harvard law professor Lawrence Tribe to delay sending the impeachment to the Senate. So she’s unilaterally sitting on the impeachment.
This is another brazen unconstitutional act.

Here’s what Mitch McConnell and the Senate Republicans must do in response:

The Senate has the sole power under the Constitution to adjudicate an impeachment. Therefore, Pelosi is attempting to obstruct the Senate’s power to act on its constitutional authority.

McConnell should immediately put an end to this and declare the impeachment null and void as the speaker has failed to complete the impeachment process by timely sending it to the Senate for adjudication.

McConnell has no less authority to unilaterally make such a decision than Pelosi does to withhold the administrative notification of an impeachment to the Senate either indefinitely or with conditions.

Her effort to cripple the presidency and blackmail the Senate must be defeated."



THE REAL REASON DEMS ARE TRYING TO DUMP TRUMP?
THEY KNOW NONE OF THEIR LUDICROUS CANDIDATES CAN DEFEAT HIM.  


THEY KNOW THAT JOE BIDEN IS SUFFERING FROM DEMENTIA AND IS SEEN AS A POSSIBLE CHILD MOLESTER BY MANY IN BOTH PARTIES.
HIS NICKNAME IS "GROPING JOE" BECAUSE HE HAS GROPED SO MANY WOMEN AND CHILDREN.
HE HAS ADMITTED HE FORCED A UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT TO FIRE HIS OWN SPECIAL PROSECUTOR WHO HAD SAID HE WAS LOOKING INTO HUNTER BIDEN'S DEALINGS IN THE UKRAINIAN GAS COMPANY BURISMA HOLDINGS, AND INTO THE SIPHONING OF MULTI-BILLIONS IN FUNDS THAT BELONGED TO THE UKRAINE TO OFFSHORE ACCOUNTS, ONE THAT THEY ASSOCIATED WITH JOE BIDEN AND POSSIBLY JOHN KERRY.

THEY WANT THEIR BILLIONS BACK AND MAY GO AFTER JOE BIDEN TO GET IT. 

BERNIE SANDERS JUST HAD A HEART ATTACK, IS FAR TOO OLD TO APPEAL TO THE MAJORITY OF DEMOCRATS AND IS A CARD-CARRYING COMMUNIST WHOM EVEN OBAMA HAS CLASSIFIED AS "TOO FAR LEFT'.
CHANCES ARE THAT SANDERS, LIKE BIDEN, WOULD DIE IN OFFICE AND NO ONE KNOWS WHOM HE MIGHT NAME AS VICE PRESIDENT.
FEW ARE WILLING TO RISK SANDERS. 

ELIZABETH WARREN WAS BUSTED AND RIDICULED FOR CLAIMING TO BE NATIVE AMERICAN, HAS BEEN CAUGHT IN OTHER LIES  AND CAN'T WIN A SINGLE DEBATE WITH THE OTHER DULLARDS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.

HER "PLAN FOR AMERICA" WOULD COST TWICE AS MUCH AS OUR CURRENT TOTAL NATIONAL DEBT.
AMERICAN VOTERS ARE SICK OF CARRYING THAT DEBT ON THEIR ACHING BACKS AND DON'T WANT MORE DEBT. 


IT'S ALMOST A PRECISE THREE-WAY TIE ON WHOM THE VOTERS WANT AS A LAME DEMOCRAT CANDIDATE.
THEIR PARTY IS FRACTURED.

THE VOTERS KNOW NONE OF THE TOP 3 HAVE A CHANCE. 

NONE OF THE CANDIDATES CAN MUSTER EVEN HALF OF THE REGISTERED DEMOCRATS TO VOTE FOR THEM OVER THE OTHER TWO. 

TRUMP, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS A 95% REPUBLICAN VOTER APPROVAL.
TRUMP IS A SURE THING FOR THE GOP. 




HILLARY CLINTON LOST TO TRUMP BY ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTES, WITH ABSOLUTELY NO WAY THE RUSSIANS OR HER OWN PARTY COULD CHANGE THE OUTCOME OF ANY ELECTORAL VOTE.

OBAMA HIMSELF, THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE,  VERIFIED THAT NO POPULAR VOTES WERE CHANGED BY SO-CALLED 'RUSSIAN MEDDLING' IN THE 2016 CAMPAIGN. 

TOO MANY DEMOCRATS WERE SIMPLY ANGRY THAT CLINTON APPEARED TO ROB SANDERS OF THE CANDIDACY, AFTER THE EMAIL LEAKS WERE READ.

AMERICA LEARNED THAT THE DNC (DEMOCRAT NATIONAL COMMITTEE) CONSPIRED WITH HER TO CUT BERNIE OUT.

SHE CHEATED TO WIN AND FAILED BECAUSE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE SORTED IT ALL OUT. 


"What the Democrats are attacking is the transition of power. They have never supported the transition of power from the Obama administration to a Trump administration,”
Mark Levin recenrly stated, directing his attention to the “slow learners” like Joe Scarborough:
“The president sets foreign policy. It doesn’t make a damn’s worth of difference if you don’t agree with it. I don’t care what a former Obama ambassador to Ukraine thinks.

The whole house of cards will collapse and the American people will see this was an outrageous, unconscionable attack by them on the president.

The law is on the president’s side, the facts are on the president’s side.

What the hell is going on here?" Levin asked rhetorically.

THE HOUSE VOTE TO IMPEACH WAS STRICTLY PARTISAN, BUT 4 DEMOCRATS REFUSED TO VOTE YES ON THE TWO "ARTICLES":

Two Democrats—Rep. Jeff Van Drew (D-N.J.) and Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.)—broke ranks with their party to vote no on the first article of impeachment. Rep. Justin Amash, an independent from Michigan who left the Republican Party earlier this year, voted with the Democrats. Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine) joined Van Drew and Peterson in voting no on the second article of impeachment. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) voted “present” on both articles.

ALL REPUBLICANS VOTED "NO" ON BOTH ARTICLES.

The impeachment resolution alleges that Trump abused the power of his office by pressuring Ukraine to investigate a political rival and that the president obstructed justice when Democrats began to investigate the matter.

NO. WRONG.
ANYONE WHOM CONGRESS CALLED TO TESTIFY HAD THE ABILITY TO TESTIFY, EVEN AGAINST PRESIDENTIAL ORDERS IF THEY SO CHOSE.
THEY ALL HAD A CHOICE, AS EVERYONE DOES. 


ADAM SCHIFF AND NANCY PELOSI AND POOR, SERIOUSLY ILL JERRY NADLER BLOCKED THE GOP FROM FULL ACCESS TO TRANSCRIPTS, UNOBSTRUCTED QUESTIONING OF DEMOCRAT-CALLED WITNESSES, AND DISALLOWED ALL 8 WITNESSES THAT THE GOP WANTED TO CALL.

SCHIFF WAS ACCUSED BY A FEW IN EVEN MAINSTREAM MEDIA OF LEADING WITNESSES, DIRECTING THEIR ANSWERS, RESTATING THEIR CLEAR ANSWERS IN FALSE WAYS, CUTTING OFF GOP QUESTIONERS AND OF REWRITING AND THEN READING THE TRANSCRIPTS OF TRUMPS CALLS TO TO/FROM THE UKRAINE. 

AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH WOULD NOT ISSUE VISAS TO UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS WHO HAD PERTINENT INFORMATION FOR PETE SESSION'S DEPT. OF JUSTICE. THESE WERE OFFICIALS WHO HAD STATED SINCE 2016 THAT THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN AND ALEXANDRA CHALUPA, WHO WAS ON THE DEMOCRATS' PAYROLL, HAD COME TO THEM FOR 'DIRT' ON TRUMP.

DURING THE HEARINGS, IT ALSO CAME OUT THAT THE FBI HAD LIED TO THE FISA COURT IN ORDER TO OBTAIN WARRANTS TO WIRETAP TRUMP ASSOCIATES.
TWO OF THOSE MEN ARE NOW SUING TO OVERTURN THEIR CONVICTIONS OF UNRELATED CRIMES WHICH THEY MAY NOT HAVE EVEN COMMITTED. 


IT WAS INDEED A CIRCUS AND SCHIFF WAS LEAD CLOWN. 



.LET THE NEW CHESS MATCH BEGIN! 

1- WHAT THE DEMOCRATS HOPE FOR:
"It is likely both articles of impeachment, “Abuse of Power” and “Obstruction“, are designed to support pending HJC (House Judicial Committee) court cases seeking: (1) former White House Counsel Don McGahn testimony; and (2) grand jury evidence from the Mueller investigation.

Because the FULL House did not originally vote to authorize articles of impeachment, the House Judiciary Committee (HJC) never gained ‘judicial enforcement authority‘. The absence of judicial enforcement authority was evident in the lack of enforcement authority in House subpoenas. No one was charged with failure to appear.

The House could not hold anyone in contempt of congress for not appearing because they did not carry recognized judicial enforcement authority. Additionally, downstream consequences from that original flaw have surfaced in cases working through courts.

There is an argument to be made that the rushed House articles are a means to an end. That is – a way for House lawyers to argue in court all of the constitutionally contended material is required as evidence for 'pending judicial proceedings', a trial in the Senate.

This would explain why all the prior evidence debated for inclusion and legal additions to “articles of impeachment” were dropped.

Instead the House focused only on quickly framing two articles that can facilitate pending court cases.

If accurate, that perspective means the (Mueller) grand jury material is the unspoken goal and impeachment is simply the enhanced means to obtain it.

The "6(e) material" relates to evidence gathered by the Mueller team for grand jury proceedings in their two-year effort to construct a case against President Trump.

Remember, the Mueller evidence was gathered during a counterintelligence investigation, which means all things Trump -including his family and business interests- were subject to unbridled surveillance for two years; and a host of intelligence gathering going back in time indefinitely, a goldmine of political opposition research.

Obviously if Jerry Nadler could get his hands on this material it would quickly find its way into the DNC, and ultimately to the 2020 democrat candidate for president. This material would also be fuel for a year of leaks to DC media who could exploit rumor, supposition, and drops of information that Andrew Weissmann and team left to be discovered. 
We know from the alignment of interests it is likely Jerry Nadler and his legal Lawfare contractors are well aware of exactly what Weissmann and Co. created for them to discover. The problem for the House team(s) is they need legal authority to obtain it and then utilize it to frame and attack President Trump.

With the impeachment articles now approved – the DC Appeals Court is asking Nadler’s team if the purpose of their lawsuit is now moot. Essentially the court believes the prior lawsuit was based on gathering evidence for the impeachment articles:

If my suspicions are correct [SEE HERE] then Jerry Nadler will respond to the court by saying the HJC needs the 6(e) material to support the obstruction article in a Senate Trial. Per the court deadline, we will know by Monday December 23rd. The obstruction article will then become disposable; it will have fulfilled its purpose.

The original lower court ruling approved the HJC request but limited the scope of the material to only that which Mueller included in his final report.

 So it’s not accidental that Nadler’s crew shaped an “obstruction” article considering two-thirds of Mueller’s report was structured around… wait for it…. yep, obstruction.

Conveniently, a pending Senate Trial against President Trump for obstruction paves the way for the DC appeals court to rule in favor of the HJC need for supportive evidence.

While twisted, this approach screams Lawfare…. that is, to make an indictment and then go fishing for the evidence to support that indictment. Evidence that, not accidentally, carries more political usefulness than the indictment it is intended to support.

Also, it is worth remembering HJC Chairman Jerry Nadler hired Mary McCord as part of his contracted team effort.
 McCord was the DOJ-NatSec Division head who accompanied Sally Yates, yet another Obama holdover, to the White House to confront Don McGhan about Lt. Gen. Flynn.

My suspicion is the articles of impeachment are a means to an end, and not the end itself.

Defeating and destroying President Trump is the goal, by any means necessary.

This severe type of goal is not guaranteed by relying on a Republican Senate to remove him. 



2-WHAT THE GOP HOPES FOR. 
That the Democrats will hang themselves so high that no American voter will want to vote for a Democrat.  
The Dems have been revealed in a whole new light, one of deceit, chicanery, bumbling, unconstitutionalism, dirty tricks, falsifying facts, twisting the truth, all because Hillary lost by electoral college. 
The GOP hopes to regain the House of Representatives, strengthen their presence in the Senate and hold many accountable for this blatant coup attempt on a seated President.

After all, when the U.S. military high command tried to oust Obama, they paid. 
Many careers were ruined, charges were brought against big names in our military and the GOP is hoping  against hope that the same will happen here and now.

IT WON'T, but they hope.

Republican senators have said they hope to wrap this up in a few weeks, at most. 
Trump would be acquitted and life would move on. 

I'm not convinced.  

Something sinister has been released in America. 
It began the night of the fires, riots, Democrats screaming in our streets after Trump won. 
It's snowballed, it's outgrown those who started it. 

The Democrats will try again to "dump Trump", and I wouldn't be at all surprised if some extremely crazed Democrat didn't at least TRY to assassinate Trump.

We're on a "rinse, repeat cycle" here, my friends, a bad to progressively worse scenario.

America is quickly "going to hell in a hand-basket", dragged along by a rabid mob who once demanded that Trump say he'd accept defeat and not contest the election when Hillary won.

Please pardon the dust of our demise.

It feels a bit like that fictional "zombie apocalypse" here. 

Be glad you're watching this horror show from afar. 




___________________________________




Addendum:

-- Uncovered Old Footage of Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer Saying Senate Was ‘Susceptible to Whims of Politics’ in Impeachment

"Found footage of a 1999 interview between Schumer and Larry King – where Schumer claimed of Clinton's impeachment that “this is not a criminal trial, but this is something that the Founding Fathers decided to put in a body that was susceptible to the whims of politics.

“It is not like a jury box in the sense that people will call us and lobby us. You don’t have jurors called and lobbied. It’s quite different than a jury,” Schumer said in 1999.

He sings a much different story today.
He denies political bias.



-- "
One of the key witnesses in the impeachment inquiry investigation by House Democrats, former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, appears to have lied under oath during her interview.

When New York Rep. Lee Zeldin asked Yovanovitch, who was an Obama-era holdover, if she had responded back to emails sent to her by a Democratic impeachment inquiry staffer, the former ambassador answered that she had not.

But recently discovered emails by Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, show that Yovanovitch did, in fact, interact with the staffer, even she swore under oath that she had not.


“It appears Ambassador Yovanovitch did not accurately answer this question I asked her during her “impeachment inquiry” deposition under oath,” tweeted Zeldin.

That's not all she didn't answer honestly.
A thorough reading of her transcript and a read of the website of the Ukrainian government shows that she has been at odds with government officials ever since she was assigned that post.

She has asked for the firing of every special prosecutor in Ukraine since she took over the embassy.

Her previous assignment was MOSCOW.

With her out of the way, Ukraine has ramped-up its long-time investigation into Burisma and into what part Joe Biden, John Kerry and others from the Obama era played in their loss of $18 BILLION.

They have admitted they tried to help Hillary get elected and apologized for that.








//WW

THE MURDER OF MUAMMAR GADDAFI. HOW 'OIL FOR GOLD' GETS YOU KILLED.



THE LAUGH OF EVIL...

READ THE COMMENTS ON THIS VIDEO OF CLINTON ON YOUTUBE.


"We Miss You Colonel Gaddafi," Cry the Troubled Libyans


MY ANCESTORS WERE HERE LONG BEFORE ANYONE ARRIVED FROM EUROPE.
I AM FIERCELY DEDICATED, HOWEVER, TO THE AMERICA I KNEW AS A CHILD.
BUT...MAY I BE DAMNED TO AN ETERNAL HELL IF EVER I PUT ANY NATION'S 'GOOD NAME' ABOVE TRUTH, HONOR AND JUSTICE.

WRONG IS WRONG, NO MATTER WHO IS WRONG.
A LIE IS A LIE, MURDER IS MURDER, NO MATTER WHO IS LYING AND MURDERING.

TRUTH AT ANY COST MUST BE WHAT WE ALL SEEK.


A WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY WAS RECENTLY CONDEMNED FOR SAYING THAT BARACK OBAMA HAD GADDAFI, BIN LADEN AND AL-AWLAKI MURDERED WITHOUT ASKING FOR CONGRESS' APPROVAL.

THAT WAS A TRUTH, BUT ROUGHLY HALF OF AMERICA HATES THE TRUTH.
THIS DOES NOT NEGATE THE TRUTH. 


The Case for Impeaching Barack Obama, by Allen West, October 9, 2019:

"If I were on any news program and was asked about the “impeachment inquiry” of President Trump, I would pivot and discuss the case for impeaching Barack Obama…and why the progressive socialist left defended his indefensible actions.

Barack Obama claimed that there was a major crisis in Libya and ended up outsourcing our military support and aid to Islamic jihadist organizations against President Muammar al-Gaddafi.

There was evidence that Gaddafi was willing to negotiate his removal and departure from Libya, but instead, Obama supplied weapons, intelligence, and air support to Islamic terrorists who did overthrow, and execute, Gaddafi.

Since when did the United States provide military aid to Islamic terrorists?

In the aftermath, the Obama administration attempted a weapons buy back program from these same jihadists. And that led to the debacle we came to know as Benghazi.

Why was it that Barack Obama lied about this very sad day in US history, and was never held accountable and responsible?"


FROM BBC NEWS, MARCH 21, 2011:

U.S. President Barack Obama has secretly authorised covert assistance to rebels seeking to overthrow Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi,
US media reports say.

He recently signed a document known as a "finding", allowing support to the rebel groups, Reuters news agency and ABC News said.

Such "findings" are a common way for the president to authorise covert operations by the CIA.

The CIA and White House have both declined to comment on the reports.

The latest reports come amid an ongoing debate about the legality of arming the forces opposed to Col Gaddafi, the BBC's Steve Kingstone in Washington says.

Mr. Obama has said publicly the US has not ruled out arming the rebels. He has pledged US troops will not join the effort to eject Col Gaddafi.

The New York Times, citing American officials, said on Wednesday that the CIA has had operatives on the ground in Libya for several weeks. They are said to be gathering intelligence for air strikes and making contact with the forces fighting Col Gaddafi.

The newspaper says British intelligence and special forces are also involved.

"It's fair to say that if we wanted to get weapons into Libya, we probably could. We're looking at all our options at this point," Obama told ABC News.
In 2009 Obama gave a similar authorization for the expansion of covert U.S. counter-terrorism actions by the CIA in Yemen. The White House does not normally confirm such orders have been issued.

“The whole issue on (providing rebels with) training and equipment requires knowing who the rebels are,” said Bruce Riedel, a former senior CIA Middle East expert who has advised the Obama White House.

Riedel said that helping the rebels to organize themselves and training them how use weapons effectively would be more urgent then shipping them arms.


Members of Congress have expressed anxiety about U.S. government activities in Libya.     Some have recalled that weapons provided by the U.S. and Saudis to mujahedeen fighting Soviet occupation forces in Afghanistan in the 1980s later ended up in the hands of anti-American militants.

There are fears that the same thing could happen in Libya unless the U.S. is sure who it is dealing with.

The chairman of the House intelligence committee, Rep. Mike Rogers, said on Wednesday he opposed supplying arms to the Libyan rebels fighting Gaddafi “at this time.”

“We need to understand more about the opposition before I would support passing out guns and advanced weapons to them,” Rogers said in a statement.


THE REALITY OF WHY GADDAFI WAS MURDERED HAS FINALLY BEEN CLARIFIED. 


FROM 'The African Exponent', Jan. 11th, 2020 

New Evidence: The Real Reason Gaddafi Was Killed


Qaddafi was not killed for humanitarian purposes but for the oil and for money. His ideas of an African gold-backed currency were his major undoing.

According to the IMF (International Monetary Fund), Libya’s Central Bank is 100% state owned and in 2011, it was estimated to have 144 tons of gold in its vaults. Muammar Gaddafi’s plan was to introduce a gold-backed currency which he hoped African and Muslim nations would adopt. He felt it could rival the euro and the dollar, and rightly so too.

The recent Hillary Clinton email leaks have opened a can of worms everywhere including in Africa. Wikileaks released an unclassified U.S. Department of State document emailed to Clinton, dated April 2, 2011.

Sidney Blumenthal, the sender of the email confirmed what the world already suspected. Qaddafi was not killed for humanitarian purposes but for the oil and for money.

His ideas of an African gold-backed currency were his major undoing.

In April 2011, then President of the World Bank, Robert Bruce Zoellick spoke at a panel discussion about how he hoped the World Bank would have some sort of role in the reconstruction of Libya along with other countries.

“Reconstruction now means (Ivory Coast), it now means Southern Sudan, it means Liberia, it means Sri Lanka, I hope it will mean Libya,” he said. 

Blumenthal, in his email to Hillary Clinton confirmed, “Qaddafi's government holds 143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver. During late March, 2011 these stocks were moved to SABHA (south west in the direction of the Libyan border with Niger and Chad); taken from the vaults of the Libyan Central Bank in Tripoli.”

He went on to say the gold and silver was valued at $7 billion and was one of the reasons Nicolas Sarkozy embarked on a French attack of Libya.

“Sarkozy's plans are driven by the following issues:a. A desire to gain a greater share of Libya oil production,b. Increase French influence in North Africa,c. Improve his internal political situation in France,d. Provide the French military with an opportunity to reassert its position in the world,e. Address the concern of his advisors over Qaddafi's long term plans to supplant France as the dominant power in, Francophone Africa,” wrote Blumenthal.

If Qaddafi had succeeded, the United States of America and Europe would have been forced to buy oil and minerals in the gold backed currency thus tipping the scales. This was a horror the West dared not experience. The situation would have been a more lethal re-enactment of Saddam Hussein’s currency wars when he supported the new Euro currency at the expense of the United States Dollar.

The leaked Clinton email has far-reaching implications on the fluid state of post-colonial relations with the West. If anything, it is an eye-opener. Where Africa seeks to build an independent economic structure, the West is seen to try and derail those plans so as to retain its primacy in world affairs.

With regard to the creation of a new currency, Ministry of Peace Founder, Dr James Thring said, “It’s one of those things that you have to plan almost in secret, because as soon as you say you’re going to change over from the dollar to something else, you’re going to be targeted.”

And Qaddafi was targeted.

He may not have been the most democratic leader in the world but Libyan citizens had arguably the best way of life in Africa. His plan of action (without the human rights violations) should be a blueprint for African development."


DID ANYONE CARE WHAT THE LIBYAN PEOPLE WANTED, WHAT THEY THOUGHT OF GADDAFI?
NO.
GREED DOESN'T CARE. 


I CARE, SO HERE'S WHAT LIBYANS ARE STILL SAYING TODAY. 

Libya died with Gaddafi. The people of Libya have never been worse off.

The country has seen a five-fold increase in the cost of food, unpaid salaries for months, the rise of Islamic State terror and worsening electricity black-outs.

Nothing improved after Gaddafi and the country sees it now.

Mahmoud, another Libyan added his own words of disappointment in the bitter fruits of the revolution, “We have had seven governments since 2011 and what have they achieved?' The only thing we can see is new dustbins because one of the early governments installed these new large bins across Tripoli. We still point to them and laugh, saying it's the only achievement of the revolution.”

The West was eager to bomb
but aborted the mission to restructure and help rebuild the ruins left in the aftermath of the bombings...resulting in numerous groups claiming power using military means.

Political activist Fadiel told the Dailymail that although “it should be better than Gaddafi’s time now,” all that remained is “chaos and everyone fighting each other, it’s just a mess.”
Another Libyan who spoke about the country’s situation boldly said, “Libya died with Gaddafi. We are not a nation anymore, we have become just warring groups of tribes, towns and cities. The country has three governments all unwilling to compromise. There were two governments but another has been imposed on the country by the West through the United Nations. The country is so polarised that a former Libyan diplomat is on record saying, “The country is already divided. We have two governments, two parliaments, two Central banks and two National Oil Companies.”

Former diplomat Abdusalem is not the most objective of characters but the sense of his words is difficult to argue with.

He says, “The so-called revolution was lies, all lies. We Libyans did not even know what the word revolution meant. We had been sheltered under Qaddafi for 42 years. It was not Libya's revolution, it was NATO's revolution because they wanted to get rid of Gaddafi.

Though it is a slight exaggeration since some people genuinely wanted Gaddafi out of power, it is true that NATO hijacked the cause and furthered its own ends with no regard for the future of the country. Obama admitted it was no longer an intervention for the right reasons but had become (France’s) Sarkozy and (Britain’s) Cameron’s shit-show.

Though NATO says it intervened to protect civilians, Salem, a 26 year old medical student from Tripoli has argued, “Far more people have been killed since 2011 than during the revolution or under 42 years of Gaddafi’s rule combined. We never had these problems under Gaddafi.

It is estimated that there are over 1,700 armed groups which rose as a result of the “revolution”; now politics in Libya cannot be determined by ballots but guns and bombs. The people of Libya have never been worse off. The democracy they hoped for has not come and to add insult to injury, there is no peace and the greatest terrorist organisation of this time is attempting to establish its base in the country.

 “Libya died with Gaddafi”.



U.S. and NATO Murdered Muammar Gaddafi

21 October 2011


"The savage killing Thursday of deposed Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi served to underscore the criminal character of the war that has been prosecuted by the U.S. and NATO over the past eight months.

The assassination follows NATO’s more than month-long siege of Sirte, the Libyan coastal city that was Gaddafi’s hometown and a center of his support. The assault on this city of 100,000 left virtually every building smashed, with untold numbers of civilians dead, wounded and stricken by disease, as they were deprived of food, water, medical care and other basic necessities.

Both the US and France claimed credit for their roles in the murder of Gaddafi. The Pentagon asserted on Thursday that a US Predator drone had fired a Hellfire missile at the ousted Libyan leader’s convoy, while France’s defense minister said that French warplanes had bombed it.

The U.S. and NATO had carried out repeated air strikes on Gaddafi’s compounds in Tripoli and other homes where they suspected he was hiding since shortly after the brutal air war against Libya was launched last March. One of these strikes at the end of last April claimed the lives of his youngest son and three young grandchildren.

The killing of Gaddafi is the culmination of a criminal war that killed untold numbers of Libyans and left most of the country in ruins.

This operation was launched on the pretext of protecting civilian lives, based on the trumped-up claim that Gaddafi was preparing to lay siege to the eastern city of Benghazi to massacre his opponents.

It has ended with NATO orchestrating a siege of Sirte, where thousands have been killed and wounded in suppressing opposition to the “rebels”.

From the beginning, the entire operation has been directed at the re-colonization of North Africa and pursued on behalf of US, British, French, Italian and Dutch oil interests."


Just two days before the murder of Gaddafi, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton staged an unannounced visit to Tripoli on a heavily armed military aircraft.

While there, she issued a demand that Gaddafi be brought in “dead or alive”.


As the Associated Press reported, Clinton declared “in unusually blunt terms that the United States would like to see former dictator Muammar Gaddafi dead.

“‘We hope he can be captured or killed soon so that you don’t have to fear him any longer’, Clinton told students and others at a town hall-style gathering in the capital city.”

The AP went on to note: “Until now, the U.S. has generally avoided saying that Gaddafi should be killed.”

[THE ABOVE WAS ALSO REPORTED BY BBC]



MARCH 30, 2011, REUTERS:
President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, government officials told Reuters on Wednesday.

The United States is part of a coalition, with NATO members and some Arab states, which is conducting air strikes on Libyan government forces under a U.N. mandate aimed at protecting civilians opposing Gaddafi.

In interviews by U.S. networks on Tuesday, Obama said the objective was for Gaddafi to “ultimately step down” from power. He spoke of applying “steady pressure, not only militarily but also through these other means” to force Gaddafi out."

GADDAFI HAD AGREED TO STEP DOWN, BUT TOO MANY LIBYANS ADORED HIM AND WOULD FIGHT TO KEEP HIM. HE HAD TO BE KILLED. 


FROM THE GUARDIAN (UK), APRIL 11, 2016  
U.S. Ex-President Barack Obama has said failing to prepare for the aftermath of the ousting of Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi was the worst mistake of his presidency.  

After the former Libyan leader was killed, Libya plunged into chaos with militias taking over and two rival parliaments and governments forming.

It is not the first time President Obama has expressed regret over Libya. He told the Atlantic magazine last month the operation went as well as he had hoped, but Libya was now "a mess".

Washington had deployed surveillance planes along with large numbers of drones in an attempt to track down Gaddafi, while US, British and French intelligence agents, special operations troops and military “contractors” operating on the ground also participated in this manhunt.


AS I WROTE IN A PREVIOUS BLOG FROM 2013: 
GADDAFI'S "GOLDEN OIL PLAN" THREATENED WORLD BANKERS ENOUGH TO MARK HIM FOR MURDER.

SUCH A PLAN WOULD HAVE WRECKED GLOBAL ECONOMY AND GREATLY AFFECTED WORLD ECONOMICS HAD OTHER OIL-PRODUCING NATIONS FOLLOWED SUIT, OR EVEN IF THEY HADN'T. 

A gold dinar instituted by Libya would have had serious consequences for the world financial system, but may also have empowered the people of Africa, something African activists say the U.S. wants to avoid at all costs.


AT ALL COSTS? YES! 


"Gaddafi’s Gold-Money Plan Would Have Killed the US Dollar"


"'According to more than a few observers, Gadhafi’s plan to quit selling Libyan oil in U.S. dollars — demanding payment instead in gold-backed “dinars” (a single African currency made from gold) — was the real cause.
The regime, sitting on massive amounts of gold, estimated at close to 150 tons, was also pushing other African and Middle Eastern governments to follow suit."

EDITORIAL
Gaddafi Planned Gold Dinar, Now Under Attack
By Anthony Wile - May 05, 2011   

"If Gaddafi had an intent to try to re-price his oil or whatever else the country was selling on the global market and accept something else as a currency or maybe launch a gold dinar currency, any move such as that would certainly not be welcomed by the power elite today, who are responsible for controlling the world's central banks. … So yes, that would certainly be something that would cause his immediate dismissal and the need for other reasons to be brought forward from moving him from power."


Libya’s Self-Sufficiency — Risk To Central Banks
April 15th, 2011    

Gaddafi suggested establishing a united African continent, with its 200 million people using this single currency.

During the past year, the idea was approved by many Arab countries and most African countries.

The only opponents were the Republic of South Africa and the head of the League of Arab States.

The initiative was viewed negatively by the USA and the European Union, with French President Nicolas Sarkozy calling Libya a threat to the financial security of mankind; but Gaddafi was not swayed and continued his push for the creation of a united Africa.   


REMEMBER THIS:
Iraq's Saddam Hussein (who was definitely NOT beloved by his countrymen like Gaddafi was) tried the same thing in 2000... oil for gold.

What happened next?
After being on America's payroll for years, after being funded by the U.S. in all his endeavors, after being used as a"buffer against Iran", Saddam became a target, Iraq was invaded and Hussein was hanged.


Libya/Gaddafi literally had the potential to bring down the dollar and the world monetary system by extension, according to many analysts.

Libya destroyed by the West, $7 billion in gold and silver missing.

January 20, 2016

French President Nicolas Sarkozy reportedly went so far as to call Libya a threat to the financial security of the world. The “Insiders” were apparently panicking over Gadhafi’s plan.

In addition to preventing Libya from breaking away from French monetary domination, Sarkozy wanted to “gain a greater share of Libya oil production,” increase French influence in North Africa and dash Gaddafi’s “long term plans to supplant France as the dominant power in Francophone Africa.”

During the invasion of Libya analysts argued Gaddafi planned to stop selling oil in US dollars and demand instead it be traded in gold dinars. Prior to the invasion Gaddafi urged other African and Middle Eastern nations to follow suit.

“Any move such as that would certainly not be welcomed by the power elite today, who are responsible for controlling the world’s central banks,” stated financial analyst Anthony Wile . “So yes, that would certainly be something that would cause his immediate dismissal and the need for other reasons to be brought forward [for] removing him from power.”

“Sanctions and then a US invasion followed. Coincidence? Hussein’s idea would have strengthened the euro, but Gaddafi’s idea would have strengthened all of Africa in the opinion of hard-money economists. Gold is the ultimate honest money and the peg against which all other fiat currencies are ultimately devalued,” Wile noted.

According to Wile, Gadhafi’s plan would have strengthened the entire continent of Africa in the eyes of economists backing sound money, not to mention international investors who have long been concerned over America's INSOLVENCY.
It would have been especially devastating for the U.S. economy, the American dollar, and particularly the elite in charge of the banking system.    

CLINTON, GADDAFI, AND THE DEATH OF AFRICA'S GOLD STANDARD IDEA

Libyan dictator Gaddafi was executed over a Gold-Backed Currency he was introducing.

The Pan-African Gold backed money would threaten the USD and French interests in the Oil Trade.

The US sent in troops to kill Gaddafi at the behest of French President Sarkozy.


Clinton’s leaked emails confirmed the long-held “conspiracy theory” that the plan to take out Libya’s then-dictator, Muammar Gaddafi, was motivated not by human rights concerns, but by Gaddafi’s plan to introduce a gold-backed currency that would unite the entire African continent.

This currency would then be used to sell oil in the global market, and the African continent would be less reliant on the American dollar, strengthening Africa’s position in the world economy to the detriment of the NATO empire.

Most astounding [about the leaked email] is the lengthy section delineating the huge threat that Gaddafi’s gold and silver reserves, estimated at “143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver,” posed to the French franc (CFA) circulating as a prime African currency.

In place of the noble sounding “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) doctrine fed to the public, there is this “confidential” explanation of what was really driving the war:

This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French franc (CFA).
Though this internal email aims to summarize the motivating factors driving France’s (and by implication NATO’s) intervention in Libya, it is interesting to note that saving civilian lives is conspicuously absent from the briefing.

Full email HERE.




MARKET MANIPULATION OF GOLD PRICES NOT A COINCIDENCE?  

Market manipulation: $4 billion of gold futures ahead of Comey testimony.

June 12, 2017

Just minutes ahead of James Comey’s testimony that many hoped would lead to Trump impeachment, it appears someone decided it was an opportune time to dump $4 billion notional gold futures, seemingly confident this will not be a “constitutional crisis.”

Over 30,000 contracts suddenly flushed ahead of Comey's testimony.


WHO'S NEXT ON THE 'INTERNATIONAL BANKING CARTEL'S HIT LIST'? 


RUSSIA.   Russia is dumping U.S. dollars and hoarding gold


CHINA, DEFINITELY.    
China claims gold reserves at end of 2016 a massive 12,100 tonnes


MAYBE EVEN SWITZERLAND? 
Switzerland chooses gold over paper wealth backed by U.S. dollar.


BUT DID YOU KNOW THAT SYRIA ALSO HAD A TIDY STASH OF GOLD...BESIDES ITS OIL FIELDS THAT TRUMP STATED U.S. TROOPS WERE "GUARDING"?
WELL, THE GOLD IS MISSING.

U.S. military accused of stealing 50 tons of gold form Syria.

March 11, 2019

"The U.S. Army is transferring tons of gold from Daesh-held areas in Syria to the U.S., multiple reports said.

According to a source who spoke to Kurdish Bas News Agency, the U.S. forces transferred about 50 tons of gold from areas seized from Daesh terrorists in eastern Syria’s Deir el-Zour region and gave a portion of the remaining gold to the PKK’s Syrian offshoot People’s Protection Units (YPG).

Meanwhile, 40 tons of gold bullion stolen by Daesh (ISLAMIC STATE) terrorists from Iraq’s Mosul province was also taken by the U.S. forces.

Local sources who spoke to regime-run SANA news agency claimed that the troops relocated large boxes containing Daesh’s gold treasure from al-Dashisheh region in southern Hasakah.

Daesh terrorist leaders nabbed by U.S. troops reportedly provided information on the whereabouts of the gold, the report said.

The claim coincides with a report by the U.K.-based Syrian Observatory of Human Rights, which said that the U.S.-backed YPG was after 40 tons of gold left behind by Daesh terrorists in Deir el-Zour.

“The U.S.-led coalition forces and the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) deliberately do not target the areas under the control of the ISIL terrorists and commanders in Eastern Euphrates in Deir el-Zour as they are trying to locate this treasure by forcing the ISIL militants to speak about its location after surrendering,” the SOHR said, referring to Daesh using another acronym.


DOES IT ALL SEEM TO "ADD UP" TO YOU NOW?

AMERICA IS, INDEED, INSOLVENT AND ANY THREAT THAT WOULD ALLOW OTHER NATIONS TO DEMAND WE PAY IN GOLD, ADOPT A GOLD STANDARD ONCE AGAIN  MUST BE STOPPED. 


07/23/2010

"The US is Insolvent and Faces Bankruptcy as a Pure Debtor Nation but [U.S.] Rating Agencies Still Give it High Rankings"There is also a view among many investors that the agencies would shy away from withdrawing triple A ratings to countries such as the US and UK because of the political pressure that would bear down on them in the event of such actions.

ECONOMISTS SAW THE HANDWRITING ON THE WALL LONG BEFORE OBAMA HIT GADAFFI...


Investor newsletters and commentaries had been buzzing for months with speculation about the link between Qaddafi's gold dinar and the NATO-backed overthrow of the Libyan regime. Conservative analysts also pounced on the potential relationship, too.

“In 2009 — in his capacity as head of the African Union — Libya's Moammar Gadhafi had proposed that the economically crippled continent adopt the ‘Gold Dinar,’” noted Ilana Mercer in an August opinion piece for WorldNetDaily.

“I do not know if Col. Gadhafi continued to agitate for ditching the dollar and adopting the Gold Dinar — or if the Agitator from Chicago (Obama) got wind of Gadhafi's (uncharacteristic) sanity about things monetary.”

But if Arab and African nations had begun adopting a gold-backed currency, it would have had major repercussions for debt-laden Western governments that would be far more significant than the purported “democratic” uprisings sweeping the region this year.
And it would have spelled big trouble for the elite who benefit from “freshly counterfeited funny-money,” Mercer pointed out.

“Had Gadhafi sparked a gold-driven monetary revolution, he would have done well for his own people, and for the world at large,” she concluded. “A Gadhafi-driven gold revolution would have, however, imperiled the positions of central bankers and their political and media power-brokers.”

The Central Bank of Libya WAS 100% owned by Libya (since 1956) and was thus OUTSIDE of multinational corporation control (BIS-Banking International Settlement rules for private interests).

Libya COULD AND DID finance its own nation-building projects and did so without interest rates, which reduced the costs by half of what privately owned central global banks demand. Libya’s central bank (with three branches in the east including Benghazi) 
DID INDEED HAVE 144 tons of gold in its vaults. 


LIBYA WOULD HAVE BEEN A "BREAKOUT NATION", FIRST IN AFRICA TO ESCAPE THE RUIN OF FOREIGN BANKS, WESTERN DICTATORSHIP, INCESSANT THREATS OF SANCTIONS AND MILITARY "INTERVENTIONS", THE NEED FOR FOREIGN "AID" THAT DEMANDED THEY HAND OVER ALL THEIR NATURAL RESOURCES AS "COLLATERAL".

NELSON MANDELA RECOGNIZED WHAT GADDAFI WAS DOING AND PRAISED HIM. 


Nelson Mandela's Friendship with Gaddafi Irritated the West

"In 1997, Mandela decided to go to Libya for an official state visit. The United States of America State Department said it would be “disappointed” if he went to the country which was believed by the West to be sponsoring terrorism.

Mandela’s reply was simple and straightforward. He said, “How can they have the arrogance to dictate to us who our friends should be?” Though the West would love to portray Mandela as having always struck a conciliatory tone, this loyal icon who knew who supported him is rarely ever spoken off.
If anything, according to the Washington Post, that side of Mandela was an irritation to the United States of America thus explaining why it is not so often included in his list of heroics.

Mandela went ahead with his visit to Libya on the 23rd of October 1997 despite the opposition.

When played out by the media, “it was a case of a saint visiting a mad dog” but the reality is, two friends met in Tripoli that October.

Mandela’s movement had counted on Libyan support during its anti-apartheid drive while the West supported the oppressive white regime.

Mandela was always aware of this fact as when he was shown Gaddafi’s compound which had been bombed by United States operatives in 1986, he said of the USA’s interventionist approach, “No country can claim to be the policeman of the world and no state can dictate to another what it should do. Those that yesterday were friends of our enemies have the gall today to tell me not to visit my brother Gaddafi. They are advising us to be ungrateful and forget our friends of the past.”

In a further speech delivered in Tripoli, the South African icon said his delegation was overjoyed with Gaddafi’s invitation to visit Libya and had been waiting impatiently for the occasion. These were true friends." 

WHAT MANDELA AND GADDAFI AND MOST OTHERS IN AFRICA KNEW IS THAT THE WORLD BANK, THE IMF, MOST WESTERN NATIONS AND THE U.N. ARE IN THE BUSINESS OF DESTROYING AND KEEPING NATIONS SUBSERVIENT TO THEM, ESPECIALLY AFRICA.


READ "HOW THE WORLD BANK AND THE IMF DESTROY AFRICA", BUT BE AWARE THAT MANY CORRUPT AFRICAN DICTATORS HELP THEM DO JUST THAT.


ONE CAN SIT AND WATCH OLD NEWS FILMS, 'HOME VIDEOS' BY LIBYANS ALL DAY LONG OF HOW OFTEN GADDAFI WENT RIDING ABOUT IN AN OPEN CAR, STANDING AND WAVING FOR MILES IN THE OPEN AIR, OR STANDING IN THE MIDDLE OF HUGE CROWDS, STANDING ON BALCONIES, AN EASY TARGET FOR A SHOOTER, WITHOUT ANY SECURITY GUARDS TO BLOCK SHOTS AT HIM.

WHO ATTEMPTED HIS ASSASSINATION IN ALL THE YEARS HE BOLDLY WENT ABOUT AMIDST THE PUBLIC, OPEN TO ATTACK FROM THOSE WHO LINED THE STREETS TO SEE HIM?
ONLY THE USA!


Through state subsidies funded with oil export sales, Libya had the highest standard of living in Africa with free, universal health care and free education, with the possibility of studying abroad at state expense; $50,000 for each new married couple to get started with; non-interest state loans; subsidized prices of cars much lower than in Europe; the cheapest gasoline and bread prices in the world (similar to Venezuela at that time, but look what happened to Venezuela when it's president suggested oil for gold), and no taxes for those working in agriculture.

WHY WOULD A PEOPLE LIVING UNDER SUCH PERKS, SO MANY BENEFITS HATE GADDAFI?

ACCORDING TO OVER 83% OF THEM, THEY NEVER DID HATE HIM, AND THEY DEEPLY GRIEVE HIS DEMISE!

1.7 MILLION GATHERED IN TRIPOLI TO PROTEST THE FIRST NATO STRIKE. 


I AM NOT SAYING GADDAFI WAS "SWEETNESS AND LIGHT".

NONE of this is to say that Gaddafi was REMOTELY all that one could want in a leader, for he was NOT, but he was definitely not as bad as most of U.S.-NATO's allies, such as dictators in the Middle East (e.g., House of Saad/Saud, the madman Erdogan of Turkey) and many in Africa, or in Asia/India.

What NATO/ U.S. calls "friendly" governments are anything but, especially Saudi Arabia—which sent troops to 'good neighbor' Bahrain to murder hundreds of unarmed protesters, all condoned by the U.S.

[ALSO SEE THIS REPORT.]


WHO REMEMBERS THAT THOSE 9/11 "HIJACKER/TERRORISTS" ALMOST ALL CARRIED SAUDI CITIZENSHIP?
DID YOU FORGET THAT PART?  


YES, OBAMA HAD GADDAFI "REMOVED", WAS TRYING TO "REMOVE" ASSAD IN SYRIA, AND I SUGGEST THAT THE U.S. WILL CONTINUE TO DO THESE THINGS AS LONG AS NO ONE IN GREAT NUMBERS CALLS IT WHAT IT IS...PREMEDITATED MURDER AND UNLAWFUL INVASION AND MEDDLING IN OTHER NATIONS' AFFAIRS, ALL TO KEEP AMERICA FROM SUCCUMBING TO ITS INSOLVENCY.

ALL FOR POWER.  








//WW

Friday, January 10, 2020

IRAN SHOT DOWN A PASSENGER PLANE, BULLDOZED EVIDENCE. RECRUITING SUICIDE BOMBERS TO ATTACK AMERICA.




Fliers recruiting suicide terrorists to attack US distributed in Iran

Students at Iran’s Islamic Azad University are being offered a novel new career choice — suicide terrorist.
News of the jihadist search was reported by Iranian media.
Leaflets are being distributed at the influential school urging students to sign up for Jihad missions against the United States and Israel to avenge the death of Iranian general Qassem Soleimani.

“Registration for volunteers to commit a suicide attack against the United States and Israel,” it blares. “Hard revenge is underway for those criminals who killed Qassem Soleimani.”

The flyer, claiming to quote the words of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, carries additional messages of encouragement, including “kill all infidels.”



MAYBE THE SHOCK OF SUCH A REQUEST LED TO THE CURRENT PROTESTS BY STUDENTS THERE?


MASS PROTESTS HAVE BROKEN OUT AGAIN IN IRAN. 

Protesters chanted anti-regime slogans in Tehran against the authorities, the semi-official Fars news agency said in a rare report on anti-government unrest.
Demonstrators ripped up pictures of Qassem Soleimani.

On Twitter, videos showed protesters demanding that Khamenei step down because of the disaster.
“Commander-in-chief resign, resign,” hundreds chanted in front of Tehran’s Amir Kabir university.

Ukraine International Airlines said Iran should have closed the airport. The carrier said it had received no indication it faced a threat and was cleared for take off.

In Twitter messages, angry Iranians asked why the plane was allowed to take off with tensions in Iran so high.


ABOVE: A video taken by locals near the Tehran airport, showing the plane on fire in the air, then crashing. 



ukrainian jet crash site skitched

Iran Bulldozed plane crash site before Ukrainian investigators arrived.US, British, and Canadian intelligence have determined that the Ukrainian plane that crashed in Iran on Wednesday morning was shot down by an Iranian surface-to-air missile — a conclusion Iran has strongly denied.

Images and reports from the crash site, just outside the Iranian capital, Tehran, show at least one bulldozer working in the debris at the site, where the Boeing 737-800 crashed Wednesday morning, killing all 176 people on board. 

Giancarlo Fiorella, a researcher for the investigative website Bellingcat, shared a thread of photos that he said showed heavy machinery at work.


FROM WASHINGTON POST:

Oleksiy Danilov, secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, wrote on Facebook that his team wanted to search for possible debris from a Tor air-defense missile, after seeing online reports about the discovery of possible fragments of one near the crash site.

In London, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson joined the growing consensus around the missile strike. He cited a “body of information that the flight was shot down by an Iranian surface-to-air missile.”

The Washington Post obtained a video that allegedly shows the moment the airliner is struck in midair. The video, first published by the New York Times, purportedly shows a missile intercepting the aircraft, followed by a loud boom.

The investigation is further muddled as a preliminary report from an Iranian investigation indicated that the so-called black boxes aboard the plane — which harbor data and cockpit communications — were damaged and lost parts of their memory, the Associated Press reported.

The Iranian report also said that "no radio messages were received from the pilot regarding unusual situations" and that eyewitnesses recalled seeing the plane engulfed in flames before the crash, the AP reported.

ABC NEWS: 'Highly likely' Iran shot down Ukrainian airliner


Video appears to show the moment a missile hit the Ukrainian passenger plane that crashed in Iran.The video was verified by The New York Times on Thursday.

The Times said the video appeared to show the missile hitting the plane above Parand, Iran, where the signal from the plane's transponder was last received.

There was a small explosion, but the plane remained flying for several minutes, The Times reported. 


ABC NEWS, AUSTRALIA : 
Footage of Ukrainian plane exploding mid-air emerges as intelligence blames Iran.

Iran plane crash: Canada says evidence shows jet was shot down by Iran. 

WAITING FOR THE AMERICAN LEFTIST SOCIALIST TO CRY "RUSSIA DID IT AND TRUMP HELPED!"


AND ABOUT POOR, SWEET, 'HEROIC' GENERAL SOLEIMANI?

A DOZEN FACTS IGNORED AS TO WHY THE U.S. TOOK OUT SULEIMANI IN IRAQ:

1- In April 2019, the State Department announced Iran was responsible for killing 608 U.S. troops.

2- Iranian proxies launched rocket attacks against Baghdad International Airport in early December, 2019.

"We're used to harassing fire," a military official speaking on condition of anonymity told Reuters. "But the pace of (that) was (previously) pretty episodic. ... (Now) the level of complexity is increasing, the volume of rockets being shot in a single volley is increasing and is very concerning to us."


3- One U.S. civilian contractor was killed and several service members were wounded
in a rocket attack targeting a military base in northern Iraq on December 27, 2019, according to the U.S. military.

4- Soleimani (actually, it's Suleimani) was the head of the Iranian and Iranian-backed forces carrying out those operations killing American troops.

5- According to the State Department, 17 percent of all deaths of U.S. personnel in Iraq from 2003 to 2011 were orchestrated by Soleimani.


6- As recently as 2015, a travel ban and United Nations Security Council resolutions had barred Suleimani from leaving Iran.

7- Suleimani was the long-running leader of the elite intelligence wing called Quds Force – which itself has been a designated terror group since 2007.  


8- Months ago, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had deemed Suleimani equally as dangerous as Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.


9- “Soleimani is our leader” had been photographed spray-painted on windows by Iran-backed militiamen at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. 

10- A two-day siege outside of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad came to an end January 2, 2020.

AsThe two-day siege outside of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad came to an end  recent as 2015, a travel ban and United Nations Security Council resolutions had barred Soleimani from leaving Iran.
11- Even an Obama cabinet member and a former Democrat presidential candidate as well as military officers support Trump's take-down of the Iranian general. 

Joe Lieberman agreed with North and Trump on the hit.
“Trump’s order to take out Qassem Soleimani was morally, constitutionally and strategically correct,” Lieberman wrote. “It deserves more bipartisan support than the begrudging or negative reactions it has received thus far from my fellow Democrats.”

"Some Democrats have said that killing Soleimani will lead us into war with Iran. In fact, Soleimani and the Quds Force have been at war with the U.S. for years," Lieberman argued. "It is more likely that his death will diminish the chances of a wider conflict because the demonstration of our willingness to kill him will give Iranian leaders (and probably others like Kim Jong Un) much to fear."

He also noted that President Barack Obama ordered drone strikes and attacks on targets that presented threats without specific congressional approval. He cited the deaths of Anwar al Awlaki and Osama bin Laden.

“If enough voters decide that Democrats can’t be trusted to keep America safe, Mr. Trump won’t have much trouble winning a second term in November,” Lieberman wrote.also agreed.

Obama's head of the Dept.of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson said Trump had every right to hit Suleimani.
"General Soleimani, he was a lawful military objective, and the president, under his constitutional authority as commander in chief, had ample domestic legal authority to take him out without an additional congressional authorization. Whether he was a terrorist or a general in a military force that was engaged in armed attacks against our people, he was a lawful military objective,” Johnson stated in an interview.

The U.S. airstrike that killed Iranian Soleimani is a win for every "freedom-loving person," retired Marine Lt. Col. Oliver North said.

"The bottom line of it is, Soleimani has been a purveyor of terrorism for the Iranians for better than a decade," North said Thursday.
"More than any other individual since Usama Bin Laden ... He's killed more Americans than anybody else since then."
North, who served on the National Security Council staff during President Ronald Reagan's administration, added that Soleimani's death will "reduce the number of terror attacks dramatically."

Former commander of U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and a former CIA director, retired Gen. David Petraeus is keenly familiar with Qassem Suleimani.
Petraeus spoke to Foreign Policy on Friday about the implications of an action he called “more significant than the killing of Osama bin Laden.”


12- Initially, Iraqi citizens were shown dancing in the streets in celebration of Soleimani's death. 

Who cares what the Iraqi people think, right? 


It has come out that Iranians were bribed with food to mourn Suleimani.
REMEMBER, it was a short time ago that the government was beating and killing protesters in Iran.

POLITICO REPORTED LAST YEAR:
U.S. envoy to Iran says as many as 1,000 protesters killed.

FAKE MOURNERS

In the city of Ahvaz, where large numbers of people turned out to mourn Soleimani, the government has forced students and officials to attend. It provided free transport and ordered shops to shut down. According to videos sent to a Washington Post journalist by people inside the country, the authorities are making little kids write essays praising the fallen commander.

First-graders who didn’t know how to write were encouraged to cry for Soleimani.

Reuters reported that more than 1,500 people were killed by security forces, including units of Soleimani’s Revolutionary Guard, and at least 7,000 have been arrested.

The Internet was shut down for five days. Tehran has yet to release official figures of its own, which suggests the death toll may have been even higher.

The protesters had harsh words for Soleimani and his foreign adventures, chanting against Iran’s involvement in Syria and its support of Hezbollah.

That came as a shock to the regime, which portrays Soleimani as Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s adopted son.

Soleimani was not a benign official. In 1999, he was among the Revolutionary Guard leaders who demanded that then-President Mohammad Khatami crush university student demonstrations or face the consequences.

WHY ISN'T MAINSTREAM MEDIA FOCUSING ON THESE FACTS?
ONE REASON...THEY HATE TRUMP. 



U.S. Media Prefers Foreign Pundits to Middle Eastern Voices.

Their coverage of Suleimani’s killing shows locals are still silenced.
Suleimani’s main impact, by far, was how he was perceived by the peoples of the region—not Americans or Westerners.
And that perception, by and large, was negative.
Suleimani was the leader of the Quds Force—a division within Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps primarily dedicated to overseas operations and covert action of this deeply ideological outfit.

It was for that reason that Arab journalists like Kareem Shaheen, who spent years as a Guardian reporter throughout the Middle East, and Kim Ghattas focused, likewise, on how Syrians, Iraqis, and other victims of Suleimani’s Quds Force were going to interpret the news.

Suleimani’s activities in Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon had targeted scores of Arabs who were either fighting against Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad or protesting against their leaders in Beirut or Baghdad.

It’s true that finding people who actually know the region is the harder option. Those engaged in forming the nature of the debate in analytical circles and the media arena are often under a great deal of stress, particularly against the backdrop of fast-moving stories.

It’s easy to go to the regular talking head that we know on the basis of previous work—usually a white man of a particular professional class—even if that work is only tangentially related to the subject of hand. It will make for satisfying television, or a certain number of retweets on Twitter, and so forth.

But it is far more rewarding for listeners to benefit from years of experience and in-depth cultural understanding, rather than to trust talking heads who are utterly ignorant about the countries they are talking about.

There are scores of such figures who do know the region; who have spent years within it; who engaged in a lot of effort to understand it; who know the languages of it; and who, ultimately, see the peoples of it as complicated and complex as any Western population.

And as noted: It’s a grave responsibility. Informed policymakers are less likely to make reckless decisions that will engage their countries in turmoil abroad—or worse, take them to war.

It’s not a guarantee, of course—but it’s certainly better than the alternative of relying on a cast of interpreters who are fumbling in their own outdated phrasebooks.


EXPERTS ON THE MIDDLE EAST AND IRAN SAY IRAN'S ATTACKS ARE NOT OVER

The assassination of Maj. Gen. Qassem Suleimani, perhaps the second most powerful person in Iran behind Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, will reverberate in the Middle East and beyond for years, and perhaps decades. But the immediate consequences, several U.S. intelligence officials say privately, will be clear: more deaths, and some of them American.

Tuesday’s noisy attacks, despite the reassuring words of the Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif that they were a “proportionate measure,” were only the beginning.

Those killings will be carried out using tools Suleimani, who was assassinated in Iraq by a U.S. drone strike, himself built. The institution Suleimani led, the Quds Force—the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ powerful hybrid military intelligence agency and covert action wing—midwifed Shiite extremist groups in Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

Those same tools will now be brought to bear by Iran.

WE DIDN'T GO FAR ENOUGH TO STOP IRAN'S KILLING OF AMERICANS AND THEIR MIDDLE EAST ALLIES. THEY WILL DO IT AGAIN. 

IRAN, UNDER SULEIMANI, HAD ATTACKED AMERICAN AND ALLIED FORCES IN IRAQ FOR YEARS.

HOW COULD ANYONE WHINING ABOUT THIS TODAY HAVE MISSED THE FACT THAT IRAN HAD BEEN KILLING AMERICAN TROOPS IN IRAQ FOR OVER A DECADE? 

December 16, 2019

(Reuters) - U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper said on Monday he spoke with Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi amid a spate of attacks on bases housing U.S. forces in Iraq and called on Baghdad to take steps to get the situation under control.

A senior U.S. military official warned last week that attacks by Iranian-backed groups on bases hosting U.S. forces in Iraq were pushing all sides closer to an uncontrollable escalation.

Rocket strikes targeting Iraqi bases where members of the U.S.-led coalition are also stationed have increased in past weeksAsked who was behind the recent rocket attacks, Esper said: "My suspicion would be that Iran is behind these attacks, much like they are behind a lot of malign behavior throughout the region

Tension between the United States and Iran has risen as a result of U.S. sanctions that are hitting Tehran hard. The two sides have also traded blame over attacks on oil installations, militia arms depots and bases hosting U.S. forces.


NOVEMBER 23, 2019

The threat from Tehran continues to increase despite U.S. military buildup, U.S. Central Command’s Gen. Kenneth McKenzie says.
“My judgment is that it is very possible they will attack again.”

Since May, the Pentagon has dispatched 14,000 additional U.S. troops, an aircraft carrier, and tens of thousands of pounds of military equipment to the Middle East to respond to what it says are alarming new threats from Iran.

BUILDUP DURING 2018 
Over the last 10 years, Iran has invested heavily in ballistic missiles and other capabilities in order to threaten its neighbors. Indeed, according to a new report on Iran’s military power from the Defense Intelligence Agency—the first of its kind—Tehran significantly increased its defense spending from its recent low in 2014 to $27.3 billion, or 6 percent of GDP, in 2018.U.S. officials are particularly concerned about the threat to critical desalination plants in the Gulf, said a senior U.S. military official in the region.

An attack on these facilities, which could threaten the region’s primary source of drinking water and potentially cause a humanitarian crisis, would be a “gamechanger,” the official said.

McKenzie sent the carrier, the USS Abraham Lincoln, on a transit through the Strait of Hormuz last week for the first time since it deployed to demonstrate U.S. naval power before it heads home. The Lincoln, which will soon be replaced by a new carrier, the USS Harry S. Truman, was diverted to the Middle East in May to respond to the Iranian threat, but had remained in the Arabian Sea.

Although McKenzie believes the United States has robust defenses against Iran, there is only so much deterrence can do when faced with an irrational actor.

“Deterrence assumes there is going to be a rational actor on the other end,” he said. “There is a basic recklessness and irresponsibility to their actions that makes you very concerned about what they might do tomorrow or the next day, and that’s very concerning.”


November 5, 2019

Iran threatens US forces and allies who host American troops

A spokesman for Iran’s armed forces has threatened a “crushing response” against any U.S. aggression and allies who host American troops.

“Any place and any point of any territories which host the US and its allies’ interests will be threatened (in case of any war) and the Islamic Republic has proved that it has the capability to do so,” Brig. Gen. Abolfazl Shekarchi said during a Sunday interview with Iranian Fars News Agency.

“Even if a country does not directly participate in any possible war but its territories host the enemy, we consider that country as a hostile territory and will treat it as an aggressor,” he said during the interview. “If an aggressor makes a strategic mistake, that aggression will be confronted with the strongest and the most crushing response.”

Meanwhile, Iranian President President Hassan Rouhani announced Tuesday that Iran would move a step closer to enriching uranium by injecting gas into more than 1,000 centrifuges, according to the New York Times.

The comments from the Iranian commander came a day before the 40th anniversary of the Iran hostage crisis. In 1979, Iranian militants stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held 98 people captive for 444 days.


May 15, 2019
The current ramping up of U.S. military posturing against Iran was triggered by U.S. intelligence that showed Tehran-backed militias in Iraq moving rockets to locations that could hit bases where American troops are positioned in the nation, according to sources familiar with the intelligence.

Reuters cited a second Iraqi security source as saying communications intercepted by U.S. intelligence had shown that Iran-backed militias had “redeployed to take up suspicious positions, which the Americans considered provocations.”

Mr. Pompeo told top Iraqi military officials during a sudden visit to Baghdad on May 7 that Iraqi forces needed to keep the Iran-backed militias in check, according to the report by Reuters, which cited two Iraqi security sources as saying the secretary of state warned that Washington would respond with force if the militias weren’t contained.

“The message from the Americans was clear. They wanted guarantees that Iraq would stop those groups threatening U.S. interests,” a senior Iraqi military source with knowledge of Pompeo’s trip said, according to the report. “They said if the U.S. were attacked on Iraqi soil, it would take action to defend itself without coordinating with Baghdad.”

12 YEARS AGO! 

July 2, 2007
FIVE AMERICAN SOLDIERS KILLED BY IRANIAN FORCES ATTACK PLAN

Iranian forces helped plan one of the most sophisticated militant assaults of the Iraq war — a January raid in which gunmen posed as an American security team and launched an attack that killed five U.S. soldiers, an American general said today.

U.S. military spokesman Brig. Gen. Kevin J. Bergner also accused Iran of using its Lebanese ally, the Shiite militia Hezbollah, as a “proxy” to arm Shiite militants in Iraq.


The claims were an escalation in U.S. accusations that Iran is fueling Iraq’s violence, which the government in Tehran has denied. It was also the first time the U.S. military has said Hezbollah has a direct role — which, if true, would bring a dangerous new player into Iraq’s conflict.

Documents captured with al-Khazaali showed that the Quds Force had developed detailed information on the U.S. position at the government building, “regarding our soldiers’ activities, shift changes and defenses, and this information was shared with the attackers,” Bergner said.

A total of 18 “higher-level operatives” from the Iranian-backed special groups have been arrested and three others killed since February, Bergner said."


JANUARY 8, 2020

Foreign Policy spoke with Matthew Reed, the vice president at Foreign Reports, an energy consultancy focused on the Middle East,

Foreign Policy: Despite the signs of de-escalation, there are also indications that Iran’s not done yet. The supreme leader spoke of further actions, and there’s still talk in Revolutionary Guard circles of more asymmetric attacks. Do you expect Iran to go back to its summer and fall playbook and go after regional energy infrastructure?

Matthew Reed: For as long as Trump is committed to his maximum pressure policy, the threat of these potshots and harassment tactics will remain. They might not act out immediately, but that playbook has been successful up to now, and their options are limited.

FP: Just this morning, there was a lot of alarm over the Strait of Hormuz, with some tanker companies halting transits, and concerns that Iran might be ready to close one of the world’s key oil chokepoints. Is closing Hormuz still an option for Iran, or is that a step too far?

MR: I think now more than ever the Iranians are looking to be creative and cause mayhem in new ways and in new places. If you look at what they are actually saying internally, and we’re talking about Iranian military officials talking to Iranian media, what they are talking about is Iran’s reach. When the Iranians talk about the geography of resistance, they are talking about being able to hit many targets and not necessarily directly. The Strait of Hormuz is so sensitive that if the Iranians attacked it head-on, or launched missiles from the coast at ships, it would trigger an open conflict with the United States.


By the way, Iran Changed Plane Crash Story as Photos of Missile Remains Appear

Iran is a rogue nation led by maniacal radicals intent on attaining nuclear capability to threaten the entire Middle East, the USA and our allies.

Iran had refused to turn over the plane’s flight recorders to Ukrainian, Canadian, American officials or to Boeing, the aircraft’s manufacturer.

Today, Iran reported it would hand over the box to Ukraine. 



THEY HAVE NOW BEEN BUSTED BULLDOZING THE CRASH SITE TO REMOVE ALL EVIDENCE OF THE SHOOT-DOWN.


BUT LET THE LEFT CRY FOR IRAN.

Go ahead, American socialists, ignore facts, ignore our allies, ignore the people in Iraq and Iran who hated the butcher you're crying over, who have faced death when they protested Iran's cruel regime over the years. and keep supporting Iran, if you hate America and wish to be seen as guilty of sedition and treason. 

Don't cry for these INNOCENTS most recently killed by Iran. 



Newlyweds Arash Pourzarabi, 26, and Pouneh Gorji, 25, are among 30 Edmontonians killed when a plane crashed shortly after taking off from the Tehran International Airport in Iran.



Pedram Mousavi and Mojgan Daneshmand — both professors of engineering at the University of Alberta — perished along with their two young daughters, Daria, 14, and Dorina, 9.




More than 100 people gathered at a candlelight vigil outside the Alberta legislature in Edmonton on Wednesday, Jan. 8, 2020 in memory of the victims of the Ukraine International Airlines crash in Tehran, Iran.



Amir Hossein Saeedinia, PhD student at the Center for Design of Advanced Materials at the University of Alberta, has been identified as a victim of the Ukraine International Airlines plane crash outside Tehran International Airport. (Supplied photo)



University of Alberta student Nasim Rahmanifar.









//WW