Trump Set for First Meeting with Palestinian President

April 30, 2017

(AFP) - US President Donald Trump meets Mahmud Abbas Wednesday for their first face-to-face talks, with the Palestinian leader hoping the billionaire businessman's unpredictable approach can inject life into long-stalled peace efforts.

Abbas makes the trip to Washington while politically unpopular back home, but hoping Trump can pressure Israel into concessions he believes are necessary to salvage a two-state solution to one of the world's oldest conflicts.

Palestinian officials have seen their cause overshadowed by global concerns such as the Syrian war and Islamic State group jihadists, and want Trump's White House to bring it back to the forefront.

"Palestinians are hoping that Trump's unpredictability might play in their favour," one Jerusalem-based European official told AFP on condition of anonymity.

"They are going to be very disappointed. They can't be sure of anything."

Examples were seen early on, with Trump backing away from the US commitment to the two-state solution when he met Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in February.

He said he would support a single state if it led to peace, delighting Israeli right-wingers who want to see their country annex most of the occupied West Bank.

Trump also vowed to move the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to the disputed city of Jerusalem, a prospect that alarmed Palestinians but which has been put on the back burner for now.

At the same time, he urged Israel to hold back on settlement building in the West Bank, a longstanding concern of Palestinians and much of the world.

One of Trump's top advisers, Jason Greenblatt, held wide-ranging talks with both Israelis and Palestinians during a visit in March.

Abbas and Trump spoke by phone on March 11.

Trump Not Ruling Out Pre-Emptive North Korea Strike

President Donald Trump does not rule out military action against North Korea if leader Kim Jong Un conducts a sixth nuclear test.

April 30, 2017

(The Independent) - President Donald Trump has said that he believes China's president has been putting pressure on North Korea as it pursues its missile and nuclear weapons programmes - but when asked about whether another nuclear test would mean a military response from the US, Trump said "I don't know...we'll see".

In an interview with CBS' “Face the Nation,” - to be aired on Sunday - Trump said he won't be happy if North Korea conducts a nuclear test and that he believes Chinese President Xi Jinping won't be happy, either.

On Saturday, a North Korean mid-range ballistic missile apparently failed shortly after launch, the third test-fire flop this month but a clear message of defiance. North Korean ballistic missile tests are banned by the United Nations because they're seen as part of the North's push for a nuclear-tipped missile that can hit potentially the US mainland.

The launch comes at a point of particularly high tension in the region. Trump has sent a nuclear-powered submarine and the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier to Korean waters and North Korea last week conducted large-scale, live-fire exercises on its eastern coast. The U.S. and South Korea also started installing a missile defense system that is supposed to be partially operational within days and their two navies are staging joint military drills.

Russia Risks a Showdown With Israel over Hezbollah in Syria

April 29, 2017

(Newsweek) - Back in 1967, Moscow shrugged when Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser closed the Straits of Tiran, cutting shipping routes to the Israeli port of Eilat—Israel’s only one in the Red Sea. Egyptian and Syrian troop movements on the Israeli border — coupled with Nasser’s fiery rhetoric  threatening mass slaughter — paved the way for war. All the while, Moscow fed the Egyptians and Syrians erroneous information about Israeli troop movements.

The Israelis put an end to all of it with a blitzkrieg that neutralized Russia’s Arab clients in six days, and in the process seized  the West Bank, Gaza, Sinai, and much of the Golan Heights.

Fifty years later and history looks set to repeat itself. Russia’s allies are again provoking the Israelis, who may ultimately see little choice but to strike first. The ensuing war, Israel warns, could, like the Six Day War in 1967, fundamentally change the region.

The theater this time is Syria, but the precipitating factor for the next conflict — believe it or not — isn’t Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons against his own people. It is Iran’s most lethal proxy, Hezbollah.

Tehran dispatched Hezbollah to buttress Assad’s beleaguered Syrian troops. The first Arab child of Iran’s Islamic revolution, the Lebanese Shiite militant organization have deployed thousands of fighters to Syria, who are now gaining valuable experience from the war.

Iran is also arming Hezbollah in preparation for the next conflict with Israel. In fall 2015, Israel’s military assessed that Hezbollah had increased its rocket arsenal from an estimated 100,000 to roughly 150,000 since the Syrian war began.

Later that year, the Russians began to carry out airstrikes against rebel groups fighting to oust Assad from Syria. Moscow had long provided Assad with arms and other provisions via its Mediterranean naval facility in Tartus. But the Russians soon deployed ground and air forces, intelligence assets, and heavy hardware to protect the Assad regime, making it clear that Syria was part of its ever-expanding sphere of influence.

Russia soon established fusion centers so that it could coordinate its war effort with Iran, Hezbollah and the Assad regime. Hezbollah has benefited from Russian air cover, and even fought alongside Russian forces against Syrian rebels.

Meanwhile Iran and its Lebanese proxy have tried to exploit both the Russian presence and the fog of war to move what Israelis have called “game-changing weapons” from the war zone to Lebanon. Israeli officials say the weapons they are attempting to acquire include long-range and high payload rockets, lethal anti-ship missiles, and perhaps even sophisticated anti-aircraft systems.

US Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor Refuses to Agree Police Can Do No Wrong: The Explanation of “He Reached for His Waistband” is a Depressingly Well-worn One, Trotted Out All Too Often to Justify Police Shootings

April 26, 2017

(Rewire) - In 2010, Chris Thompson, a Houston police officer, shot Ricardo Salazar-Limon in the back. Salazar-Limon remains partially paralyzed.

Salazar-Limon sued Thompson and the City of Houston, saying that the shooting was excessive force—in other words, that Thompson had no right to shoot him. The case wound its way through the courts for years.

This week, it ended up at the U.S. Supreme Court over one critical question: Can the word of a police officer defending an excessive force claim be considered an “undisputed fact” in a lawsuit, even if that account differs from their accuser?

Like a lot of cases involving police violence, there is considerable dispute between Salazar-Limon and Thompson about what happened that night in 2010.

Both parties agree as to how it all started: Thompson was operating a speed gun that evening, and he recorded Salazar-Limon’s speed as over the limit. He pulled Salazar-Limon over and asked for his license. He checked the license and found no open warrants or charges, but told Salazar-Limon to get out of his truck, as he was being detained on suspicion of driving drunk.

After that, things get muddy. Salazar-Limon and Thompson both say that they struggled, but differ on how much and how long. Thompson contended it went on for quite some time and that Salazar-Limon pushed him toward oncoming traffic. Salazar-Limon, on the other hand, characterized the encounter as brief.

Following the struggle, Salazar-Limon pulled away and started to walk back to his truck. Thompson ordered him to stop. Salazar-Limon said that Thompson then shot him within seconds. Thompson said that Salazar-Limon not only didn’t stop, but he also raised his hands to his waistband, as if he was reaching for a gun. (No gun was ever found.) Only then, according to Thompson, did he shoot Salazar-Limon.

When Salazar-Limon sued over questions of excessive force, the lower court granted summary judgment in favor of Thompson and the City of Houston. The Fifth Circuit upheld that decision. Summary judgment is designed to allow courts to decide cases prior to trial, but it can only be granted when there are no disputes over key facts. A key fact is something integral to the dispute between the parties. In other words, when two parties disagree over the foundational facts of the case, the court can’t grant summary judgment.

Here, the parties disagree over the very essence of the case: Did Thompson shoot Salazar-Limon in the back for no reason, or did he do so because he believed Salazar-Limon was reaching for his waistband and therefore possibly a gun? When this level of disagreement occurs, the court generally has to let the case go to trial so a jury can sort out which party is more credible.

On Monday, the Supreme Court refused to hear Salazar-Limon’s appeal in Salazar-Limon v. City of Houston. In concurring with the denial of certiorari, Justice Samuel Alito essentially said there was no dispute over the key facts because, although Salazar-Limon and Thompson utterly disagree on everything that happened after the very beginning of the traffic stop, Salazar-Limon didn’t utter the magic words “I didn’t reach for my waistband” in his depositions and affidavits—and therefore no disagreement exists.

It’s a controversial and pedantic way of thinking about the law, but one at least some conservative Supreme Court justices have endorsed. In doing so, they’re essentially saying that cops are inherently believable, while people that are shot by cops are not.

And Justice Sonia Sotomayor is having none of it. She believed the Supreme Court should have taken the case: In her dissent from the denial of certiorari, she raged, and rightly so, about this state of affairs.

She dryly noted that the explanation of “he reached for his waistband” is a depressingly well-worn one, trotted out all too often to justify police shootings of this sort. She saves her real ire, however, for discussing how this decision flies in the face of how the American legal system is supposed to work:

This is not a difficult case. When a police officer claims that the victim of the use of force took some act that would have justified that force, and the victim claims he did not, summary judgment is improper.

What Sotomayor is getting at is incredibly crucial: Officers are no more or less inherently believable than anyone else at this stage in a lawsuit. A determination of credibility must go to a jury for them to sort out who is telling the truth. To decide at this point that a police officer’s word is better than that of the shooting victim—even though the victim’s testimony is also made under oath—is to say that the police essentially never lie (and that, of course, victims of police shootings do).

Man Who Died of Thirst in Milwaukee County Jail Had Water Cut Off for a Week

April 24, 2017

The Huffington Post - A mentally ill man who last year died of severe dehydration in a Milwaukee County jail was kept in his cell for seven days straight after jail employees cut off his water supply, a prosecutor in Wisconsin said Monday.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports that prosecutors told a six-person jury on Monday that cutting off water to Terrill Thomas’ cell was “highly irregular and contrary to standard operating procedure in the jail.” The comments came as part of an inquest into Thomas’ death, in which the jury decides whether there’s probable cause to charge anyone with a crime in Thomas’ death.

Assistant District Attorney Kurt Benkley told jurors that it “became apparent” that Thomas “was unable to tell people about his basic needs,” according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. The jury is considering whether there is probable cause to charge any jail officials with abuse of a prisoner.

In a court filing last month, the district attorney argued that abusing, neglecting, or ill-treating a prisoner is a public welfare offense.

“Inmates are at the mercy of their jailors for basic life-sustaining necessities like water, food, and medical care,” the district attorney wrote in a court filing. “When a mentally ill inmate, like Mr. Thomas, is locked in solitary confinement without access to water, his life is totally in his jailors’ hands. The law much strictly require jailors to safeguard lives which are so completely entrusted to their care. Stupidity, thoughtlessness, indifference, and incompetence are not morally sufficient excuses nor valid legal defenses.”

Thomas’ death was included in The Huffington Post’s investigative project examining jail deaths across the United States in the year after the high-profile death of Sandra Bland in police custody in 2015.

The Justice Department had been considering launching a civil rights investigation into the conditions at the Milwaukee County Jail, but the status of that potential investigation is unclear.

Erik J. Heipt, an attorney for Thomas’ family, noted that Monday was the one-year anniversary of his “senseless” death.

“He was a pretrial detainee in a mental health crisis. Instead of providing him with desperately needed treatment, the Milwaukee County Jail disciplined Terrill by locking him in an isolation cell, giving him inedible ‘nutraloaf’ to eat, and shutting off his drinking water supply for seven days—causing him to suffer and die from profound dehydration. Nothing like this should ever happen in an American jail,” he said.

“I am pleased that the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office taking this atrocity seriously and hope that the inquest is the first step toward justice for Terrill and his family,” he added.

IMF Tells Governments How to Subvert Public Resistance Against Elimination of Cash

April 5, 2017

(Norbert Haring) - The International Monetary Fund (IMF) in Washington has published a Working Paper on “de-cashing.” It gives advice to governments who want to abolish cash against the will of their citizenry. Move slowly, start with harmless seeming measures, is part of that advice.
 
In “The Macroeconomics of De-Cashing”, IMF-Analyst Alexei Kireyev recommends in his conclusions:

Although some countries most likely will de-cash in a few years, going completely cashless should be phased in steps. The de-cashing process could build on the initial and largely uncontested steps, such as the phasing out of large denomination bills, the placement of ceilings on cash transactions, and the reporting of cash moves across the borders. Further steps could include creating economic incentives to reduce the use of cash in transactions, simplifying the opening and use of transferrable deposits, and further computerizing the financial system.

The private sector led de-cashing seems preferable to the public sector led decashing. The former seems almost entirely benign (e.g., more use of mobile phones to pay for coffee), but still needs policy adaptation. The latter seems more questionable, and people may have valid objections to it. De-cashing of either kind leaves both individuals and states more vulnerable to disruptions, ranging from power outages to hacks to cyberwarfare. In any case, the tempting attempts to impose de-cashing by a decree should be avoided, given the popular personal attachment to cash. A targeted outreach program is needed to alleviate suspicions related to de-cashing; in particular, that by de-cashing the authorities are trying to control all aspects of peoples’ lives, including their use of money, or push personal savings into banks. The de-cashing process would acquire more traction if it were based on individual consumer choice and cost-benefits considerations.

Note, that the author is not talking about unreasonable objections and imagined disadvantages: He does count it among the advantages of de-cashing in the very next paragraph that personal savings are pushed into banks and he also does count total control of all aspects of financial life under the pros, as in the last sentence of the last quote below.

“As de-cashing gives incentives to economies’ agents to convert their currency in bank deposits, the deposit base of the banking system will increase, which can help reduce the lending rates and expand credit.”

And finally the advice to do it together:

Coordinated efforts on de-cashing could help enhance its positive effects and reduce potential costs. At least at the level of major countries and their currencies, the authorities could coordinate their de-cashing efforts. Such coordinated efforts are, in particular, important in the decisions to phase out large denomination bills for all major currencies, to use ceilings and other restrictions on cash transactions, and to introduce the reporting requirements for cash transactions or their taxation. For currency areas, a single decashing policy would be clearly preferable to a national one. Finally, consensus between the public and the private sector and outreach on the advantages and modalities of gradual decashing should be viewed as key preconditions for its success.

Don't Count on That Local or State Government Pension

April 17, 2017

(Chicago Tribune) - Millions of Americans are expecting to receive a pension from the city or state that employs them. Many will be in for a terrible surprise, according to the nonprofit organization Truth in Accounting.

It surveyed 237 municipal pension plans across the country, using newly required reporting data about pension underfunding. Although it has taken decades for many of these pension funds to get into such bad shape, only now are the details being revealed, says Sheila Weinberg, president of Truth in Accounting and a CPA who has dedicated her life to requiring full and useful disclosure of federal, state and local debt obligations. (I am a board member of Truth in Accounting.)

This newly collected data should be frightening to those counting on a state or municipal pension. The latest numbers are available at http://www.statedatalab.org/pensiondatabase. There you can search by state to find both state and local pension statistics. The report for each city and state includes the amount of pension plan assets, the amount of plan promises, and the dollar amount and percentage of pension underfunding. Every plan also receives a letter grade, from A to F.

Of the 237 cities studied, 29 received an "F" grade, reflecting a funding ratio of less than 35 percent. Those plans cover many thousands of workers who cannot possibly be paid their full promised pensions, absent a huge tax increase (which would also come out of their pockets as workers).

Based on the size of its unfunded pension liabilities, Chicago is in the worst shape, with more than $62 billion worth of unfunded pension promises. Chicago has less than 33 cents set aside for every dollar promised.

The Chicago Municipal Employees plan is estimated to run out of assets in seven years, since it is only 20.3 percent funded. The police fund (funded at 25.4 percent) and the firefighter's fund (funded at 21.7 percent) will not be far behind. The Public School Teachers' Pension and Retirement Fund is in slightly better shape with 51.6 percent funding.

New York City is in second worst shape in terms of total dollars needed, with an unfunded pension liability of more than $61 billion, but at least it is 71 percent funded.

At another extreme, Portland, Ore., has set aside less than 1 percent of what it needs to pay its $2.9 billion of pension promises.

How have these cities gotten away with underfunding their pension promises? Until last year, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board required state and local governments to report only a small fraction of their pension liabilities. And there have been no sanctions, other than public outrage, to force employers to top up their pension funds.

N. Korean Official: Ready for War If Trump Wants It

On April 17, 2017, Russia warned Washington against launching a unilateral strike on North Korea, after US Vice President Mike Pence said the era of "strategic patience" with Pyongyang was over. "This is a very risky path," Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said at a news conference in Moscow. "We do not accept the reckless nuclear missile actions of Pyongyang that breach UN resolutions, but that does not mean that you can break international law," he said. "I hope that there will not be any unilateral actions like the one we saw recently in Syria." Pence on Monday warned North Korea not to test President Donald Trump's resolve, declaring that "all options are on the table" for curbing its missile and nuclear weapons programmes. [AFP]

April 14, 2017

(AP) — President Donald Trump's tweets are adding fuel to a "vicious cycle" of tensions on the Korean Peninsula, North Korea's vice foreign minister told The Associated Press in an exclusive interview Friday. The official added that if the U.S. shows any sign of "reckless" military aggression, Pyongyang is ready to launch a pre-emptive strike of its own.

Vice Minister Han Song Ryol said Pyongyang has determined the Trump administration is "more vicious and more aggressive" than that of Barack Obama. He added that North Korea will keep building up its nuclear arsenal in "quality and quantity" and said Pyongyang is ready to go to war if that's what Trump wants.

Tensions between Pyongyang and Washington go back to President Harry Truman and the 1950-53 Korean War, which ended in an armistice, not a peace treaty. But the heat has been rising rapidly since Trump took office in January.

This year's joint war games between the U.S. and South Korean militaries are the biggest so far. The USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier has been diverted back to the waters off Korea after heading for Australia, and U.S. satellite imagery suggests the North could conduct another underground nuclear test at any time. Pyongyang recently tested a ballistic missile and claims it is close to perfecting an intercontinental ballistic missile and nuclear warhead that could attack the U.S. mainland.

Many experts believe that at its current pace of testing, North Korea could reach that potentially game-changing milestone within a few years — under Trump's watch as president. Despite reports that Washington is considering military action if the North goes ahead with another nuclear test, Han did not rule out the possibility of a test in the near future.

"That is something that our headquarters decides," he said during the 40-minute interview in Pyongyang, which is now gearing up for a major holiday — and possibly a big military parade — on Saturday. "At a time and at a place where the headquarters deems necessary, it will take place."

The North conducted two such tests last year alone. The first was of what it claims to have been a hydrogen bomb and the second was its most powerful ever. Expectations are high the North may put its newest missiles on display during Saturday's parade.

The annual U.S.-South Korea military exercises have consistently infuriated the North, which views them as rehearsals for an invasion. Washington and Seoul deny that, but reports that exercises have included "decapitation strikes" aimed at the North's leadership have fanned Pyongyang's anger.

Han said Trump's tweets have also added fuel to the flames.

Trump posted a tweet Tuesday in which he said the North is "looking for trouble" and reiterated his call for more pressure from Beijing, North Korea's economic lifeline, to clamp down on trade and strengthen its enforcement of U.N. sanctions to persuade Pyongyang to denuclearize.

Trump has threatened that if Beijing isn't willing to do more to squeeze the North, the U.S. might take the matter into its own hands.

"Trump is always making provocations with his aggressive words," Han said. "It's not the DPRK but the U.S. and Trump that makes trouble." North Korea's official name is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

He added: "We will go to war if they choose."

A U.S. State Department official said later Friday the U.S. was aligning "all elements of national power" to get North Korea to abandon its nuclear and missile programs.

Paul Craig Roberts: A Government of Morons

April 15, 2017

(Paul Craig Roberts, Institute for Political Economy) - It has become embarrassing to be an American. Our country has had four war criminal presidents in succession. Clinton twice launched military attacks on Serbia, ordering NATO to bomb the former Yugoslavia twice, both in 1995 and in 1999, so that gives Bill two war crimes. George W. Bush invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and attacked provinces of Pakistan and Yemen from the air. That comes to four war crimes for Bush. Obama used NATO to destroy Libya and sent mercenaries to destroy Syria, thereby commiting two war crimes. Trump attacked Syria with US forces, thereby becoming a war criminal early in his regime.

To the extent that the UN participated in these war crimes along with Washington's European, Canadian and Australian vassals, all are guilty of war crimes. Perhaps the UN itself should be arraigned before the War Crimes Tribunal along with the EU, US, Australia and Canada.

Quite a record. Western Civilization, if civilization it is, is the greatest committer of war crimes in human history.

And there are other crimes—Somalia, and Obama's coups against Honduras and Ukraine and Washington's ongoing attempts to overthrow the governments of Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia. Washington wants to overthrow Ecuador in order to grab and torture Julian Assange, the world's leading democrat.

These war crimes committed by four US presidents caused millions of civilian deaths and injuries and dispossessed and dislocated millions of peoples, who have now arrived as refugees in Europe, UK, US, Canada, and Australia, bringing their problems with them, some of which become problerms for Europeans, such as gang rapes.

What is the reason for all the death and destruction and the flooding of the West with refugees from the West's naked violence? We don't know. We are told lies: Saddam Hussein's "weapons of mass destruction," which the US government knew for an absolute fact did not exist. "Assad's use of chemical weapons," an obvious, blatant lie. "Iranian nukes," another blatant lie. The lies about Gaddafi in Libya are so absurd that it is pointless to repeat them.

What were the lies used to justify bombing tribesmen in Pakistan, to bomb a new government in Yemen? No American knows or cares. Why the US violence against Somalia? Again, no Americans knows or cares.

Or the morons saw a movie.

Violence for its own sake. That is what America has become.

Indeed, violence is what America is. There is nothing else there. Violence is the heart of America.

Consider not only the bombings and destruction of countries, but also the endless gratuitous, outrageous police violence against US citizens. If anyone should be disarmed, it is the US police. The police commit more "gun violence" than anyone else, and unlike drug gangs fighting one another for territory, police violence has no other reason than the love of committing violence against other humans. The American police even shoot down 12-year old American kids prior to asking any question, especially if they are black.

Violence is America. America is violence. The moronic liberals blame it on gun owners, but it is always the government that is the source of violence. That is the reason our Founding Fathers gave us the Second Amendment. It is not gun owners who have destroyed in whole or part eight countries. It is the armed-at-taxpayer-expense US government that commits the violence.

America's lust for violence is now bringing the Washington morons up against people who can commit violence back: the Russians and Chinese, Iran and North Korea.

Two of the Most Powerful Lobbies in DC are the Fed and the Pentagon: "One of the Benefits of Being an Extremely Powerful Lobby in Washington is the Ability to Live Off the Taxpayers Without Ever Having to Tell the Taxpayers What You Do With Their Money"

April 5, 2017

(Mises.org) - One of the benefits of being an extremely powerful lobby in Washington is the ability to live off the taxpayers without ever having to tell the taxpayers what you do with their money. This includes two of the most powerful lobbies in DC: the Fed and the Pentagon.1

In recent years, thanks to Ron Paul, the "Audit the Fed" movement has gained a high profile in Washington and continues to be an election issue. Far less salient, however, is the issue of Auditing the Pentagon. And, unfortunately, like the Fed, the Pentagon is able to quash efforts to make the massive military establishment more transparent and more accountable in its spending.

In fact, the Pentagon's refusal to submit to any sort of full or meaningful audit has become so intransigent that Senators Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders co-sponsored the "Audit the Pentagon Act of 2015" to force the Pentagon to submit to auditors.

Needless to say, the legislation went nowhere. Nevertheless, as The Guardian reports, the GAO and Office of the Inspector General (IG) have published an endless stream of reports documenting financial mismanagement: $500m in aid to Yemen lost here, $5.8bn in supplies lost there, $8,000 spent on helicopter gears that really cost $500.

Meanwhile, according to sparse internal audits, the Pentagon doesn't know what happened to more than $6 trillion dollars spent in recent years. And, the Pentagon's own report admits the Pentagon wasted $125 billion (more than one-sixth of an entire year's budget) in "administrative waste."

In spite of its inability to submit to any sort of department-wide audit, the Pentagon likes to make a big show of things when it manages to pull off even the smallest bit of accountability. But even that usually turns out to be a matter of smoke and mirrors:

In 2014, the Pentagon celebrated the Marine Corps’s success at being the first military agency to pass an audit. But a year later it was found that the private accounting firm hired to carry out the audit, Grant Thornton, had not been thorough. The Marine Corps had desperately wanted to achieve a "clean" status, due to pressure from then defense secretary Leon Panetta to get its books in order. In a scathing response to the debacle, Republican senator for Iowa Chuck Grassley said that the actions of the DoD IG showed a "lack of independence and flagrant disregard for audit ethics," calling the deputy IG for auditing "a Grant Thornton lapdog."

When information leaks out showing some of the extent to which the Pentagon can't keep track of the many taxpayers' dimes it's spending — as was the case with the report on that missing $125 billion — the Pentagon attempts to bury the evidence. According to the Washington Post, the Pentagon hid its report on waste because it feared Congress might "use the findings as an excuse to slash the defense budget, according to interviews and confidential memos."

The Week reports how "a summary report had been made public, but was removed from the Pentagon's website, and they placed secrecy restrictions on the data."

Syria's Assad Says Chemical Attack '100 Percent Fabrication' and America’s ‘Deep State’ – Not Trump – Blew Up Airbase in Syria

April 13, 2017

(Breitbart) - In his lengthy interview with AFP on Thursday, Syrian President Bashar Assad mused that the American “Deep State” was more responsible for pelting his Sharyat airbase with 59 cruise missiles than President Donald Trump. When the interviewer proposed that the retaliatory missile strike marked a drastic change in Trump’s position on Syria, Assad insisted the U.S. and Syria could still be partners in fighting terrorism, once Trump wrested control of Washington away from the military-industrial complex.

“If they are serious in fighting terrorists, we’re going to be partners, and I said not only the United States. Whoever wants to fight the terrorists, we are partners,” said Assad, in the transcript provided by Syria’s SANA news service.

“This is basic for us, basic principle, let’s say,” he continued:

Actually, what has been proven recently, as I said earlier, that they are hand in glove with those terrorists, the United States and the West, they’re not serious in fighting the terrorists, and yesterday some of their statesmen were defending ISIS. They were saying that ISIS doesn’t have chemical weapons. They are defending ISIS against the Syrian government and the Syrian Army. So, actually, you cannot talk about partnership between us who work against the terrorists and who fight the terrorism and the others who are supporting explicitly the terrorists.

Assad said the American missile strike was “the first proof that it’s not about the President of the United States — it’s about the regime and the Deep State, or the deep regime in the United States.”

He said the Deep State “is still the same, it doesn’t change.”

“The president is only one of the performers on their theatre, if he wants to be a leader, he cannot, because as some say he wanted to be a leader, Trump wanted to be a leader, but every president there, if he wants to be a real leader, later he’s going to eat his words, swallow his pride if he has pride at all, and make a 180 degree U-turn, otherwise he would pay the price politically,” said Assad.

Asked if he anticipated another U.S. attack, Assad replied:

As long as the United States is being governed by this military-industrial complex, the financial companies, banks, and what you call deep regime, and works for the vested interest of those groups, of course. It could happen anytime, anywhere, not only in Syria.

Assad lamented that his military could not retaliate against the American ships that fired cruise missiles at Syria but expressed hope the Russians might do it for him.

“For us, as a small country, yeah, of course it is, everybody knows that. It’s out of reach. I mean, they can have missiles from another continent. We all know that. They are a great power, we’re not a great power. Talking about the Russians, this is another issue,” he said.

Assad slams Western journalism and White Helmets propaganda (TyrannyUnmasked)


April 13, 2017

(AFP) - Syria's President Bashar al-Assad said a suspected chemical weapons attack was a "fabrication" to justify a US strike on his forces, in an exclusive interview with AFP in Damascus.

The embattled leader, whose country has been ravaged by six years of war, said his firepower had not been affected by the attack ordered by US President Donald Trump, but acknowledged further strikes were possible.

Assad insisted his forces had turned over all their chemical weapons stocks years ago and would never use the banned arms.

The interview on Wednesday was his first since a suspected chemical weapons attack that killed dozens of civilians in the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhun.

"Definitely, 100 percent for us, it's fabrication," he said of the incident.

"Our impression is that the West, mainly the United States, is hand-in-glove with the terrorists. They fabricated the whole story in order to have a pretext for the attack," added Assad, who has been in power for 17 years.

At least 87 people, including 31 children, were killed in the alleged attack, according to the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights monitor.

False Flag Fort Lauderdale Shooting, Just Like Sandy Hook: Why Now?

January 14, 2017

(The Sleuthing Journal) - Fort Lauderdale’s shooting hoax had several goals. Crisis actor ‘Esteban Santiago’ fake-attacked the Florida airport at a particular time — for a specific reason.

Was the Ft Lauderdale airport false flag staged to push gun control? Or were the gun grabbers more scheming this time?

By observing (famous gun grabber) Michael Bloomberg, we see why Ft Lauderdale airport was attacked by a ‘shooter’ — and why that false flag ‘shooting’ had to happen when it did. Michael Bloomberg funds 3 front groups, including “Mayors Against Illegal Guns” (MAIG). Bloomberg’s mayors are convicted felons — who can’t own guns (since they’ve been convicted of felonies). Bloomberg’s mayors have been convicted of extortion, covering up homicides, and molestation.

Just like the Marysville, WA ‘school shooting’ hoax, Michael Bloomberg staged the Fort Lauderdale airport shooting to terrorize America into accepting his gun-ban scheme.

Ft. Lauderdale Airport. Why will nobody help this man? 'Cos it's a hoax. (Anaconda MaltLiquor)


Sandy Hook 'Dad' Caught Playing Two Roles • Crisis Actor Parent and Swat Team Member • Part 1 (Kyle Ordway)

War is a Racket: Trump Owned Stock in Raytheon, Up $1 Billion Overnight

April 7, 2017 

(Matt Agorist, The Free Thought Project) - Each one of the 59 Tomahawk missiles fired by the US Navy, by order of Trump, at the Syrian air base in Homs cost somewhere between $800,000 and $1.4 million — per missile. This obviously expensive surge in US military spending subsequently sent the manufacturer's stock soaring. It also sent the Free Thought Project on an investigation into the types of stocks in which President Trump invests. What we found is shocking, but sadly, typical.

Tomahawk missiles are manufactured by a company, with whom most people are familiar, Raytheon.

According to Raytheon's website: "Today's Tomahawk Block IV cruise missile can circle for hours, shift course instantly on command and beam a picture of its target to controllers halfway around the world before striking with pinpoint accuracy. Tomahawk can be launched from a ship or submarine and can fly into heavily defended airspace more than 1,000 miles away to conduct precise strikes on high-value targets with minimal collateral damage. Launching the weapon from such a long distance helps to keep sailors out of harm's way."

However, some may not be familiar with the fact that according to the President's most recent FEC disclosure, the Trumps actual own or have owned stock in Raytheon. That's right, the 59 missiles, that Trump hurled at Syria — which cost taxpayers somewhere between $47 million and $82 million — could've actually turned a profit for the president.

The report showed that Trump also owns or has owned stock in many well-known companies including Apple, Nike, Whole Foods, Google, Philip Morris, McDonald's, Facebook, and Morgan Stanley, among many others — including many other defense contractors who stand to make billions off Trump's aggression.

It is important to note that in December of 2016, Trump spokesman, Jason Miller told The Post that Trump liquidated all of his assets. However, we've yet to see any proof of this and will not see any proof until at least 2018.

"We need to know, has he put them in conflict free assets ... or has he bought other stocks or assets that would create new conflicts?" Norm Eisen, who served as ethics counselor to President Obama asked. "It's all the more reason that we need a prompt and full financial disclosure. If he did liquidate all his stocks, what did he do with the money? What bank is the money in? What did he buy? It's a lot of money."

According to Business Insider, shares of Raytheon gained 3.54 points, a roughly 2.3 percent increase, in pre-market trading following Thursday night's strike.

Of course, 2.3 percent doesn't sound like a whole lot, however, if we take into account the effect it has on Raytheon's total market value, it is definitely significant. On Thursday, Raytheon closed at $150.75 and on Friday morning, it opened at $154.62. This shot the company's market value up from $44.1 billion to $45.4 billion — nearly one and a half billion — in a day.

Lockheed Martin and Boeing saw similar gains.

Also, according to Open Secrets, Trump wasn't just giving to Raytheon but they were also giving to him.

Charles Lindbergh's Speech on September 11, 1941

Americans Opposed to War

It is now two years since this latest European war began. From that day in September, 1939, until the present moment, there has been an ever-increasing effort to force the United States into the conflict. That effort has been carried on by foreign interests, and by a small minority of our own people; but it has been so successful that, today, our country stands on the verge of war.

At this time, as the war is about to enter its third winter, it seems appropriate to review the circumstances that have led us to our present position. Why are we on the verge of war? Was it necessary for us to become so deeply involved? Who is responsible for changing our national policy from one of neutrality and independence to one of entanglement in European affairs?

Personally, I believe there is no better argument against our intervention than a study of the causes and developments of the present war. I have often said that if the true facts and issues were placed before the American people, there would be no danger of our involvement.

Here, I would like to point out to you a fundamental difference between the groups who advocate foreign war, and those who believe in an independent destiny for America. If you will look back over the record, you will find that those of us who oppose intervention have constantly tried to clarify facts and issues; while the interventionists have tried to hide facts and confuse issues.

We ask you to read what we said last month, last year, and even before the war began. Our record is open and clear, and we are proud of it. We have not led you on by subterfuge and propaganda. We have not resorted to steps short of anything, in order to take the American people where they did not want to go.

What we said before the elections, we say...again today. And we will not tell you tomorrow that it was just campaign oratory. Have you ever heard an interventionist, or a British agent, or a member of the administration in Washington ask you to go back and study a record of what they have said since the war started? Are their self-styled defenders of democracy willing to put the issue of war to a vote of our people? Do you find these crusaders for foreign freedom of speech, or the removal of censorship here in our own country?

The subterfuge and propaganda that exists in our country is obvious on every side. Tonight, I shall try to pierce through a portion of it, to the naked facts which lie beneath.

When this war started in Europe, it was clear that the American people were solidly opposed to entering it. Why shouldn't we be? We had the best defensive position in the world; we had a tradition of independence from Europe; and the one time we did take part in a European war [that] left European problems unsolved, and debts to America unpaid.

National polls showed that when England and France declared war on Germany, in 1939, less than 10 percent of our population favored a similar course for America. But there were various groups of people, here and abroad, whose interests and beliefs necessitated the involvement of the United States in the war. I shall point out some of these groups tonight, and outline their methods of procedure. In doing this, I must speak with the utmost frankness, for in order to counteract their efforts, we must know exactly who they are.

The War Agitators

The three most important groups who have been pressing this country toward war are the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt administration.

Behind these groups, but of lesser importance, are a number of capitalists, Anglophiles, and intellectuals who believe that the future of mankind depends upon the domination of the British empire. Add to these the Communistic groups who were opposed to intervention until a few weeks ago, and I believe I have named the major war agitators in this country.

I am speaking here only of war agitators, not of those sincere but misguided men and women who, confused by misinformation and frightened by propaganda, follow the lead of the war agitators.

As I have said, these war agitators comprise only a small minority of our people; but they control a tremendous influence. Against the determination of the American people to stay out of war, they have marshaled the power of their propaganda, their money, their patronage.

This Is Not WW3: Allies Russia and China Will Not Rush to Defend Syria

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Putin regarded the strike "as aggression against a sovereign nation" that was carried out "in violation of international law, and also under an invented pretext. “Russia would allow a one-time event to slide,” Pavel Felgenhauer, a veteran military policy specialist in Moscow, told ABC News. “There’s going to be fireworks of condemnation coming from Moscow. But Russia still wants to find an understanding with Trump.” There were indications that Russia did hope to continue a dialogue with the United States despite the hot words. There was, for instance, no suggestion Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, who is due to visit Moscow next week on his first trip there, would be uninvited now. The head of Russia’s parliamentary committee on international affairs, Leonid Slutsky, told the Russian state television network, Rossiya 24, that Russia would not “close itself behind walls” with the United States. The Russian leaders' condemnation stood out on the global stage, where most leaders, especially U.S. allies, appeared to support Trump's decision to strike the air base linked with the deadly and illegal chemical weapons attack. Syria and Russia have denied that the government was responsible." [Source]

"Russia is not going there to conduct armed activity with the US; our task there is to support the Syrian armed forces in the fight against terrorism," Ozerov told the Russian news agency, adding, "We have a mandate to fulfill this very task." [Source]

April 7, 2017

(andywarhaul at subreddit conspiracy) - This may be a shock but China, Russia and the US couldn't give a damn about Assad, the people of Syria, and whether or not they were gassed by Assad. Forget if the attack is a false flag or not because it doesn't effect the point, and the point is, they all only give a shit about gas and oil.

Let's lay it out to highlight why toppling Assad is important to Israel, USA, and Saudi Arabia. And why keeping Assad standing is important to Russia and Turkey. It will also highlight why China and Iran don't give a hoot about what happens either way.

Scene is the Middle East

The big players are Iran, Syria, Turkey, Russia, Israel, USA, Saudi Arabia and China.

The prize is the South Pars gas/oil field.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Pars_/_North_Dome_Gas-Condensate_field

The Iranians have an insane amount of untapped gas and oil. A combination of sanctions by the US, the inaccessibility of the reserves, and scores of other more easily accessed reserves have delayed Iran developing on it. They have just started producing in the last week or so.

http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Irans-South-Pars-Oil-Field-To-Produce-By-End-Of-March.html

The closest market for all that oil is Europe but you need a pipeline to get it there. There are a few options of where it could go through.

Iran doesn't give a hoot about where the gas and oil goes at all because, no matter what, they are getting paid.

China also doesn't give a hoot because they, along with a French company, have a 50% stake in the deal with Iran to develop the field. On top of that, they are reported to be involved in investing over 42 billion dollars in developing the portion of the pipeline in Iran.

Let's look at the possible routes for that pipeline once it leaves Iran.

We'll call this one the American Express:

http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/335809bc5a4500918ff797c8a540c039

And this one the Russian Run:

https://m.imgur.com/a/nECpe

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Pipeline

So starting with the American Express, we've established that between Iran and China the development and pipeline infrastructure inside Iran is covered. Both Iran and China will make money no matter what.

With the American Express the next stage would be building a pipeline through Iraq.

Getting into the finer mechanics, the US, the Saudis, and the Israelis all lack control over Iran and Turkey; in other words, they wouldn't be getting a cut of the profits if it goes through Turkey. Plus they have their own natural gas and oil asserts that would see a decrease in value when the South Pars starts producing full blast. So they want to make sure they are getting a cut.

Next they are going to want to make a route over which they have total control. The shortest route between Iran and the Mediterranean is through Iraq and Syria. So ideally you would want to take control of both of those countries to build your pipeline.



Iraq ✅ - the US took care of that some time ago.

Syria ❌

Financial Crisis, Sleepy Dull Masses & Reality Wake-Up Call (Excerpt)

By Jim_Willie_CB
January 7, 2017 

1. DO YOU THINK THE NOW NEARLY $20 TRILLION FEDERAL DEBT WILL CAUSE PROBLEMS?
2. DO YOU THINK FIVE YEARS OF ZERO PERCENT MONEY AND AFRICAN STYLE MONETARY INFLATION WITH BOND PURCHASES TO COVER THE USGOVT DEFICITS WILL CAUSE PROBLEMS?
3. DO YOU THINK ENDLESS WAR TO DEFEND THE USDOLLAR SYSTEM WILL CAUSE A BACKFIRE?
4. DO YOU THINK THE $550 BILLION TRADE DEFICIT WILL CAUSE A PROBLEM?
5. DO YOU THINK THE REAL 23% TO 24% UNEMPLOYMENT WILL CAUSE A PROBLEM?
6. DO YOU BELIEVE THE UNITED STATES FACES AN EXTRAORDINARY RISK FROM HAVING WELL OVER HALF ITS DEBT HELD IN FOREIGN HANDS?
7. DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT THE GLOBAL CURRENCY RESERVE MEANS?
8. DO YOU EVEN SEE THAT THERE ARE NO FAIR FINANCIAL MARKETS ANYMORE, WITH MOST CONTROLLED BY DERIVATIVE MACHINERY?
9. DO YOU PERCEIVE THE GLOBAL FASCIST STATE DESCENDING UPON OUR NATION AND OUR WORLD WITH A PERNICIOUS ECONOMIC SABOTAGE TO USHER IT IN?
10. DO YOU NOTICE THE NASTY ELEMENTS OF AGENDA-21 WHICH IS DESIGNED TO KILL OFF HALF THE HUMAN POPULATION?

The IRS Has Been Quietly Confiscating Millions from Honest Small Business Owners

April 6, 2017

(Tribune Media Wire Service) - Brothers Jeffrey, Richard, and Mitch Hirsch have owned Bi-County Distributors, Inc., in Ronkonkoma, New York, for 27 years.

When Mitch Hirsch went to the bank in May 2012, the teller delivered some unexpected news: the bank account he and his two brothers, Jeff and Richard, used to deposit the proceeds from their convenience store distribution business had been commandeered by the federal government.

Later that day, Mitch’s older brother Jeff got a letter from the IRS; it explained that the brothers’ pattern of making frequent and small deposits had drawn suspicion. The Hirsch brothers did business with small delis and gas stations, and often made cash deposits in their account. But the IRS apparently mistook these transactions for the behavior of a drug dealer or a terrorist trying to fly below the radar.

Mitchel’s older brother Jeff called the local joint-IRS task force in Nassau County, New York to clear up the misunderstanding. He even invited the detective in charge to come down to his warehouse and go through his business records. The detective, Jeff said, explained that it wasn’t his job to investigate any further — the pattern of deposits was all the evidence he needed.  

The brother were never charged with a crime or accused of any wrongdoing. But it cost them tens of thousands of dollars, and over two years of fighting the IRS in court, to finally get the money returned.
“It was hell,” Jeff said. If it wasn’t for a the generosity of a friend who works in the candy distribution business — who let the brothers slide on a few late payments — Jeff said that his entire family would have gone bankrupt.  

The Hirsch brothers’ ordeal is far from uncommon, according to a March 30 report from the Treasury Inspector General For Tax Administration (TIGTA), a government watchdog that oversees the IRS. Between 2012 and 2014, the IRS seized over $17 million from hundreds of small business owners like the Hirschs — whose only “crime” was making frequent cash deposits and withdrawals of under $10,000, which isn’t technically a crime at all.

Banks must report to the IRS all individual deposits, withdrawals or transfers of over $10,000; it’s illegal for anyone to structure multiple transactions of $10,000 or more in order to evade IRS attention, and banks are required to report if they think their customers are making many under-limit transactions to avoid triggering notification.

Still, drug dealers and other criminals often do to attempt to stay below the radar of law enforcement; former House Speaker Dennis Hastert was ensnared by the law (and pled guilty to violating it) when he made under-limit withdrawals to pay a man who had accused Hastert of sexual assaulting him. But, it’s also perfectly normal for small and medium-size business owners to make regular deposits under the $10,000 mark. In the Hirsch case, the brothers’ insurance company had actually asked them to make smaller deposits, Jeff Hirsch says, after they had been robbed on the way to the bank.

Federal law allows the IRS to freeze anyone’s assets it suspects of making evasive deposits, without requiring that they secure a criminal conviction or even conduct an investigation beyond examining the bank records. In other words, the IRS can — and does — empty some people’s bank accounts simply because the owners make deposits that fit a pattern that the government believes may resemble that of a drug dealer.

“They are supposed to be targeting people hiding criminal proceeds,” explained Robert Johnson, an attorney with the libertarian-leaning Institute for Justice who represented the Hirsch brothers. “But they are applying it to people who engaged in perfectly legal businesses.” The Institute has represented a number of people, including a Palestinian immigrant deli owner and a restaurateur in North Carolina, who all had to spend years fighting the IRS just to get their legally-acquired money back.

In one case, the IRS seized $33,000 from Carole Hinders, who had operated a small cash-only restaurant for 40 years in Arnold’s Park, Iowa, and made routine small deposits. “My mom had told me, if you keep your deposits under $10,000, the bank avoids paperwork,” she told the New York Times. “I didn’t actually think it had anything to do with the I.R.S.” In another instance, North Carolina convenience store owner Lyndon McLellan lost over $100,000 when the IRS seized his bank account in the summer of 2014.

“It took me 13 years to save that much money, and 13 seconds for the government to take it away,” he told the Washington Post.

And it’s not just that the IRS occasionally seizes the assets of innocent business owners by mistake and is unaware of the problems with its methodology: According to the TIGTA report, the IRS almost always misses the mark. The watchdog randomly selected 278 different cases in which the IRS emptied a bank account because it suspected illegal transaction structuring. In a full 91 percent of those cases, it turned out that the IRS had taken money from perfectly legal small businesses — farms, convenience stores, restaurants — that just so happened to withdraw money from the bank in a pattern that caught authorities’ attention.

“Most people impacted by the program did not appear to be criminal enterprises engaged in other alleged illegal activity,” the inspector general found, “rather, they were legal businesses such as jewelry stores, restaurant owners, gas station owners, scrap metal dealers, and others.”

In a response to the watchdog report, the IRS emphasized that it had been acting within the law. “Structuring violations are not required to be tied to illegal source funds,” wrote Richard Weber, the chief of criminal investigations at the IRS.

Russia Ups Ante by Freezing Communications with US in Syria

April 7, 2017

(AP) — Russia reacted to U.S. military strikes on its ally Syria Friday by cutting a hotline intended to prevent midair incidents, a response that demonstrates Moscow's readiness to defy Washington and could even put the two nuclear superpowers on a course toward military confrontation.

President Vladimir Putin signaled he was ready to risk a clash with the U.S. and abandon hopes for mending ties with the U.S. under President Donald Trump, rather than accept the humiliation of standing by while his ally is bombed.

Russia's decision to suspend the hotline established after the launch of the Russian air campaign in Syria in September 2015 effectively means that Russian and U.S. planes could fly dangerously close to each other during combat missions, raising the risk of inadvertent or deliberate clashes in the crowded skies over Syria.

By freezing the information channel between the two potent militaries, Russia is signaling to Washington that it will tolerate no further strikes on Syrian government facilities.

Syria has aging Soviet-built aircraft and air defense missile systems, while Russia has deployed dozens of its cutting edge warplanes and air defense batteries at its base in Syria's coastal province of Latakia. It also has a strategically important naval outpost in the Syrian port of Tartus, which is protected by air defense assets.

Further upping the ante, the Russian Defense Ministry said it will now help strengthen Syrian air defenses.

U.S. officials accused Russia of failing to ensure Syrian President Bashar Assad's commitment to a 2013 deal for the destruction of Assad's chemical weapons arsenal. The U.S. says that arsenal was tapped for a chemical attack that killed dozens of civilians in the Syrian town of Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib province.

Trump cited the chemical attack as justification for the missile strike on a Syrian air base. But the Kremlin insists Assad's government wasn't responsible for the attack, saying civilians in Khan Sheikhoun were exposed to toxic agents from a rebel arsenal that was hit by Syrian warplanes.

"President Putin believes that the U.S. strikes on Syria represent an aggression against a sovereign state in violation of international law under a far-fetched pretext," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said in a statement. "Washington's move deals a significant blow to Russia-U.S. relations, which are already in deplorable shape."

Until the attack on the Syrian air base, the U.S. had avoided striking Assad's forces for fear of provoking a clash with the Russian military.

U.S. Fires Missiles at Assad Airbase; Russia Denounces 'Aggression'

April 7, 2017

(Reuters) - The United States fired cruise missiles on Friday at a Syrian airbase from which President Donald Trump said a deadly chemical weapons attack had been launched, the first direct U.S. assault on the government of Bashar al-Assad in six years of civil war.

In the biggest foreign policy decision of his presidency so far, Trump ordered the step his predecessor Barack Obama never took: directly targeting the Syrian military for its suspected role in a poison gas attack that killed at least 70 people

That catapulted Washington into confrontation with Russia, which has military advisers on the ground aiding its ally, President Assad. The Kremlin denounced the strikes as illegal.

"Years of previous attempts at changing Assad’s behavior have all failed and failed very dramatically," Trump said as he announced the attack from his Florida resort, Mar-a-Lago, where he was meeting Chinese President Xi Jinping.

"Even beautiful babies were cruelly murdered in this very barbaric attack," he said of Tuesday's chemical weapons strike, which Western countries blame on Assad's forces. "No child of God should ever suffer such horror."

Assad's office said Damascus would respond by striking its enemies harder: "This aggression has increased Syria's resolve to hit those terrorist agents, to continue to crush them, and to raise the pace of action to that end wherever they are."

U.S. officials said that the strike was a "one-off" intended to deter future chemical weapons attacks, and not an expansion of the U.S. role in the Syria war.

The swift action is likely to be interpreted as a signal to Russia, as well as to countries such as North Korea, China and Iran where Trump has faced foreign policy tests early in his presidency, that he is willing to use force.

US Fires Missiles at Syrian Military Base Near Homs in Response to ’Assad’s Chemical Attack’ (Syria Gas Attack: Assad's Doing...Or False Flag?)

Just days after the US Administration changed course on Syrian President Assad, saying he could stay, an alleged chemical weapon attack that killed dozens of civilians has been blamed on the Syrian government. Did Assad sign his own death warrant with such an attack...or does some other entity benefit?

Ron Paul: Chemical Attack in Syria May Have Been False Flag by Deep State to Undermine Peace

April 5, 2017

(We Are Change) - During Wednesday’s Liberty Report, Ron Paul asserted that he believes there is “zero chance” that the chemical attack in Syria was conducted by Bashar al-Assad.

“Just days after the US Administration changed course on Syrian President Assad, saying he could stay, an alleged chemical weapon attack that killed dozens of civilians has been blamed on the Syrian government,” the description for the stream read. “Did Assad sign his own death warrant with such an attack…or does some other entity benefit?”

The former Texas congressman explained that the timing of the incident was strange, as things were going reasonably well in Syria given the conditions. He noted that Trump had allowed the Syrians to decide who should be running their country, and that peace talks were in the works and terror groups were “on the run.”

“It looks like, maybe, somebody didn’t like that so there had to be an episode, and the blame now is we can’t let that happen because it looks like it might benefit Assad,” Paul asserted.

Paul then referenced the 2013 incident, and the “red line.” He noted that neoconservatives have been “yelling and screaming,” including a portion of the administration, that Assad used poison gas on the Syrian people.

Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity executive director Daniel McAdams chimed in at this point, stating that it was never proven that the attack was conducted by Assad, and that the UN’s Carla Del Ponte had stated the vicious assault was likely conducted by the rebels.

“It makes no sense, even if you were totally separate from this and take no sides of this and you were just an analyst, it doesn’t make sense for Assad under these conditions to all of the sudden use poison gasses. I think it’s zero chance that he would have done this deliberately,” Paul added.

Paul asserted that his viewers need to decide what they stand for, urging them to consider the benefits of negotiation and diplomacy.

“If we give up on that, then we’re going to have the neoconservatives — epitomized by Bill Kristol, Cheney, McCain, and Lindsey Graham — they’re the ones who will be running it. I mean, in many ways they have a lot of influence, they’re closer to the insiders, they’re closer to the deep state,” Paul warned. “This may well be an example of what they can do to reverse any attempt to come up with a peaceful solution.”

Paul stated that is why the message of non interventionism, minding our own business, and having a strong national defense to protect liberty at home is so important.
“That is the policy that must be used if we are determined to promote the cause of peace and prosperity,” Paul concluded.

The Strategy for Taking the Middle East (Excerpt)

March 2003

(Stewart Best) - The strategy for the Iraq war is now making itself known. By using 9/11 as a pretext to invade Afghanistan, Iran is flanked on the east side. By using the Desert Storm protocols and UN Resolution 1441, among others, the excuse to invade and occupy Iraq is brought forward because Saddam is not disarming, we are told.

By taking Iraq, the U.S. forces then flank Iran to the West. Having troops stationed in Turkey is a key part of this plan, for then Iran is flanked to the North, which is why so much pressure is being applied to Turkey to allow our troops there.

Although we cannot be sure which incidents will be used to bring war with Iran, we can be sure something will transpire to make is necessary to invade Iran, and most likely Syria would be next. Syria is also isolated in all directions.  

With Israel the main benefactor in the Middle East, this strategy will totally rearrange the Middle Eastern landscape and set the stage for the appointment of the 10 puppet kings of Revelation chapter 17, which have no 'kingdom yet' but will with the beast for 42 months.

Russia Says It Now Recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's Capital

April 7, 2017

(Business Insider) - Russia recognizes west Jerusalem as Israel's capital, the Russian Foreign Ministry stated in a surprise announcement on Thursday, obtained exclusively by The Jerusalem Post.

The announcement comes as US President Donald Trump's administration is agonizing over whether to move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a move that would constitute recognizing west Jerusalem as the country's capital. No other country in the world recognizes any part of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

The statement issued by the Russian Foreign Ministry reads, "We reaffirm our commitment to the UN-approved principles for a Palestinian-Israeli settlement, which include the status of East Jerusalem as the capital of the future Palestinian state. At the same time, we must state that in this context we view West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel."

This is a sharp shift in Russian policy, which until now has formally held that Jerusalem should eventually be under a permanent international regime. The statement appears in English on the Russian Foreign Ministry's Russian web site.

While officials in Jerusalem interpreted this to mean that recognition of west Jerusalem as Israel’s capital will only come once east Jerusalem becomes the capital of a Palestinian state, The Jerusalem Post has learned that Moscow intends this recognition to go into effect immediately.

Russia's ambassador to Israel will meet with Foreign Ministry officials in the coming days to discuss Moscow's decision and its ramifications. There is currently no intention, however, of moving Russia's embassy to Jerusalem.

Headlined "Foreign Ministry statement regarding Palestinian-Israeli settlement," the statement reads that Moscow "is deeply concerned about the situation in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Palestine and Israel have not held political negotiations for nearly three years, and the situation on the ground has been deteriorating."

According to the statement, "The stalling of the Middle East peace process has created conditions for unilateral moves that undermine the potential for an internationally accepted solution to the Palestinian problem, under which two states – Israel and Palestine – could live in peace and security with each other and with their neighbors."

Moscow reaffirmed its "support for the two-state solution as an optimal option that meets the national interests of the Palestinian and Israeli people, both of whom have friendly relations with Russia, and the interests of all other countries in the region and the international community as a whole."

The statement continued that "The concrete parameters of a solution for the entire range of issues regarding the status of Palestinian territories, including Jerusalem, should be coordinated at the direct talks between the parties involved. Using its opportunities as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, a co-sponsor of the peace process and an active member of the Middle East Quartet of international intermediaries, Russia will continue to provide assistance to the achievement of Israeli-Palestinian agreements."

The statement also said that Moscow will "focus on ensuring free access to Jerusalem's holy places for all believers."

Israel's Foreign Ministry had no immediate reaction to the Russian statement.

One diplomatic official said that timing may be connected to Russia – in the wake of the chemical attacks in Syria – wanting to deflect criticism of being a chief enabler of Syrian President Bashar Assad. Likewise, the official said, it was likely that the statement is Moscow's answer to the apparently rejuvenated US efforts to revive the Israeli-Palestinian diplomatic process, and a signal that Russia is a relevant party that wants to play an active role in the process.

Iran's Aseman Airlines Signs $3 Billion Deal for 30 Boeing Jets

April 4, 2017

(AFP) - US plane maker Boeing said Tuesday that Iran's Aseman Airlines had agreed to buy 30 737 MAX jets for $3.0 billion in its second major deal since sanctions were eased last year.

"Boeing confirms the signing of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with Iran Aseman Airlines, expressing the airline's intent to purchase 30 Boeing 737 MAX airplanes with a list price value of $3 billion," the US group said in a statement.

"The agreement also provides the airline with purchase rights for 30 additional 737 MAXs," it added.
If finalised, delivery is expected to start in 2022, Boeing said, adding that a contract of this magnitude "creates or sustains approximately 18,000 jobs in the United States."

Iran has been desperate to renew its ageing fleet of planes, but was largely blocked from dealing with major aircraft manufacturers until a 2015 accord with world powers that eased global sanctions in exchange for curbs to its nuclear programme.

The US has maintained its own sanctions, which block almost all trade with Iran, but plane manufacturers were given a specific exemption under the nuclear deal.

In September, Washington approved the sale of 80 Boeing and 100 Airbus planes to Iran Air. The first few Airbus jets have already arrived in Tehran.

The new deal with Aseman will also need approval from the US Office of Foreign Assets Control.

"Boeing continues to follow the lead of the US government with regards to working with Iran's airlines, and any and all contracts with Iran's airlines are contingent upon US government approval," the company said.

Many US lawmakers have opposed the sales, saying that Iranian airlines have been used to ship weapons and troops to Syria and other conflict zones.

Iranian conservatives have also criticised the purchases, saying new planes will do little to improve Iran's stagnant economy.

Supporters on both sides have therefore tried to emphasise the employment opportunities.

Israel PM Warns Enemies at Missile Defense Ceremony

"We have pioneering technology here and Israel continues to lead the world in this field," Netanyahu was quoted as saying by Haaretz. He warned: "Whoever seeks to hit us will be hit. Whoever threatens our existence places himself in existential danger." David's Sling is jointly developed by the Israeli state-run Rafael and its US partner Raytheon. The US had pumped in about $1.4bn (£1.1bn) since 2006 towards developing David's Sling. [Source]

April 2, 2017

(AP) — A joint U.S.-Israeli missile interceptor meant to counter the type of medium-range missiles possessed by Iranian-backed Hezbollah militants became operational Sunday, completing Israel's multi-layer defense system amid tensions on its frontiers with Syria and Gaza.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said at the unveiling ceremony for the David's Sling system that defending the home front is of the "utmost importance." He went on to warn "whoever tries to strike us will be hit, those that threaten our existence put themselves in existential danger."

David Sling's marks the completion of Israel's multi-tier system that includes the Arrow, designed to intercept long-range ballistic missiles in the stratosphere with an eye on Iran, and Iron Dome, which defends against short-range rockets from the Gaza Strip.

David's Sling was developed by Israeli defense firm Rafael with American defense giant Raytheon.
The system became operational Sunday amid heightened tensions along Israel's northern borders with Lebanon and Syria.

In a rare clash along the Syrian border last month Israel shot down an anti-aircraft missile fired at its planes as they were carrying out an airstrike on a suspected Hezbollah weapons convoy from Syria to Hezbollah militants in Lebanon.

Israel is also on alert in the south of the country after Gaza's Hamas rulers accused it of assassinating a member of the Islamic militant group.

An annual intelligence assessment found that both Hezbollah and Hamas are probably not interested in sparking a war in 2017, but it warned of the danger of a dynamic of escalation leading to conflict.

In February, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah said Hezbollah was not seeking a resumption of hostilities. But he vowed that if war did begin, his forces would strike Israel's Dimona nuclear facilities.