In Wake of Chemical Attack, Trump Shifts Position, Claiming a “responsibility” to Act

Sadly, American president Donald J. Trump has been badly misled by a false flag gas attack on civilians in Syria.

Trump blames Syrian President Bashar Assad for the attack. Presumably this is what American and Israeli intelligence have told the President.

This would be the same intelligence people that claimed that Sadam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction–weapons that were never found.

Trump’s shift away from regime change in Syria toward taking action against Assad, who is backed by Russia, is fraught with danger. This Tweet shows the progression from peace toward war:

The President would do well to listen to Ron Paul, who believes that the Syrian gas attack is a false flag. Logic is on Ron Paul’s side. Assad had everything to lose by using gas. The American (((neocons))) had everything to gain. Ron Paul is an eloquent voice for truth.

Here’s the story, as covered by the leftist British Telegraph newspaper.

telegraph.co.uk

Donald Trump has raised the prospect of military action against the Syrian regime after he said that Bashar al-Assad has “crossed a lot of lines” and the US has a “responsibility” to act.

The US president said Tuesday’s chemical weapons attack, which intelligence officials say was undoubtedly launched by regime war planes, was an “affront to humanity”.

At least 73 people were killed, 23 of whom were children, in the sarin gas attack in the rebel-held Idlib province.

The US response to the attack is being viewed as Mr Trump’s first major foreign policy test.

Speaking at a White House press conference, the President suggested that the US would now respond to the Assad regime. When asked how he planned to respond, Mr Trump told reporters: “You’ll see.”

Mr Trump’s comments came after Nikki Haley, the US ambassador to the United Nations, condemned the UN Security Council’s failure to intervene in the Syrian civil war.

She said: “When the United Nations consistently fails in its duty to act collectively, there are times in the life of states that we are compelled to take our own action.”

Mr Trump said: “A chemical attack that was so horrific in Syria, against women and small children, and even beautiful little babies, and their deaths, was an affront to humanity.”

“These heinous acts by the Assad regime cannot be tolerated. The US stands with our allies across the globe to condemn this horrific attack.”

The Trump administration had said only last week that US diplomatic policy on Syria was no longer focused on making Mr Assad leave power.

Assad had no chemical weapons, but guess who did.

Wow! The Deep State has pushed Trump toward war in Syria via a false flag, while at the same time taking the heat off Obama’s National Security Adviser Susan Rice, accused of “unmasking” Trump and his team members in intel reports.

Balanced reporting came from RT:

RT.com

“We deny completely the use of any chemical or toxic material in Khan Sheikhoun town today and the army has not used nor will use in any place or time, neither in past or in future,” the Syrian army said in a statement.

The Russian military stated it did not carry out any airstrike in the area either.

However, EU foreign affairs chief Federica Mogherini, commenting on the incident, was quick to point to the Syrian government as a culprit, saying that it bears responsibility for the “awful” attack.

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson echoed Mogherini, accusing the Syrian government of perpetrating the attack calling it “brutal, unabashed barbarism.” He argued, that besides the Syrian authorities, Iran and Russia should also bear “moral responsibility” for it.

Trump is being ill served by his advisers. Mr. President, you’re being lied to. Listen to Ron Paul and don’t let the warmongers bait you.

Faith Spotted Eagle Received More Electoral Votes Than Embarrassing Green Party Candidate (((Jill Stein)))

FAITH SPOTTED EAGLE. THE PIPELINE PROTESTER RECEIVED ONE VOTE.

Jill Stein ran for president. Faith Spotted Eagle didn’t run. She still got an electoral vote as did Ron Paul and several others.

The state map is a little out of date, but offers a visual reminder of how the Electoral College vote went on Monday.

270towin.com

December 19, 2016

Donald J. Trump was confirmed as president-elect today by members of the Electoral College, winning at least 304 electoral votes. Texas put Trump over the top as it cast its vote after 5PM ET today. 304 is likely to be Trump’s final number, as the three states yet to vote – California, Nevada and Hawaii – were won by Hillary Clinton on Election Day. Should those electors all vote as pledged, Clinton will end up with 228 votes.

In the end, there wasn’t a lot of drama in the vote. There were 6 faithless electors, however, including 4 in Washington and two in Texas. While a small number, this is the highest number of faithless electors for president since the 19th century. There were attempts by electors in Colorado, Maine and Minnesota to cast faithless votes, but these were disallowed.

Trump will be sworn in as the 45th president at noon on January 20, 2017.

More

The Washington Secretary of State is reporting 4 faithless electors in today’s ballot, with 8 votes going to Hillary Clinton, who won the popular vote there.

Three of the faithless electors voted for former Secretary of State Colin Powell, with one voting for Faith Spotted Eagle.

There have been other attempts today at electors voting other than pledged; these are apparently the first ones to be allowed.

Reason

The Electoral College voted today, bringing the weirdest election in generations to a suitably strange end. The final tally: 304 votes for Donald Trump, 227 for Hillary Clinton, three for Colin Powell, one for Ron Paul, one for Bernie Sanders, one for John Kasich, and one for anti-DAPL activist Faith Spotted Eagle. Trump was “supposed” to get 306, but two Republican electors in Texas broke with the pack, one voting for Kasich and one for Paul. Clinton was “supposed” to get 232, but four Democrats in Washington state and one in Hawaii decided to go rogue too. (The Sanders voter was the Hawaiian.)

The last time this many people showed up in the Electoral College results was 1796, and that was back when presidential and vice-presidential candidates were selected from the same vote.

Clinton would have had an even lower total if three states hadn’t reeled in their rebels. A Democratic elector in Maine initially voted for Sanders, but his ballot was ruled improper so he changed his choice. An elector in Minnesota tried to back Sanders too, but the authorities replaced him with a pro-Clinton alternate. And a Colorado elector tried to vote for Kasich, but he was bumped by an alternate as well. In Texas, meanwhile, one elector resigned rather than vote for Trump. There too, a substitute was found.

Here’s Ron Paul weighing in on the issue of whether to abolish the Electoral College:

Seven Amazing Photos From December 7, 1941

That last photo shows the man who wanted war with Japan, no matter the cost in American lives. Let’s never forget General Smedley Butler’s dictim: All wars are banker’s wars.

jew-dollar-gif

The Pearl Harbor photos were sourced from Buzzfeed. There are 23 more equally dramatic photos at the link.

Trump is meeting with an ex-bank CEO who wants to abolish the US Federal Reserve

Boise Idaho Tea Party - Save The US Abolish the Federal Reserve

President-elect Trump ought to be meeting with Ron Paul.

Business Insider Australia

As President-elect’s Donald Trump’s transition rolls on, more and more attention is being paid to possible selections for a variety of high ranking positions, and meetings that might help decide these appointments.

On Monday, Trump will meet with John Allison, the former CEO of the Winston-Salem, NC-based bank BB&T and former CEO of the conservative think tank The Cato Institute.

While it is unclear what Allison is being considered for, there have been reports that he is being considered for the Chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Treasury Secretary, or a spot as the Federal Reserve Governor of Oversight.

The last possible appointment is interesting given Trump’s statements on the campaign trail have questioned the future of the Federal Reserve’s political independence. Allison actually takes that rhetoric a step further. While running the The Cato Institute, Allison wrote a paper in support of abolishing the Fed altogether.

“I would get rid of the Federal Reserve because the volatility in the economy is primarily caused by the Fed,” wrote Allison in a 2014 article for the Cato Journal, a publication of the Institute.

Allison said in the article that simply allowing the market to regulate itself would be preferable to the Fed harming the stability of the financial system.

“When the Fed is radically changing the money supply, distorting interest rates, and over-regulating the financial sector, it makes rational economic calculation difficult,” wrote Allison. “Markets do form bubbles, but the Fed makes them worse.”

Allison, in the same paper, also suggested that the government’s practice of insuring bank deposits up to $250,000 should be abolished and the US should go back to a banking system backed by “a market standard such as gold.”

Allison also argued for higher capital reserves of up to 20% of assets at banks. On the other hand, he also argued that the government should repeal three of the broadest banking regulations.

“We should raise capital standards, but it is even more important to eliminate burdensome regulations — including Dodd-Frank, the Community Reinvestment Act, and Truth in Lending,” wrote Allison. “About 25% of a bank’s personnel cost relates to regulations. Banks cannot pay the regulatory costs and have high capital standards.”

This is similar to Trump’s desire to roll back regulation — including Dodd-Frank — on financial institutions, though he has back-tracked somewhat on those promises.

It is unclear if any of Allison’s policy views will ultimately become a part of Trump’s plan going forward, but given the unconventional nature of his ideas, the meeting is notable.

federal reserve sunk america

Will Donald Trump Abolish or Reform the Fed or Let It Be?

david dees-bank federal reserve fed

Link to Google search for “abolish the fed”

Link to Ron Paul’s amazon page for End the Fed

In this piece the New York Times lays out some recent Federal Reserve history, while discussing the options open to President Trump.

New York Times via archive.is

WASHINGTON — Paul A. Volcker, the Federal Reserve chairman, received an urgent warning two weeks after Ronald Reagan won the 1980 presidential election. Some of the president-elect’s advisers, he was told, wanted to abolish the central bank and replace it with a computer program that would manage interest rates and monetary policy.

Today, a Democratic Fed leader is once again bracing to see whether victorious and emboldened Republicans will try to overhaul the central bank.

In almost three years as the Fed’s chairwoman, Janet L. Yellen has led an aggressive campaign to stimulate economic growth. Donald J. Trump, the president-elect, has embraced criticism that the Fed is causing more problems than it is solving, and he has surrounded himself with advisers who would like to rein in the institution that has the greatest influence over the direction of the nation’s economy.

Mr. Trump can fill a majority of the Fed’s seven-member board with his own nominees over the next 18 months, including replacing Ms. Yellen in February 2018. He also could work with Congress on new constraints, including some form of an old idea on the right that a formula should dictate the Fed’s movements of interest rates.

Or Mr. Trump could emulate Mr. Reagan and leave the central bank alone.

When the two men finally met, Mr. Reagan asked Mr. Volcker why the country needed a central bank. He apparently found the answer convincing. Like other presidents in recent decades, he decided the Fed was reasonably effective and useful as a scapegoat. And in 1983, he nominated Mr. Volcker for a second term.

Mr. Trump’s intentions are unclear in part because there is a tension between his personal preferences and his political commitments. He is a borrower who now heads the political party that has long represented the interests of lenders.

Here’s a short video by (((John Stossel))) detailing some criticisms of the Fed:

Continue reading

Ron Paul Relates Obama’s Historic Loss of American Influence in Phillipines

duterte in china

Rody Duterte wants what American nationalists want: He wants to put his country first.

He may appear to be reckless in his statements in the same way that Donald Trump appears reckless. That’s mostly because we’re not used to hearing the truth.

Rody even called out the Jew, but later and perhaps wiser, walked back his comments about them. To me, it’s enjoyable watching him stand up to America’s worst president in memory, Obama.

Reading between the lines in this piece authored by Ron Paul, it is clear that the great libertarian champion understands that American aggression and abuse of its allies under Obama has created a problem.

Lew Rockwell

While the mainstream media continues its obsessive reporting on the mud-slinging campaign for the White House, a dramatic development in China last week brought President Obama’s “pivot to Asia” to a sudden halt. Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte, while in Beijing, announced his country’s “separation” from the United States. He told his Chinese audience, “Your honors, in this venue, I announce my separation from the United States … both in the military, but also economics.’’

The State Department was stunned and asked for a clarification. The Philippines has been a virtual US protectorate since 1898 when it became US property after the Spanish-American war. Even after gaining independence after World War II it remained a close Cold War ally, hosting US military bases until 1992. Just this spring, as US tensions with China, were heating up over a Chinese reclamation project in the South China Sea, the US signed a deal to open five military bases in the Philippine territory. The deal was considered of major importance in an increasingly confrontational US approach to the region.

Suddenly it appeared the deal was off. Were the Philippines about to sever diplomatic relations with the United States?

Shortly after making the statement, the Philippine president walked back slightly from what appeared a break with the United States. He did not mean total separation, he said, but rather a desire to loosen his country from the firm grip of US foreign policy. But the point had been made. The Philippines was not happy in its current relationship with Washington.

President Obama’s “pivot to Asia” has turned out not to mean improved trade and diplomatic ties with the region, but an aggressive stance toward China over, among other issues, the South China Sea. The US has concluded military agreements with Vietnam and the Philippines and maintains strong military ties with Japan and South Korea.

The Philippines has been used as a US cat’s paw in South China Sea dispute and Duterte’s surprise statement signaled that he felt the relationship was too one-sided.

But the tension has been rising and the mood souring for some time. The US State Department has been critical of President Duterte’s admittedly brutal crackdown on illegal drugs, which has cost perhaps 2,000 or more lives. In August, Secretary of State John Kerry conveyed the US government’s concerns. As elsewhere, such condemnation by the US likely seemed hypocritical to the Philippine president, as the US leads the world in prison population with a large percentage serving long terms for non-violent drug crimes.

Last week a large protest was held in front of the US embassy in Manila in support of the president’s move toward a foreign policy independent from Washington. Demonstrators burned American flags and demanded the departure of US troops from their country.

Will US-Philippine relations continue to spiral downward? Or will Washington begin to see that its aggressive foreign policy, in Asia and elsewhere, is beginning to alienate allies? Or perhaps the next US administration will decide that a CIA “regime change” is in order for the independent-minded Philippine president. A US pivot away from confrontation with China would go a long way toward repairing strained relations with the Philippines and beyond. Let’s hope that’s Washington’s next move.

Donald Trump is Right: 100 Reasons to Audit the Fed

trump cap washington

The Fed is a Jewish creation, headed by Jews for decades. It is a foreign idea, un-American in its concept. Don’t just audit the Fed, abolish it.

Zerohedge

When a leading nominee for President gets something exactly right, we should applaud them for it. In this case, Donald Trump’s call to audit the Federal Reserve is dead on correct. Most Americans don’t realize this, but the Federal Reserve has far more power over the economy than anyone else does – including Barack Obama.

Financial markets all over the planet gyrate wildly at the smallest comment from Fed officials, and virtually every boom and bust cycle over the past 100 years can be traced directly back to specific decisions made by the Federal Reserve. We get all excited about what various presidential candidates say that they “will do for the economy”, but in the end it is the Fed that is holding all of the cards. The funny thing is that the Federal Reserve is not even part of the federal government. It is an independent private central bank that was designed by very powerful Wall Street interests a little over 100 years ago. It is at the heart of the debt-based financial system which is eating away at America like cancer, and it has no direct accountability to the American people whatsoever.

trump frog gun

Continue reading