Thursday, January 4, 2018


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
For years the U.S. has been showering billions upon various entities, hoping to buy their loyalty or at least compliance. We’ve been played for easy marks by the sharpies of the world. President Trump is calling a halt. He is the first President even to threaten to call a halt. This is the first administration to show that intimidation and bullying are no longer currency in the White House.

“Trump threatens stop to Palestinian aid over Jerusalem row,” BBC, January 3, 2018:
The US may stop aid payments to Palestinians who are “no longer willing to talk peace”, President Trump said.
On Twitter, Mr Trump said the United States received “no appreciation or respect” in return for its aid.
He also said his controversial recognition of the contested city of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital took the hugely divisive issue “off the table” for new peace talks.
Palestinians had said the move showed the US could not be a neutral broker.
Soon after Washington’s decision was announced in December, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said he would not accept any US peace plan for the Middle East.
The decision on Jerusalem was also overwhelmingly condemned at the United Nations, where 128 countries voted against Mr Trump’s fulfilment of a campaign promise.
The US president was following up earlier comments about aid payments to Pakistan, in which he said the US had received only “lies and deceit” in exchange for billions of dollars in aid.
Jerusalem is one of the world’s most contested sites.
Israel claims the whole of the city as its capital. The Palestinians want East Jerusalem, occupied by Israel in the 1967 Middle East war, to be the capital of a future Palestinian state.
Mr Trump, however, decided to formally recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, despite being warned it could cause unrest in the region.
He also said he would move the US embassy there from Tel Aviv, where all other nations have their consulates.
For the Palestinians, Mr Abbas said: “The United States has proven to be a dishonest mediator in the peace process.”
He also called Jerusalem the “eternal capital of the state of Palestine”.

How did the Palestinians respond to Mr Trump’s threat to cut aid?

Angrily. A Twitter feed of the governing Palestine Liberation Organisation accused Mr Trump of sabotaging their “search for peace”.

What kind of aid does the US send to Palestinians?

Mr Trump’s tweets followed remarks from Nikki Haley, the US envoy to the United Nations, in which she said the US would stop contributing to the UN’s relief agency for Palestinian refugees.
The agency runs education, health, and social programmes. The United States is its largest governmental donor, handing over almost $370m (£270m) in 2016.
Speaking at a news conference, Ms Haley said: “The president has basically said that he doesn’t want to give any additional funding, or stop funding, until the Palestinians are agreeing to come back to the negotiation table.”…


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Is London descending into chaos because Sadiq Khan is a Muslim? No, London is descending into chaos because its voters put identity over competence, and elected this man because he was a Muslim, to prove to the world that they were not racist, not because he would make a capable mayor.

“Sadiq’s London: Knife Crime, Gun Crime, Theft, Burglary, Rape, Homicide all MASSIVELY Up,” by Raheem Kassam, Breitbart, January 2, 2018:
Britain’s media celebrated in droves when London elected its first Muslim mayor, Sadiq Khan, in May 2016.
Now the cacophony caused by the “we’re not racist” backslapping has ended, the true implications of a Khan mayoralty are being realised.
In Britain’s capital over the past year, Khan presided over rises in knife crime, gun crime, theft, burglary, rape, homicide, and more. And not just by a little bit, either.
Some in the media — by which I mean basically just me — predicted Khan might be a disaster for London, but the extent to which this is true was beyond even our worst nightmares.
Parking the anecdotal evidence of Khan giving preference to genital mutilation-linked groups, and using his platform to agitate against the U.S. President, the statistics reveal a terrifying incompetence in keeping London safe — one of the mayor’s core areas of responsibility.
Data from the Mayor of London’s Police and Crime Office — led by former lobbyist-turned-Deputy Mayor Sophie Linden — reveals a sharp uptick in violent crime in Khan’s first year.
From the years 2015/16 to 2016/17, homicides in London rose by 27.1 per cent. Youth homicide jumped 70 per cent. Serious youth violence was up 19 per cent. Robbery was up 33.4 per cent, while home burglaries rose by 18.7 per cent.
Theft went up by over 10,000 incidents in a year, up 33.9 per cent, and there were more than 4,000 additional knife crime incidents under Khan than under his predecessor, a rise of 31.3 per cent.
Rape in the capital rose by 18.3 per cent, while there were 2,551 incidents of gun crime, representing a rise of 16.3 per cent on the previous year.
The Mayor has continuously blamed central government “police cuts” for the problems faced, but statistics reveal London only lost around 1,000 police officers (3 per cent) in the past year, reducing the workforce from 31,343 to 30,379.
The report compares November to October data from the years 2015/16 and 2016/17.
Earlier this year London overtook New York City as one of the most dangerous capital cities in the Western world. The House of Commons recently revealed the UK capital has more acid attacks per capita than any other city in the world.
The Guido Fawkes blog notes: “In the years before Khan became mayor the numbers had fallen significantly – the Tories had got the numbers down to between 10 and 15 deaths of young people per year from over 30” and asks: “Why isn’t Sadiq facing more pressure on this? It should really be a much bigger story…”…


 Rand Paul: Pakistan Burns Our Flag And Imprisons Christians
 Senator repeats Trump’s call to end aid
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Senator Rand Paul repeated a call by the President this week to end aid to Pakistan, saying that Trump is right because Pakistan provides a safe haven for terrorists, incarcerates Christians, and hates the US.
Appearing on Fox News Channel’s “Your World,” Paul said that aid should not be given to countries who deny human rights and openly oppose US principles.

“I think most Americans would support the president on this. Why don’t we like to see our money going to countries that burn our flag?” Paul said.
“In Pakistan, they incarcerate Christians.” he added, explaining that “There is a Christian Asia Bibi that’s been on death row for five years.”
“They put a Dr. Shakil Afridi in jail for 33 years. He’s the guy that helps us get bin Laden.” Paul added, noting that “They looked the other way that bin Laden was there over a decade.”
“So yes there should be conditions to it. We shouldn’t give money to countries that have mass protests burning our flag and put Christians in jail for gossip.” Paul exclaimed.
“There’s no reason in the world we should give them one penny when they put Christians in jail or put people in jail that helped to get us bin Laden. That shows to me to—makes me think that they don’t care about being our ally.” he added.
“At the very least, if you give people money, they ought to be your friend and they ought to be your ally. There’s some question whether Pakistani intelligence cooperates with the network that kills our soldiers across the border in Afghanistan.” Paul continued.
“Yeah, Americans agree with the president. We ought to quit sending good money after bad.” The Senator urged.
Paul added that he has discussed with Trump how to put the money to better use.
“And what I discussed with the president, I have an idea for using some of that money at home. We have bridges, roads that need repair. Keep that money at home and put it to rebuilding our infrastructure here at home.” he stated.
Trump tweeted a promise Tuesday to put a halt to Pakistan receiving billions of dollars from the US government every year for the last decade and a half.
The President said that no more will he tolerate the Pakistani authorities ‘lies and deceit’, and ‘thinking of our leaders as fools’.
Paul responded to give a whole hearted thumbs up to Trump’s sentiment, noting that he himself has advocated ending aid to Pakistan for years.
It was reported last week that the administration is considering withholding $225 million in aid to Pakistan over frustration with its handling of terror networks.
Pakistan’s defense minister responded to Trump Monday, saying that the US has acted with “nothing but invective and mistrust” toward Pakistan for years.
“[Pakistan] as anti-terror ally has given free to US: land & air communication, military bases & intel cooperation that decimated Al-Qaeda over last 16yrs, but they have given us nothing but invective & mistrust,” Khurram Dastgir-Khan tweeted.
The US ambassador to Pakistan, David Hale, was reportedly summoned to the Pakistani foreign ministry to explain Trump’s comments.


 Civil liberties. They include the legal right to exercise freedom of thought, speech, conscience, and religious belief. Autonomy. Protection of autonomy and bodily integrity includes the human right to exercise informed consent to medical risk taking. What is informed consent? Informed consent means you have the legal right to be fully and accurately informed about the benefits and risks of a medical intervention, including a pharmaceutical product, and be free to make a voluntary decision about whether to accept the risk for yourself or your minor child without being coerced or punished for the decision you make. Informed consent has guided the ethical practice of medicine since the doctors’ trial at Nuremberg after World War II.

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
As the American people and the Trump administration work to rein in the international dictators club, the mass-murdering dictator ruling mainland China vowed in his New Year's address to “resolutely uphold the authority and status of the United Nations.” Pledging to “chart the future” for all of “humanity,”  Chinese Communist Party boss Xi Jinping (shown) also claimed his regime would serve as “keeper of international order.” The controversial statements sparked concerns among analysts worried about an increasingly belligerent dictatorship in China that now has its agents in leadership roles across the “global governance” system. In short, freedom is being threatened, worldwide.
In his New Year's address, delivered on December 31 of 2017, Xi repeatedly emphasized the notion that the Communist Chinese regime was a “responsible” and “major” player in the world. “China will resolutely uphold the authority and status of the United Nations, actively fulfill China’s international obligations and duties, remain firmly committed to China’s pledges to tackle climate change, actively push for the Belt and Road Initiative, and always be a builder of world peace, contributor of global development and keeper of international order,” Xi declared in his speech. “The Chinese people are ready to chart out a more prosperous, peaceful future for humanity, with people from other countries.”
Breaking down those comments, and considering them in light of recent developments, it becomes clear that the international system of “global governance,” as globalists refer to it, is increasingly under the sway of the most murderous regime in recorded human history. In fact, as The New American warned years ago, the globalist-backed Communist regime in China is being positioned by the internationalist establishment as a leading force in what both globalists and Chinese Communists often refer to as the “New World Order.” The UN and its affiliates will be the key players, if the establishment gets its way.
Examining Xi's New Year statements, which were no doubt thoroughly considered before being made publicly, yields significant clues as to Beijing's vision for the world. In the United States, the American people and their elected representatives in both parties are becoming increasingly weary of the UN. Indeed, the bid for a complete U.S. withdrawal from the UN has become a mainstream position shared by grassroots Americans and even political leaders. Even globalist-minded leaders from both parties have spoken of defunding the UN. Trump, too, has vowed to rein in the UN, even announcing an American exit from various UN agencies and agreements. And so, it is very significant that the Communist Chinese regime vowed to “resolutely uphold the authority and status of the United Nations.”
But what that means, exactly, is not clear. For instance, would Communist China take action if Congress were to challenge UN “authority” and pass the American Sovereignty Restoration Act (H.R. 193), which would end U.S. involvement in the UN? The UN routinely condemns America for alleged “violations” of what it calls “international law” — everything from gun rights and spankings for children, to free speech and federalism, to limited government and repealing ObamaCare, have been declared violations of global “law” by UN officials. The Communist Chinese regime has declared Americans' gun rights to be a “human rights” violation, too. What, if anything, does the regime in China intend to do to enforce these illegitimate UN decrees as part of upholding the alleged “authority” of the UN? Xi did not say.
The dictator's claim that Beijing will “fulfill China’s international obligations and duties” is less surprising. While the communist regime routinely violates the God-given rights of its subjects — forced abortions, torture, murder of dissidents, harvesting organs from religious minorities, mass censorship, ethnic cleansing, cultural genocide in Tibet, and more — that appears to be compatible with its so-called “international obligations.” Indeed, Article 29 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights makes clear that there are no real rights, as they can all be limited “by law,” and that even your privileges can “never be used contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.” Still, when UN kangaroo courts rule against Beijing, it tends to ignore the "ruling."
On alleged man-made “climate change,” the Chinese regime vowed to “remain firmly committed to China’s pledges to tackle climate change.” That, too, is no surprise. In fact, China's totalitarian rulers have been laughing all the way to the bank since 2015, when Obama pretended to commit the United States to the UN “Paris Agreement” mandating economic suicide for the West and mass subsidies for China and Third World kleptocrats. Under the UN “climate” regime, which Trump has vowed to exit, the Chinese pledged to continue emitting more and more CO2 (the gas of life) for years to come, while the Obama administration promised to use illegal executive decrees to radically slash U.S. energy production and prosperity to accomplish literally nothing for the environment.
Xi also promised to “actively push for the Belt and Road Initiative.” As documented by The New American and many other sources, this scheme, despite being marketed as a “win-win” way to boost trade, is much more than that. With help from the UN, the regime in Beijing intends to dominate — economically and politically — the Eurasian landmass, with its power reaching into Africa and Europe. The UN is fully onboard. “While the Belt and Road Initiative and the 2030 Agenda are different in their nature and scope, both have sustainable development as the overarching objective,” explained Socialist UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, with “sustainable development” a phrase used to describe a totalitarian UN-backed ideology seeking to centralize and expand coercive controls over humanity. 
The Chinese dictator's pledge to serve as “keeper of international order” is highly significant. The official narrative on world order, as pushed in the globalist establishment's leading propaganda organs, is that Trump is retreating from international leadership, putting what they call the “liberal world order” at risk. Also part of this bogus narrative is that the mass-murdering regime in China is valiantly and somewhat reluctantly stepping into the void to protect and preserve globalism, multilateralism, global governance, and more from a rogue president in the White House. However, as this magazine has documented, the globalist show is being engineered for public consumption — and the end result will be international tyranny if the agenda is not stopped.
Perhaps most alarming, Xi said in his speech that globalist Western leaders and elites were fully onboard with his vision of a Communist Chinese-led world order. At the G20 Summit and the World Economic Forum in Davos, a premier gathering of globalists where Xi gave a keynote speech, the dictator said he had “in-depth” exchanges of views with “concerted parties,” as Beijing's propaganda and espionage service Xinhua put it. “They are all in favor of the joint building of a community with a shared future for humanity,” Xi said, promising that the global order they all seek would “benefit people across the world.” He did not say whether Trump, who attended the G20 but not the WEF, agreed with the vision.
The bizarre remarks by Chinese Communist Party boss Xi Jinping come just weeks after UN General Assembly President Miroslav Lajcak, also an unrepentant Communist Party operative, praised Beijing's growing role in “global affairs.” “I am also heartened by China's pledge to join the new UN Peacekeeping Capability Readiness System (PCRS) and take the lead in setting up a permanent peacekeeping police squad and building a peacekeeping standby force of 8,000 troops,” Lajcak was quoted as saying by Xinhua, a propaganda organ and espionage front for the Chinese Communist Party.
On the domestic front, Xi vowed to continue oppressing the Chinese people under the guise of ensuring their “well-being,” as defined by the Communist Party. “That is why we should strengthen our sense of responsibility, and do a good job of ensuring the people's well-being,” Xi said. “The well-being of our people is the Party and the government's greatest political achievement. Our cadres should put the people's state of living at the heart, and help them live a better life.” Following a recent trip to China by Barack Obama after Trump's trip, Chinese propaganda organs referred to Obama as a “veteran cadre,” too, a term normally reserved for leading communists.
The fact that the brutal dictator of China is now so bold and brazen in openly proclaiming the global ambitions of his murderous autocracy should be cause for alarm to freedom-loving peoples everywhere. However, despite the sense of confidence expressed by globalists and communists united in common cause, the battle for freedom and self-government is by no means over yet. In fact, with the American people waking up to the dangers of globalism and statism in record numbers, the establishment's best laid plans may be facing the greatest challenge to date.

Related articles:
China: Staking Claim in the New World Order
In Davos, Globalists Hail Leadership of Communist Chinese Tyrant
GOP Sends Delegate to Communist Chinese Political Party Meeting
California Joins Forces With Communist Regime Against U.S.
Communist China Opens “Global Governance” School
Trump’s China Entourage: Heavy With Goldman Sachs, Rothschild, CFR Globalists
“Death By China” Film Exposes Suicidal U.S. Policy
Chinese Tyranny 2.0
UN Joins Beijing to Advance Globalism With “One Belt, One Road”
Chinese Mega-bank Partners With World Bank for New World Order
Remembering the Mass-murderer Mao
Why Is the UN Protecting Child Rapists?
U.S. Independence Attacked as Never Before by UN Interdependence
United Nations Exploits Pseudo-“Human Rights” to Attack U.S.

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Are top-level members of the Trump administration colluding on ways to oust President Trump? Are members of Trump’s Cabinet and National Security Council plotting a coup? Is National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster among those whom former Trump political adviser Roger Stone alleges (see here and here) have been having “conversations” about removing Trump from office? There is ample reason for seriously considering the stunning allegations. And there is good reason to believe that General McMaster (shown) would figure prominently in any such effort.
Ever since his election, there has been speculation that the “Deep State” (or the “establishment”), the globalists who operate as the “permanent government” of the United States — through both Democratic and Republican administrations would attempt to remove President Trump from office — by one means or another. This is not tinfoil hat conspiracy theory; it has been obvious from Day One in office (actually, even before his inauguration) that this president is being subjected to unprecedented, coordinated attacks from within and without, including most especially from the internationalist political operatives who control our intelligence agencies, the State Department, the National Security Council, and numerous other agencies in the federal bureaucracy. These operatives have engaged in a steady beat of critically timed leaks to their Deep State allies at the New York Times, Washington Post, Politico, CNN and other organs of the virulently anti-Trump “mainstream” media thought cartel. The leaks — many of which carry criminal penalties for releasing classified national security information — all aim at crippling and damaging President Trump politically.
Together with the non-stop attacks accusing him of racism, misogyny, sexual harassment, Islamophobia, xenophobia, etc., the Deep State opponents hope to bludgeon President Trump until he is sufficiently damaged, to the point that he can be removed by impeachment, or invoking the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. If those efforts fail, there is always resort to the more extreme option — Plan C. The “25th Amendment solution,” has been pushed for months now by The Atlantic, the National Constitution Center, CNN, the New York Times, Washington Post, and the other usual suspects. Under this controversial application of the constitutional provision for presidential succession, a majority of the Cabinet, together with the vice president (Mike Pence) would declare President Trump unfit for office due to “inability to discharge the powers or duties of his office.” Since President Trump is not physically incapacitated, the self-appointed removers have relentlessly attacked him on supposed mental and psychological infirmities. Since President Trump would not likely concede to such a “soft coup,” the matter would then go to Congress, which would need to support the removal by a two-thirds vote margin in both the House and Senate.
CFR’s Max Boot: “Cri du Coeur From Inside the Deep State”
Where does Herbert Raymond McMaster fit in all of this? He is, most likely, one of the top Deep State actors orchestrating the moves to undermine President Trump. As we reported on December 29 (Deep State Boasts: We’re Sabotaging Trump From the Inside), McMaster has been repeatedly singled out for praise by the anti-Trump globalists, especially those associated with the Deep State’s premier Brain Trust, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Most recently, the CFR has congratulated McMaster (a CFR member) and Nadia Schadlow (also CFR) for sabotaging President Trump’s first National Security Strategy (NSS) report, for cleverly (and subversively) replacing “Trumpian” notions — such as defending national sovereignty and promoting America First — with the internationalist, pro-UN, pro-world government positions that have become “traditional” in the higher levels of the Democrat-Republican duopoly that has run the country for much of the past century. CFR Senior Fellow Max Boot, a “Republican” who endorsed Hillary Clinton for president, approvingly described the McMaster-Schadlow contributions to the Trump NSS as a “cri du coeur [cry of the heart] from inside the Deep State signaling to the outside world that Trumpian thinking has not entirely taken over the U.S. government.” Yes, and it was also signaling to other Deep State operatives that anti-Trump opponents within the highest levels of the administration believe they are ascendant and have such power and influence that they can get away with thumbing their noses at their boss. Moreover, it would appear to be one of many signals emanating from the Deep State’s network that the time may be soon approaching to make the Big Play. As we reported, Max Boot’s essay is accompanied on the CFR website by similar praise for Mc Master’s NSS subversion from CFR President Richard Haass and the CFR’s Senior Fellow for Global Governance Stewart Patrick.
Boosting McMaster, Trashing Trump
Another of the many important recent signals in that respect is the sneak preview of the NSS provided by Kate Brannen in The Atlantic, one of the media attack dogs most relentlessly baying at Trump, snapping at his heels, and lunging for his throat. Her piece, “Trump's National Security Strategy is Decidedly Non-Trumpian,” carried this subtitle: “An exclusive preview of the White House's plan highlights the wide gulf between what the president says and what he does.”
The Atlantic’s “exclusive preview” — 10 days before the White House released the document — was made possible, Ms. Brannen informs the reader, thanks to “a Trump administration staffer who reviewed a draft of the document — and shared key excerpts with me.” The fact that a source high enough up in the administration (in the White House, the NSC, or the Cabinet) would leak the document, especially to a hostile reporter at a hostile publication, should confirm to any sentient being that President Trump has backstabbers close to the throne.
“A few classically Trumpian themes are there — the wall, concern over trade imbalances — but much of the document reflects the values and priorities of the president’s predecessors,” Brannen notes, regarding the NSS. Pre-empting the CFR’s Max Boot, she credits this continuity — which contradicts the president’s stated policies — to McMaster and Schadlow. “The draft document,” she says, “was spearheaded by Nadia Schadlow, senior director for strategy on the National Security Council (NSC). Schadlow is regarded as a conservative foreign-policy expert based on her experience in the establishment think-tank world, including stints at the Council on Foreign Relations and the Smith Richardson Foundation. She joined the NSC at Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster’s request after he took over as national security adviser following retired Lieutenant General Michael Flynn’s resignation in February.”
As we noted in our previous article, the pundits and media-cited experts invariably try to misdirect readers/viewers and bolster Schadlow's credibility by describing her as "conservative," implying, of course, that her globalist ties and views should not be viewed with suspicion. And, naturally, Brannen has no trouble finding academic “experts” to weigh in in favor of the McMaster/Schadlow team and against Trump. “The NSS drafters did an admirable job of trying to square the president's views with longstanding American principles and interests, but the variance with the president's own behavior is so wide as to make the document incredible,” former NSC and State Department staffer Kori Schake told her. Besides being a CFR member (which Brannen doesn't mention), Schake is a fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and co-editor of the book Warriors and Citizens with Trump’s Defense Secretary James Mattis. Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson are two of the other top-level administration members that receive generally positive reviews from the establishment Swamp Creatures and their media compadres. Like McMaster, Mattis and Tillerson are presented as being “moderating” influences on an otherwise dangerous and out-of-control president.
Brannen also quotes former Obama NSC official Joshua Geltzer (CFR), now a professor at Georgetown Law School. “Whatever value the language of an NSS has, that value depends on the credibility of the deeds and other words that might back it up,” Joshua Geltzer said. “Sadly, there's been too much in the past year designed to stoke fear and sow schisms to make credible language of unity, however much I do crave such unity.”
Among the many alleged sins that Brannen accuses President Trump of is that “He has undermined the rule of law repeatedly, personally attacking specific judges, the federal judiciary more broadly, as well as the FBI, the Justice Department and their leaders, some of whom he picked.” That is rich, coming from a rabidly partisan “journalist” who assists and praises those who violate our laws and jeopardize our national security, and whose publication has ceaselessly attacked the president.
The Atlantic, by the way, is one of the many establishment media organs that endorsed Hillary Clinton. The Atlantic’s publisher, David G. Bradley, is a member of the CFR, as is veteran leftwing correspondent James Fallows. Bradley sold the majority share in the company to the Emerson Collective, a leftwing outfit led by Laurene Powell Jobs (CFR), the billionaire widow of Apple Inc. co-founder Steve Jobs, but has stayed on to continue building the Washington, D.C.-based media empire’s influence among the Swamp supporters. Bradley, Jobs, and the folks at The Atlantic are so venomously anti-Trump that when Politico fired reporter Julia Ioffe for an extremely crude F-bomb tweet suggesting an incestuous relationship between President Trump and his daughter Ivanka, The Atlantic immediately hired Ioffe to cover politics and national security.
The Atlantic’s Kate Brannen also writes for Foreign Policy, a publication launched in 1970 by the globalist Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, but purchased in 2013 by the CFR-dominated Washington Post Co. (now rebranded as Graham Holdings Company). Writers for Foreign Policy tilt heavily to the Democratic portside and many are prominent Swamp denizens. Like the CFR’s own in-house journal, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy depends heavily on CFR “experts,” but takes a more openly “progressive” stance on most issues.
McMaster’s Night of the Long Knives: Purging Trump Loyalists
On May 9, 2017, Brannen rushed to McMaster’s defense with a Foreign Policy article titled, “The Knives Are Out for Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster.” “In the White House ‘Game of Thrones for morons,’” Brannen wrote, “Steve Bannon is trying to turn the president against his national security advisor.” Brannen’s Foreign Policy piece was playing off of a similar piece written the day before by Eli Lake for Bloomberg News titled, “Washington Loves General McMaster, But Trump Doesn't.” (Michael Bloomberg, of course, is a member of the CFR and his company is a CFR “President’s Circle” corporate member.) Lake and Brannen paint a picture of the noble, duty-bound, “brilliant” McMaster besieged by ideological cretins and “morons.”
Brannen’s colleague at The Atlantic, Rosie Gray, penned a similar piece titled, “The War Against H.R. McMaster,” in which she warned that “the national-security adviser’s job is on the line, and the pro-Trump media have launched an all-out assault against him.” The “pro-Trump Media” to which she referred — Breitbart News, The Daily Caller, The Free Beacon, Infowars, and others —   had indeed been going after McMaster, and for good reason; McMaster is seen (correctly, in this writer’s opinion) as leading a slow-motion coup, gradually replacing Trump loyalists with CFR globalists.
McMaster is not the mastermind of this operation; he is merely the point man for the Deep State. The takedown of General Flynn was orchestrated by operatives above McMaster’s pay grade to clear the way for his ascendancy. The same operatives, no doubt, maneuvered to make sure that Trump would not replace Flynn with Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, an early Trump loyalist who still remains as Executive Secretary and Chief of Staff of the NSC. Over the past several months, McMaster and his Deep State enablers have whittled away the Trump loyalists to the point where the president has become essentially surrounded by CFR globalists and their minions. If Bannon & Company had the knives out for McMaster, it appears McMaster & Company had the longer knives — and more of them — and were a step or two ahead of the Trumpsters.
Here is a short list of some of the significant casualties among the Trump loyalists whom McMaster is credited with giving the axe since General Flynn’s departure:
Steve Bannon — NSC member and chief White House Adviser
Richard Higgins — NSC Director for Strategic Planning
Colonel Derek Harvey — NSC Middle East Advisor
Ezra Cohen-Watnick — NSC Senior Director for Intelligence Programs
Tera Dahl — NSC Deputy Chief of Staff
Adam Lovinger — NSC Senior Director for Strategic Assessment
Sebastian Gorka — Deputy Assistant to the President
Thus, McMaster — who is widely recognized as being at odds with key planks of President Trump’s agenda, and has, reportedly, openly mocked the president at a dinner, calling him a “dope,” and an “idiot,” with the intelligence of a “kindergartner” — has gained strategic high ground in the Trump administration. While purging Trump loyalists, he also kept on board (and in some cases promoted) Obama holdovers and CFR globalists. Key players among McMaster’s Minions include: Nadia Schadlow (CFR); Dina Habib Powell (CFR and Trilateral Commission), although she has indicated she will be leaving sometime early in 2018; Victoria Coates (who cites Donald Rumsfeld and K.T. McFarland, both CFR members, as her mentors).
Among the more notorious Obama NSC holdovers whom McMaster protected are: Abigail Grace, Fernando Cutz , Merry Lin, and Andrea Hall (who is reported to be the source of critical leaks from the Trump NSC). In addition, McMaster campaigned (unsuccessfully) to bring Obama CIA operative Linda Weissgold in to replace Trump loyalist Cohen-Watnick. She’s the one who drafted the infamous “Benghazi talking points” memo to deceive Congress and exonerate Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama from responsibility in the deadly attack. Trump nixed that appointment. However, McMaster did succeed in bringing Kris Bauman, a radical Hamas-PLO apologist, to be NSC point man on Israel.
Having made many unwise appointments, President Trump is now finding himself increasingly surrounded by avowed enemies and smiling backstabbers. The McMaster appointment could prove to be one of the most disastrous choices, since the NSC chief and his minions already are playing a crucial role in what are obviously Deep State efforts to remove President Trump. Whether that ultimately comes down to Plan A, Plan B, or Plan C, McMaster will be a key establishment agent in issuing critical orders to carry it out, most especially if it comes to Plan C — removing the president by assassination.
These are, obviously, very, very serious charges, and we would not be entertaining the possibility that such heinous, criminal schemes could actually be in the offing except for the fact that steadily mounting evidence points inescapably to that conclusion. The methodical setting up of pieces and removing of others, together with the coordinated, relentless Fake News campaign, shows a chess board in play in which the enemies of freedom are moving toward checkmate.
President Trump still has a window of opportunity to forestall a coup, but his time may be running out. McMaster is the swamp creature who, arguably, now presents the greatest internal threat not only to the president’s agenda, but to his life. President Trump should listen to his loyal base, which has been urging him to fire McMaster for the past several months. If he fails to do so, he puts not only himself but the entire nation at risk; a political coup (whether by Plan A, B, or C) would throw the republic into a constitutional crisis, one which would likely prove fatal for freedom. McMaster should go — Now!

Related articles:
Deep State “Plan C” Is to Kill Trump, Advisor Roger Stone Warns
Deep State Boasts: We’re Sabotaging Trump From the Inside
Greenies, Globalists Decry Trump Reversal of Obama Policy on Climate “Security Threat”
Globalist McMaster Purges Trump Loyalists, Protects Obamaites
Trump Picks CFR Member for New National Security Advisor
Deep State Secret Societies: Skull & Bones, Bohemians, Illuminati
Deep State Behind the Deep State: CFR, Trilaterals, Bilderberg
Deep State “Intelligence” Threatens Trump, Self-Government


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
WASHINGTON — The abortion and contraception giant Planned Parenthood has released its annual report, which shows that while the number of abortions it performed last year are the lowest in a decade, still over 321,000 babies were murdered in their mother’s womb during the 2016-2017 fiscal year.
“As we enter our 101st year, providing access to expert health care and education remains at the center of what we do. We continue to drive innovations in health care delivery by leveraging new technology to get patients the care and information they need to live healthy lives and build the futures they want,” the organization wrote in its report, which outlines the services provided over the past year, most centering on sexual activity.
Planned Parenthood reported 321,384 abortions for the year, down from the 328,348 performed abortions during the 2015-2016 fiscal year—or 6,964 fewer murdered children. However, the number still equates to over 800 abortions a day.
While some might assume that the number of abortions decreased due to the provision of contraception, the figures show that the distribution of birth control continues to decline at Planned Parenthood with each passing year. Over 2.7 million people were provided with contraceptives in the 2016-2017 fiscal year—from temporary to permanent, including over 730 thousand emergency contraception kits.

The figure is one million less than what was reported five years ago, as 3.7 million contraceptives were provided in 2012. 3.5 million were distributed in 2013, 2.9 million in 2014, and 2.8 million in 2015.
The number of Americans receiving testing for sexually transmitted diseases (STD’s), however, increased. Over 4.4 million people were tested or treated for an STD, up from 4.2 million the year prior. Over 222,000 were found to have a sexual disease, up from 209,900 in the 2015-2016 fiscal year. 706,903 patients were tested for HIV, up from 654,218 the year prior.
Only 7,762 women obtained prenatal care during the 2016-2017 fiscal year as many Planned Parenthood locations do not offer the service, down from 9,419 the previous year. Just 1,182 mothers obtained miscarriage care, as opposed to the 2,073 who were served in 2015. 3,389 adoption referrals were provided compared to the 321,384 abortions performed.

Government funding was the largest source of revenue for the organization, as it received over $543 million in the year alone, down slightly from $554 million in 2015-2016. $532 million came from private contributions and grants. With all the sources of income combined, Planned Parenthood generated over $1.45 billion in revenue throughout the fiscal year.
And despite its expenditures, which included $75 million to “strengthen and secure Planned Parenthood,” $47 million for sexual education, and $40 million on public policy, the abortion giant still garnered a $98.5 million dollar profit, labeled as “excess of revenue,” up from $77 million the year prior and $58 million in 2014.
Read the report in full here.
As previously reported, in an introductory lecture to his course on obstetrics in 1854, Philadelphia doctor Hugh Lennox Hodge lamented that even the mothers of his day were lacking of natural affection toward their own children and sought out means to kill them.
“They seem not to realize that the being within them is indeed animate, that is, in verity, a human being—body and spirit—that it is of importance, that its value is inestimable, having reference to this world and the next,” he said. “They act with as much indifference as if the living, intelligent, immortal existence lodged within their organs were of no more value than the bread eaten, or the common excretions of the system.”
“We can bear testimony that in some instances, the woman who has been well educated, who occupies high stations in society, whose influence over others is great, and whose character has not been impugned, will deliberately resort to any and every measure which may effectively destroy her unborn offspring,” Hodge sorrowed.
“[S]he recklessly and boldly adopts measures, however severe and dangerous, for the accomplishment of her unnatural, her guilty purpose … that she may be delivered of [a child] for which she has no desire, and whose birth and appearance she dreads.”