Friday, August 19, 2016

Drafts -160816

The True Story Of How War Broke Out In Syria

Submitted by Steven Sahiounie via American Herald Tribune,
The day before September 11, 2001 was like any normal day in New York City.  September 10, 2001 was unaware of the earthshaking events which would happen the next day.

Similarly, one might think the day before the violence broke out in Deraa, Syria in March 2011 would have been an uneventful day, unaware of the uprising about to begin.

But, that was not the case.  Deraa was teaming with activity and foreign visitors to Syria well before the staged uprising began its opening act.

The Omari Mosque was the scene of backstage preparations, costume changes and rehearsals.  The Libyan terrorists, fresh from the battlefield of the US-NATO   regime change  attack on Libya, were in Deraa well ahead of the March 2011 uprising violence.  The cleric of the Omari Mosque was Sheikh Ahmad al Sayasneh . He was an older man with a severe eye problem, which caused him to wear special dark glasses, and severely hampered his vision.  He was not only visually impaired, but light sensitive as well, which caused him to be indoors as much as possible and often isolated.  He was accustomed to judging the people he talked with by their accent and voice. The Deraa accent is distinctive.  All of the men attending the Omari Mosque were local men, all with the common Deraa accent.  However, the visitors from Libya did not make themselves known to the cleric, as that would blow their cover.  Instead, they worked with local men; a few key players who they worked to make their partners and confidants. The participation of local Muslim Brotherhood followers, who would assist the foreign Libyan mercenaries/terrorists, was an essential part of the CIA plan, which was well scripted and directed from Jordan.

Enlisting the aid and cooperation of local followers of Salafism allowed the Libyans to move in Deraa without attracting any suspicion.   The local men were the ‘front’ for the operation.

The CIA agents running the Deraa operation from their office in Jordan had already provided the weapons and cash needed to fuel the flames of revolution in Syria.   With enough money and weapons, you can start a revolution anywhere in the world.
In reality, the uprising in Deraa in March 2011 was not fueled by graffiti written by teenagers, and there were no disgruntled parents demanding their children to be freed.    This was part of the Hollywood style script written by skilled CIA agents, who had been given a mission: to destroy Syria for the purpose of regime change.  Deraa was only Act 1: Scene 1.

The fact that those so-called teenaged graffiti artists and their parents have never been found, never named, and never pictured is the first clue that their identity is cloaked in darkness.  

In any uprising there needs to be grassroots support. Usually, there is a situation which arises, and protesters take to the streets.  The security teams step in to keep the peace and clear the streets and if there is a ‘brutal crackdown’ the otherwise ‘peaceful protesters’ will react with indignation, and feeling oppressed and wronged, the numbers in the streets will swell.   This is the point where the street protests can take two directions: the protesters will back down and go home, or the protesters can react with violence, which then will be met with violence from the security teams, and this sets the stage for a full blown uprising.
The staged uprising in Deraa had some locals in the street who were unaware of their participation in a CIA-Hollywood production.  They were the unpaid extras in the scene about to be shot.  These unaware extras had grievances, perhaps  lasting a generation or more, and perhaps rooted in Wahhabism, which is a political ideology exported globally by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Royal family and their paid officials. 

The Libyans stockpiled weapons at the Omari Mosque well before any rumor spread about teenagers arrested for graffiti.  The cleric, visually impaired and elderly, was unaware of the situation inside his Mosque, or of the foreign infiltrators in his midst.
The weapons came into Deraa from the CIA office in Jordan.  The US government has close ties to the King of Jordan.   Jordan is 98% Palestinian, and yet has a long lasting peace treaty with Israel, despite the fact that 5 million of the Jordanian citizen’s relatives next door in Occupied Palestine are denied any form of human rights.   The King of Jordan has to do a daily high-wire balancing act between his citizens, the peace and safety in his country and America’s interests and projects in the Middle East.   King Abdullah is not only a tight-rope walker, but a juggler at the same time, and all of this pressure on him must be enormous for him, and Queen Rania, who is herself Palestinian.  These facts must be viewed in the forefront of the background painted scenery of The Syrian Arab Republic, which has for the last 40 years had a cornerstone of domestic and foreign policy carved and set in the principle of Palestinian human rights and Palestinian freedom and justice.

The US policy to attack Syria for the purpose of regime change was not just about the gas lines, the oil wells, the strategic location and the gold: but it was about crushing that cornerstone of Palestinian rights into dust.  To get rid of President Bashar al Assad was to get rid of one of the few Arab leaders who are an unwavering voice of Palestinian rights.  

Deraa’s location directly on the Jordanian border is the sole reason it was picked for the location-shoot of the opening act of the Syrian uprising.    If you were to ask most Syrians, if they had ever been to Derra, or ever plan to go, they will answer, “No.”  It is a small and insignificant agricultural town.  It is a very unlikely place to begin a nationwide revolution.  Deraa has a historical importance because of archeological ruins, but that is lost on anyone other than history professors or archeologists.    The access to the weapons from Jordan made Deraa the perfect place to stage the uprising which has turned into an international war.  Any person with common sense would assume an uprising or revolution in Syria would begin in Damascus or Aleppo, the two biggest cities. Even after 2 ½ years of violence around the country, Aleppo’s population never participated in the uprising, or call for regime change.

Aleppo: the large industrial powerhouse of Syria wanted nothing to do with the CIA mission, and felt that by staying clear of any participation they could be spared and eventually the violence would die out, a natural death due to lack of participation of the civilians.  However, this was not to play out for Aleppo.  Instead, the US supported Free Syrian Army, who were mainly from Idlib and the surrounding areas, invited in their foreign partners, and they came pouring into Aleppo from Turkey, where they had taken Turkish Airlines flights from Afghanistan, Europe, Australia and North Africa landing in Istanbul, and then transported by buses owned by the Turkish government to the Turkey-Aleppo border.  The airline tickets, buses, paychecks, supplies, food, and medical needs were all supplied in Turkey by an official from Saudi Arabia.  The weapons were all supplied by the United States of America, from their warehouse at the dock of Benghazi, Libya.  The US-NATO regime change mission had ended in success in Libya, with America having taken possession of all the weapons and stockpiles formerly the property of the Libyan government, including tons of gold bullion taken by the US government from the Central Bank of Libya.

Enter the Libyans stage right. Mehdi al Harati, the Libyan with an Irish passport, was put in charge of a Brigade of terrorists working under the pay and direction of the CIA in Libya.  Once his fighting subsided there, he was moved to Northern Syria, in the Idlib area, which was the base of operation for the American backed Free Syrian Army, who Republican Senator John McCain lobbied for in the US Congress, and personally visited, illegally entering Syria without any passport or border controls.  In Arizona, Sen. McCain is in favor of deporting any illegal alien entering USA, but he himself broke international law by entering Syria as an illegal and undocumented alien.  However, he was in the company of trusted friends and associates, the Free Syrian Army: the same men who beheaded Christians and Muslims, raped females and children of both sexes, sold girls as sex slaves in Turkey, and ate the raw liver of a man, which they  proudly videoed and uploaded.

Previously, Syria did not have any Al Qaeda terrorists, and had passed through the war in neighboring Iraq none the worse for wear, except having accepted 2 million Iraqis as refugee guests. Shortly before the Deraa staged uprising began, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie were in Damascus and being driven around by the President and First Lady. Pitt and Jolie had come to visit and support the Iraqi war refugees in Damascus.  Brad Pitt was amazed that the Syrian President would drive him around personally, and without any body guards or security detail.  Pitt and Jolie were used to their own heavy security team in USA.  Pres. Assad explained that he and his wife were comfortable in Damascus, knowing that it was a safe place.  Indeed, the association of French travel agents had deemed Syria as the safest tourist destination in the entire Mediterranean region, meaning even safer than France itself.

However, the US strategy was to create a “New Middle East”, which would do away with safety in Syria; through the ensuing tornado, aka ‘winds of change’.

Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and then Syria were the stepping stones in the garden of the “Arab Spring”.  But, the scenario in the Syrian mission did not stay on script.   It went over deadline and over budget.  The final credits have yet to be rolled, and the curtain has yet to fall on the stage.

We can’t under estimate the role that mainstream media had to play in the destruction of Syria.  For example, Al Jazeera’s Rula Amin was in Deraa and personally interviewed the cleric Sayasneh at the Omari Mosque.   Al Jazeera is the state owned and operated media for the Prince of Qatar.  The Prince of Qatar was one of the key funders of the terrorists attacking Syria.  The USA was sending the weapons, supplies and providing military satellite imagery, however the cash to make payroll, to pay out bribes in Turkey, and all other expenses which needed cold cash in hand was being paid out by the Prince of Qatar and the King of Saudi Arabia, who were playing their roles as closest Middle East allies of the United States of America.  This was a production team between USA, EU, NATO, Turkey, Jordan, Israel and the Persian Gulf Arab monarchies of Saudi Arabia and Qatar primarily.  The CIA has no problem with covert operations in foreign countries, and even full scale attacks, but the matter of funding needs to come from a foreign country, because the American voters don’t care about killing people in Syria, but they would never agree to pay for it.  As long as the Arabs were paying for the project, that was OK by Mr. John Q. Public, who probably was not able to find Syria on a map anyway.

Rula Amin and others of the Al Jazeera staff, and including the American CNN, the British BBC and the French France24 all began deliberate political propaganda campaign against the Syrian government and the Syrian people who were suffering from the death and destruction brought on by the terrorists who were pretending to be players in a local uprising.   Some days, the scripts were so similar that you would have guessed they were all written in the same hotel room in Beirut.  Onto the stage stepped the online media personalities of Robert Fisk, from his vantage point in Beirut and Joshua Landis from his perch in Oklahoma.  These 2 men, sitting so far removed from the actual events, pretended to know everything going on in Syria.

British and American readers were swayed by their deliberate one-sided explanations, while the actual Syrians living inside Syria, who read in English online, were baffled.  Syrians were wondering how Western writers could take the side of the terrorists who were foreigners, following Radical Islam and attacking any unarmed civilian who tried to defend their home and family. The media was portraying the terrorists as freedom fighters and heroes of democracy, while they were raping, looting, maiming, kidnapping for ransom and murdering unarmed civilians who had not read the script before the shooting began in Deraa.

 There was one global movie trailer, and it was a low budget cell phone video which went viral around the world, and it sold the viewers on the idea of Syria being in the beginning of a dramatic fight for freedom, justice and the American way.   From the very beginning, Al Jazeera and all the rest of the media were paying $100.00 to any amateur video shot in Syria.  A whole new cottage industry sprang up in Syria, with directors and actors all hungry for the spotlight and fame.  Authenticity was not questioned; the media just wanted content which supported their propaganda campaign in Syria.

Deraa was the opening act of tragic epic which has yet to conclude.  The cleric who was a key character in the beginning scenes, Sheikh Sayasneh, was first put under house arrest, and then he was smuggled out to Amman, Jordan in January 2012.  He now gives lectures in America near Washington, DC. Just like aspiring actors usually find their way to Hollywood, which is the Mecca of the film industry, Sheikh Sayasneh found his way to the Mecca of all regime change projects.

Obama Ignored NSC’s Unanimous Advice On Egypt To Be On The ‘Right Side Of History

Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates revealed that President Barack Obama disregarded the near unanimous advice of the national security team and decided to depose then-Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak because he wanted to be on the “the right side of history.”
In a sneak preview of a much longer Fox News special set to be released Friday, Gates recalled one of the most egregious incidents, in which Obama decided to follow the advice of three national security junior backbenchers, rather than an entire team of experts.
“The entire national security team recommended unanimously handling Mubarak differently than we did,” Gates said in a Fox News interview. “And the president took the advice of three junior backbenchers in terms of how to treat Mubarak — one of them saying, ‘Mr. President, you have to be on the right side of history.'”
“And I would be sitting there at the table, saying, ‘Yeah, if we could just figure that out we’d be a long way ahead,'” Gates added.
The removal of Hosni Mubarak has turned out to be one of the most egregious foreign policy disasters of the Obama administration.
For nearly 30 years, the United States had supported Mubarak with military aid, only to suddenly turn on him in the wake of Arab Spring protests and the prospect of liberal democracy sweeping across the Middle East and North Africa. Mubarak’s secular, authoritarian regime gave way to Mohamed Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood and radical Islam. Since then, Egypt has been in turmoil. Morsi immediately picked a fight with the judiciary and further gave himself more power, quickly drenching the aspirations of Obama’s national security advisors in cold water.

 In 2013, just a year after Morsi had been democratically elected, crowds in Tahrir Square were again calling for him to step down. This led to a coup by Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, which the Obama administration refused to acknowledge. U.S. officials then proceeded to partially freeze military aid and call for democratic elections, prompting outrage from Sisi. The Obama administration has since softened its stance towards Sisi’s government. Amnesty International has noted that under Sisi’s reign, human rights have been crushed and disregarded.
Egypt is still to this day struggling to crack down on radical elements and insurgent movements

Is "Special Government Employee" Huma Abedin The Smoking Gun In Hillary's "Pay-To-Play" Scheme?

Having previously warned that Hillary "is often confused," Clinton's top aide, Huma Abedin - previously best known for standing by her husband Anthony Weiner after his sexting scandal - is now at the center of the Clinton Foundation - State Department debacle. As Bloomberg reports, for the final eight months of Clinton's reign as Secretary of State, Abedin worked for both The Clinton Foundation and as a "special government employee" at The State Department.

Huma Abedin was previously most infamous as the "good wife" standing by her sexting scandal husband Anthony Weiner...

And then, as we previously noted, Abedin gained some more infamy for admitting about Hillary that "she's often confused"...

Source: Judicial Watch vs State emails
But, as Bloomberg now reports, Abedin's overlapping jobs bring a renewed focus on Clinton's conflicts of interest while at the State Department...
Huma Abedin stepped down from her post as deputy chief of staff at the State Department and Hillary Clinton’s ever-present personal assistant on June 3, 2012. Only she didn’t really leave.

Instead, in a reverse twist on a program intended to bring talented outsiders into government, Abedin was immediately rehired as a “special government employee.” She also took paying jobs with the Clinton Foundation and Teneo Holdings, a consulting firm with international clients that was co-founded by a foundation official who also was Bill Clinton’s long-time personal aide.

Abedin’s multitasking in the final eight months of Hillary Clinton’s time as the top U.S. diplomat -- and her role as intermediary for some of the same players before that -- are drawing renewed scrutiny after a conservative watchdog group’s release last week of a new batch of e-mails to and from Clinton aides. Abedin has become the personification of an election-year debate over whether the nonprofit foundation will create conflicts of interest if Clinton wins the White House.
Clinton was rated trustworthy by just 41 percent of likely voters in a Bloomberg Politics national poll conducted Aug. 5-8. More than half said that the Clinton Foundation’s acceptance of foreign contributions while she was secretary of state bothers them “a lot.”
“The Clinton Foundation for Hillary Clinton is kind of a walking conflict-of-interest problem,” Meredith McGehee, policy director for the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center, said in an interview. “Clearly this notion that it could continue to operate while she was secretary of state -- it was a built-in problem. If you’re really looking at what should happen if she’s elected, neither her husband nor her daughter, certainly no relative, should have any connection with the foundation.”


When Clinton was awaiting confirmation as President Barack Obama’s secretary of state in 2009, she wrote a letter to the State Department’s chief ethics officer promising that she wouldn’t “participate personally and substantially in any particular matter that has a direct and predictable effect upon this foundation, unless I first obtain a written waiver or qualify for a regulatory exemption.”

But that “did not preclude other State Department officials from having contact with the Clinton Foundation staff,” just as they “are regularly in touch with a wide variety of outside individuals and organizations,” department spokeswoman Elizabeth Trudeau told reporters last week.
That’s where Abedin came in.
Abedin’s arrangement as a “special government employee” has been challenged since 2013 by Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who has questioned whether she was overpaid and wrote her that “you allegedly sent or received approximately 7,300 emails on your official Department of State address that involved Mr. Douglas Band,” the Bill Clinton aide and Clinton Foundation official who co-founded Teneo.

In a 2013 letter to State Department officials, Abedin said she left her full-time post because “the birth of my son in December 2011 led me to decide to spend the bulk of my time in New York City where my family lived.” She said she stayed on as an hourly employee working for “the Secretary of State in her personal capacity to help prepare for her transition from public service.”

Abedin wrote that she provided “strategic advice” to Teneo’s management team but never did “any work on Teneo’s behalf before the department” nor provided information from government sources to help its clients make investment decisions, as Republicans had suggested.

Abedin’s arrangement was questioned in a 2013 civil lawsuit by Judicial Watch, the conservative watchdog group, which pressed for documents under the Freedom of Information Act. After Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server when she was secretary of state became public, the group got the the case reopened and has been obtaining -- and publicizing -- a steady barrage of e-mails and deposition transcripts on the e-mail system and other topics.

Last week, Judicial Watch produced e-mails including a 2009 exchange in which Band wrote Abedin that it was “important to take care of” an individual, whose name was redacted. Abedin replied that “personnel has been sending him options.”

In another 2009 exchange, Band asked Abedin and Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s chief of staff, to put Lebanese-Nigerian billionaire Gilbert Chagoury in touch with a State Department "substance person" on Lebanon. The Chagoury Group co-founder has given between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation, according to a list of donors posted online.
The debate over the Clinton Foundation simply shows “the way Washington works,” said Scott Amey, general counsel at the Project on Government Oversight.
“It’s instances like this that cause the public to have a negative view of how our government works, and it really gives people the impression that deals are done in back rooms and based on who you know rather than what you know,” Amey said in an interview.
While Abedin hasn’t said whether she’d return to Washington and the White House to serve again in a Clinton administration, the Clintons have acknowledged that they would have to forge a new relationship with the foundation they started. But they haven’t provided details.



France: The Religious War Few Wish To Face

Submitted by George Idler via The Gatestone Institute,
  • Until a few years ago, the unique recipe for secularism adopted by the French seemed able to guarantee the assimilation of the country's burgeoning number of Muslims, something now, by criminal and terrorist activity in the country, proven a resolute failure.

  • Next year's election results might signal the beginning of the end for laïcité, the long-held French principle of strict prohibition against religious influence in the determination of state policies.
The remains of St. Denis, the patron saint of Paris, who was decapitated in the year 250 during the brutal pagan persecution of Christians, lie north of the French capital in the basilica that bears his name.

The church is historically noteworthy as the first proper work of Gothic architecture, a style influenced by the Crusades. The basilica is now a rarely visited Parisian landmark, lying as it does within the profoundly Islamized enclave of Seine-Saint-Denis.

"You Christians, you kill us," were the words of the ISIS knifeman who slit the throat of 85-year old Father Jacques Hamel. The elderly priest officiating at the altar of the church of Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray -- a mere three kilometres from the centre of Rouen in Normandy -- was slain on July 25, as the two terrorists also took nuns hostage. The terrorists were then shot by police.

On August 5, police swept down on a man shouting "Allahu Akbar" ["Allah is the Greatest"] on the Champs-Élysées, the famous central thoroughfare of the capital of France. Video of the arrest shows passers-by: veiled Muslims, tourists, and presumably indigenous French men and women.

Both of these incidents, when aligned with recent mass outrages across France, including the Bataclan Theatre slaughter on November 13, and the mass carnage caused by a jihadist plot in Nice on July 14, point to a startling reality.

Despite the rhetoric by the government of Prime Minister Manuel Valls on removing dual nationality from those guilty of terrorism offences and closing extremist mosques (20 of France's 2,500 alleged mosques have been closed down to date), the violent consequences of jihadism are a daily reality and concern stalking the heart of most French metropolitan districts.
At 7.5% of the population, Muslims in France make up the highest concentration of Muslims of any country in Europe, according to Pew Research.

For decades, those warning of the inevitable consequences of mass Muslim immigration, during a time in history when Islamic fundamentalist doctrine was on the rise worldwide, have been maligned, prosecuted, imprisoned or assassinated.
With the security infrastructure now proving inadequate to cope with the sheer scale of enthusiasm for religious war amongst those Islamists born in France, and those able to enter the country -- thanks to the open border policies of the EU -- the threat continues to increase day by day.

Close to the Champs-Élysées, which runs between the Louvre museum and the Arc de Triomphe, lies the official residence of the president of France.

Presently occupied by the Socialist François Hollande, who closely courted the Muslim vote to gain power in 2012, many French people are looking towards the presidential elections scheduled for April and May 2017, to provide a new occupant of the Élysée Palace in the form of Marine Le Pen.

Le Pen leads the Front National, a party with deeply disturbing roots in the form of its anti-Semitic founder Jean-Marie Le Pen (father of Marine Le Pen), who in the wake of the Bataclan attack called for the return of the guillotine.

The form of execution made infamous during the French Revolution preceded successive Republics in France that were rigorously antithetical to the inclusion of religious matters in political affairs.

Until a few years ago, the unique recipe for secularism adopted by the French seemed able to guarantee the assimilation of the country's burgeoning number of Muslims, something now, by criminal and terrorist activity in the country, proven a resolute failure.

People in France intimately link the ascendancy of the Front National with the increased incidence of terrorism in France, given the rigorous unwelcoming line the party has taken on Islamic immigration.

In response to the Nice massacre, in which a Tunisian resident of France named Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel ploughed a truck into revellers enjoying fireworks, the leader of the Front National called for the resignation of the French Interior Minister.

"In any other country in the world, a minister with a toll as horrendous as Bernard Cazeneuve -- 250 dead in 18 months -- would have quit," she added.

Marine Le Pen also went on to excoriate, "the same old solemn declarations," from France's present government, which appear to follow every terrorist outrage -- a situation that led Le Pen to remark:
"The war against the scourge of fundamentalism hasn't started, it must now be declared. That is the deep wish of the French, and I will put all my energy so that they are finally heard and the necessary fight is finally undertaken."
In a telling move, the president of the regional council of Nice, Christian Estrosi, added to the chorus of criticism of the government. He questioned whether, despite being in a state of emergency, France had either the policing numbers or expertise to face its terror threat.
After a cascade of terrorist massacres that began with the slaughter of the staff of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo on January 7, 2015, the most terrorism-scarred country in Europe has erupted into successive outpourings of grief. Now, admits Time magazine, this grief is turning into anger.

In order for the Front National to prove successful at next year's Presidential Elections, it will need to defeat the other right-wing force in France, and survive through two rounds of voting.

The Union pour un mouvement populaire party (UMP) is led by former President Nicolas Sarkozy, who exclaimed after Nice that, "Someone who shoots at French people, someone who kills, someone who wants jihad, does not have a place in France."
Yet, for many, as the president of France from 2007-12, Sarkozy bears significant responsibility for creating the conditions in which fundamentalism was able to take root and prosper in France.

If Le Pen proves the eventual victor in the next presidential elections in France -- a nation increasingly focused on religious affairs, occasioned by the country's radically altering demography -- a significant change in its political direction will undoubtedly arise.

The election results might signal the beginning of the end for laïcité, the long-held French principle of strict prohibition against religious influence in the determination of state policies.

A rising star of the Front National is Marion Marechal-Le Pen, Marine Le Pen's niece, who has stated that, "Christians must stand up to resist Islam." The 26-year old has also urged her fellow countrymen to join the military adding that, "Either we kill Islamism or it will kill us."

In response to the Nice massacre, 2,500 young French people have joined the nation's reserve forces.

A conservative Catholic favouring the "traditional family," Marion Marechal-Le Pen has repeatedly spoken of "true French" identity, and demanded that Muslims adopt values rooted in Christianity, according to the BBC.

Echoing her niece's views, Marine Le Pen erupted in fury at the sight of French riot police dragging a priest and his congregation from the church of St Rita in Paris on August 3, prior to its scheduled demolition to make way for a parking lot.

"And what if they built parking lots in the place of Salafist mosques, and not of our churches?" she said.

It is not necessary to speculate about the scenes on French streets that would result from similar footage if the same treatment were meted out to an imam and his congregation.
A new focus on religious minority issues in France, in the fraught desire to create some sort of harmonious balance in an increasingly divided nation, seems probable.
How successful such efforts are likely to be, however, remains to be seen.

Violence Peaks In ‘No-Go Zone’ Calais As Pressure Builds To Move Migrant Camp To UK


Just months after it was reported that the majority of the illegal Calais migrant camp had been cleared, its population is back at 10,000, violence has peaked, and police have declared the area a “no-go zone”.

The revelations come as pressure mounts in France to move the border and camp to the UK, which the British Home Secretary will discuss when she travels to France today.
Inter-ethnic violence and the increasingly desperate and violent attempts to board and ambush lorries passing through the port have driven the increase in conflict.
“There are fights all the time now. You can get stabbed here for your money,” Rais, a 23-year-old migrant from Jalalabad in Afghanistan, told The Telegraph.
“It’s an explosive situation. There are fights all the time in the camp,” added Gilles Debove, an official with the SGP FO police union, explaining that the Sudanese have recently overtaken Afghans as the dominant group in the camp.
The situation is also perilous for car and truck drivers, with some threatened with knives and even a chainsaw.
Just last week, a team of BBC journalists filmed a brutal attack on a lorry. A few weeks before migrants wielding bats and knives smashed up vehicles on roads near the town as their owners sat in traffic, reportedly “just for fun”.
Mr. Debove also said that between 50 and 80 migrants continued to arrive every day, mostly by train from Paris and elsewhere.
“Every night there are about 1,000 migrants on the roads leading to the ferry port and to the Channel tunnel entrance,” he said, who are trying to get on to trucks that will take them to England.
However, only about 30 migrants leave the camp each day on buses for migrant centres around the country, despite a push to encourage migrants to seek asylum in France.
The population of the camp is now at 10,000, the highest since French authorities agreed to “demolish” parts of it six months ago, claiming their goal was to reduce the number of camp inhabitants to about 1,500.
However, in May, it was reported that the promised clearance displaced just ten per cent of the migrants living there, and the numbers quickly began to rise again.
At least 1,500 live in new heated and glazed containers provided by local authorities.
Britain’s home secretary, Amber Rudd, will meet her French counterpart Bernard Cazeneuve today amid growing calls across the channel for the treaty, which permits UK officials to carry out border checks at Calais, to end.
The issue of the Calais camp has become somewhat of a political football in the up-and-coming French presidential elections.
The current socialist administration supports the current arrangement. However, former president Nicholas Sarkozy, who is running for office again next year, said it was time for the Calais migrant camp to be closed and for border controls to be shifted back to the UK.
Mr. Sarkozy signed the current agreement, known as the Touquet agreement, in 2003 when he was interior minister.
“I’m demanding the opening of a centre in the UK to deal with asylum seekers in Britain so that Britain can do the work that concerns them,” he told a rally.

France Claims They Will Stick To Calais Migrant Deal ‘Now And When’ Britain Leaves EU 

(REUTERS) – British and French interior ministers agreed on Tuesday to develop cooperation “now and when the United Kingdom leaves the EU” to address challenges posed by flows of migrants to the European Union.

Britain’s new interior minister, Amber Rudd, came to Paris to meet her French counterpart, seeking assurances on a deal which allows Britain to make border checks in Calais and keep thousands of would-be migrants and asylum seekers in France.
The meeting came days after French presidential contender Nicolas Sarkozy said Britain should deal on its own territory with migrants camped in the northern town, joining similar calls by Alain Juppe, also a conservative presidential candidate.
Officials say there are about 7,000 migrants sprawled across the area known as the “Jungle” north of Calais, with the aim of many to reach Britain illegally through the Channel Tunnel. Non-governmental organisations put the number at over 9,000.
“We are committed to working together to strengthen the security of our shared border, to strongly diminish the migratory pressure in Calais and preserve the vital economic link supported by the juxtaposed controls in Calais,” Rudd and her French counterpart Bernard Cazeneuve said in a statement.
“We pledge that this co-operation must and will be developed, now and after the United Kingdom leaves the EU,” they added.

Some French and British officials, including then prime minister David Cameron, had warned Britain that the Anglo-French Le Touquet agreement could be harmed if the country voted to leave the European Union at a referendum on June 23.
Sarkozy’s comments chimed with Xavier Bertrand, the region’s head, who said France should scrap the agreement unless British Prime Minister Theresa May agreed to renegotiate the system agreed under the accord which allows British officials to check passports in France.
Bertrand, who belongs to the same party as Sarkozy and Juppe, the conservative Les Republicains, has no power on migration issues, which was a hot-button issue in the Brexit vote in Britain and is now also in the campaign for next April’s presidential election in France.
France’s Socialist government, including Cazeneuve and President Francois Hollande, have repeatedly said they will respect the Le Touquet agreement which, if dropped, could spur the flow of refugees fleeing war and poverty in the Middle East and Africa through France to Britain.

Minister: Send Migrants Home, Germans Don’t Want a Multicultural Society

Bavaria’s finance minister has recommended Germany send migrants home, as integrating such a large number of people from such foreign cultures is impossible.

Markus Söder said that rather than facilitating family reunions, politicians should push for the “return of several hundreds of thousands of refugees in the next three years.” In an interview with Spiegel, the Christian Social Union (CSU) minister noted that large areas of migrants countries of origin are safe and said that Germans don’t want a multicultural society.
The Christian Social Union (CSU) minister told the news magazine: “Even with the best intentions, it will not work to integrate successfully that many people from a completely foreign culture.
“Germans do not want a multicultural society. Anyone who wants to live here must adapt to our values and not vice-versa”, Mr Söder added.
The CSU politician noted that many areas in countries like Afghanistan and Iraq are now recognised as being safe, and highlighted that German laws state asylum seekers should be returned to their home countries, if their grounds for seeking asylum no longer apply.
The minister said: “The civil war in Syria will also end sometime soon.
“The Asylum Procedure Law stipulates that people return to their home when they no longer have reason to flee.”
Mr Söder contended that Germany must prioritise returning migrants who no longer have a right to asylum, over enabling family reunification.
The minister said migrants pose a security threat, and called for the protection of German citizens to be given priority.
Criticising Chancellor Merkel’s response to terrorism on German soil, Mr Söder said: “I think the citizens would have preferred a different message after the attacks”
In July, after Germany was struck by four dramatic attacks in one week, the minister branded Merkel’s decision to open the borders a “historic mistake”.
Mr Söder argued that the Chancellor’s oft-quoted “we can do it” rhetoric on migrants sends the wrong message. Declaring German society “under attack”, the CSU minister said:“The best protection against terrorism is to have no terrorists in the country. Therefore, the immigration must be reduced.”
More than a million migrants entered Germany in 2015 and authorities say they are expecting 300,000 to arrive this year. Politicians last month admitted that the influx is set to cost taxpayers more than €30 billion a year.

Leading Pollster Predicts Hofer Win In Austrian Presidential Re-Run

A leading pollster in Austria is predicting a win for anti-mass migration candidate Norbert Hofer, as Hofer praises government ministers who have taken a harder line on mass migration.

The momentum for the anti-mass migration Freedom Party (FPÖ) candidate for the presidency of Austria, Norbert Hofer, is gaining even more steam. A new poll shows that 38 per cent of Austrians, including a leading pollster, believe he will win the re-run of the election on October 2nd compared to rival Alexander Van der Bellen who managed 34 per cent support.
The poll conducted by OGM on behalf of Austria’s Kurier newspaper, shows that many Austrians are undecided, but OGM boss Wolfgang Bachmayer believes the numbers will favour Mr. Hofer.
According to Mr. Bachmayer, while there is a large portion of voters who remain undecided, he is placing his bets on Mr. Hofer. The pollster said that Mr. Hofer will likely win over undecided voters the more he presses on the issues of security, asylum seekers, and integration of Muslims and others into Austrian society.
Mr. Hofer recently launched his official campaign for the re-run of the election on the theme of security, with his campaign manager and FPÖ MP Herbert Kickl saying that Mr. Van der Bellen would not change anything in regard to migrants flooding into the country.
Mr. Bachmayer said that the only way former Green Party leader Mr. Van der Bellen could win would be to mobilise voters who describe themselves as “unmotivated” to go to the polls.
Mr. Bachmayer said that Mr. Van der Bellen has a “proportion of floating voters that was significantly higher than Hofer. For Van der Bellen there were two out of three, for Hofer it was one in three. Van der Bellen must mobilise these voters”. “Floating voters” being those who support the mainstream parties that failed to qualify for the second round of the election in April.
The FPÖ candidate also praised three ministers in the Austrian government who have taken a harder line on asylum seekers and mass migration.
Speaking of Foreign Minister Sebastian Kurz, Interior Minister Wolfgang Sobotka, both conservatives and members of the Austrian People’s Party, and Defence Minister Hans-Peter Doskozil of the Socialists, Mr. Hofer said, “These three people do a good job”, and hoped that they would all be able to cooperate with him when he becomes president.
Speaking on the all-but-dead TTIP agreement, Mr. Hofer said that he would not agree to any such trade agreement without taking it to the people via a referendum.  He also spoke of a possible “union within a union” for Austria with several former members of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, like Hungary, Croatia, and the Czech Republic, to have a common asylum policy which would be much stricter than that of Western Europe.
Mr. Hofer also stated that he didn’t have any lack of motivation for this now third campaign in the span of a year saying that he didn’t expect to sleep on the night of the election and said: “I am very motivated, I’m a workaholic.”

Hillary Called It An ‘Economic NATO’, Now TTIP Is In Ruins

You’d think, by reading the BBC coverage at least, that Hillary Clinton is dead opposed to big, corporate, globalist trade deals like the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

Andrew Walker writes today, as the Germans declare the “free trade deal” all but dead:
Mr Obama has been consistently enthusiastic about the [TTIP] plan. His successor may not be. Donald Trump, the Republican presidential candidate, has been particularly critical of some of the country’s trade agreements.
His Democrat opponent, Hillary Clinton, has also expressed reservations about some US trade agreements – especially the Transpacific Partnership (TPP). As Secretary of State, she supported the TPP negotiations but has said more recently that the result did not meet her standards. Her position probably reflects the growing concerns among American voters.
He makes zero mention of the fact that just a few years ago Mrs. Clinton was lauding TTIP as an “economic NATO” in the face of growing public scrutiny. Of course the BBC chooses to cover her statements on TPP, where Mrs. Clinton had to make sure not to alienate Bernie Sanders voters, rather than reflect her position on the actual issue at hand: TTIP. Her old
Her old boss, Barack Obama, even flew to Europe to try and stop the rot as the deal began to unravel earlier this year.
Not only is the latest development – or lack of it – deeply embarrassing for him, it is deeply embarrassing for the trans-Atlantic political establishment who had promised to dot the Is and cross the Ts by the end of this year. They feared a Republican candidate in the White House, scrutinising the deal closely for things that would harm small American businesses. And this was before Donald Trump won the nomination.
The Guardian noted in July: “The Obama administration has said if it cannot sign an TTIP agreement, it wants the task to be passed to Hilary Clinton.”
And it is also perhaps a sign of how Brexit – Britain’s exit vote from the European Union – has scuppered the globalists. Without Britain in the European Union, an EU-U.S. trade deal becomes far less urgent. The political left – who en masse opposed TTIP but also did not want Brexit – should now be lining up to thank Nigel Farage and all those involved in stopping this huge, corporate stitch-up. Don’t hold your breath.
Of course what the media will get at now is recent comments from Mrs. Clinton where she said she’d block trade deals that were bad for American jobs. In which case she’d have to block TPP, TTIP, as well repealing NAFTA. But her comments were widely interpreted as being a sop to the Bernie Sanders voters she so desperately needs on her side to win this election, rather than a genuine change of heart on the issue.
At best, Mrs. Clinton has repeatedly flip-flopped on the issue, trying to find a balance between her big corporate donors and the lefter-wing Democrat voters she needs.
Even on TPP, rather than TTIP, Mrs. Clinton has described it as the “gold standard in trade agreements”. Only when she stopped pulling her hair back tight, donning black coats and black sunglasses (i.e. wanted to run for President) did she begin to change her tune.
The fact is that she opposed Brexit and failed. She opposes the nationalist movements sweeping Europe, beating her friends out of government, and presenting her with some serious challenges in even getting along with U.S. allies if she becomes President. And she backed TTIP and TPP, which are now themselves crumbling around her.

Soros Seeks To "Reshape American Justice System" By Pouring Funds Into "Powerful" District Attorney Races

With hundreds of millions of dollars poured into presidential and congressional elections in the United States it can be difficult, even for mega donors like George Soros, to truly understand how much influence is being "bought."  That's why Soros is pursuing a new strategy to dump millions into the campaigns of local district attorneys, a position which "exercises the greatest discretion and power in the system."  So far, Soros has funneled $3 million into seven local DA races over the past year but his support is "expected to intensify in the next few years, thanks to longer-term planning and candidate recruitment."  In general, Soros looks to fund progressive DAs running on platforms to "reduce racial disparity in sentencing" and support prison "diversion programs" for drug offenders instead of trials that could result in jail time.  As Politico points out:
Prosecutorial discretion gives district attorneys a huge say in the charges and sentences that defendants face. But reform efforts have not traditionally focused on harnessing that power.

They are often a very invisible part of the criminal justice system and the political system,” said Brenda Carter, director of the Reflective Democracy Campaign, an arm of the progressive Women Donors Network. “Many people can’t name their district attorney. It’s not an office people think about a lot.”

Carter’s group commissioned research in 2015 that found that 95 percent of elected local prosecutors in the U.S. are white and three-quarters overall are white men. It also highlighted a Wake Forest University study that found that a vast majority of prosecutors — 85 percent — run for reelection unopposed.

“I found that to be shocking, and I think people are waking up to the untapped potential for intervention in these seats to really change the day-to-day realities of criminal justice,” Carter said. “It’s been really gratifying for us to see the research taken up and run with by different groups around the country.”
So far, Soros has been quite successful with 6 out of 7 of his candidates ultimately winning their election bids.  Alas, despite the fact that DAs "exercise the greatest discretion and power in the system" one Soros pick in Mississippi proved it's possible for even a DA to overstep their legal bounds.  Hinds County, Mississipi DA, Robert Shuler, whose reelection campaign was funded by Soros, was recently charged by Mississippi's attorney general for "improperly providing information to defendants."  
Soros has spent on district attorney campaigns in Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico and Texas through a network of state-level super PACs and a national “527” unlimited-money group, each named a variation on “Safety and Justice.” (Soros has also funded a federal super PAC with the same name.) Each organization received most of its money directly from Soros, according to public state and federal financial records, though some groups also got donations from nonprofits like the Civic Participation Action Fund, which gave to the Safety and Justice group in Illinois.

Soros’ spending started on these races about a year ago, when he put over $1 million into “Safety and Justice” groups that helped elect two new district attorneys in Louisiana and Mississippi and reelect a third — Hinds County, Miss., DA Robert Shuler Smith — who has since been charged by the Mississippi attorney general with improperly providing information to defendants.

After the Louisiana and Mississippi races, Soros next piled money into two of the biggest jurisdictions in the country: Houston’s Harris County (his lone losing effort so far) and Chicago’s Cook County, where he funded one of several groups that helped Kim Foxx defeat incumbent state’s attorney Anita Alvarez in a high-profile primary campaign dominated by the 13-month delay between the police shooting of Laquan McDonald and the indictment of the police officer involved.

In late spring, $107,000 from a Soros-funded New Mexico super PAC helped Raul Torrez win his Democratic district attorney primary by a 2-to-1 margin in Albuquerque’s Bernalillo County. Torrez’s Republican opponent dropped out of the general election soon after, citing the potentially exorbitant cost of opposing the Soros-backed candidate in the general election.
But, for those of you worried that Soros isn't doing enough to "reshape the American justice system" please know that the plan is to "invest" far more in these races going forward.  In fact, as Politico points out, the only hold back so far has been a lack of good puppetscandidates.
While Soros has spent heavily in 2015 and 2016, a broader national push into local prosecutor campaigns is expected to intensify in the next few years, thanks to longer-term planning and candidate recruitment. A Safety and Justice group has already organized in Ohio, according to campaign finance filings there. But it has not yet disclosed raising or spending any money.

“There’s been a realization that there’s not very much we can do this year, when you’re coming up to an election,” said Steele. “You have to have the right candidates. That’s a big piece of the puzzle and why I’m part of this conversation. ... A lot of the conversations I’m having are about 2017 and 2018, about looking forward to next year in Virginia and other places.”

That means more local candidates should prepare for the shock of one of the biggest donors in American politics flooding their neighborhoods with ads.
Oddly enough, not everyone is pleased with New York billionaires meddling in local elections when they have no vested interest in the community.
Opponents of Soros’ favored candidates have laced into the billionaire, saying that his influence has wildly tipped the scales of local elections and even charging that he made residents less safe.

“As a candidate and citizen of Caddo Parish, if an outsider was that interested in the race, I wanted to know exactly what he had in mind for the criminal justice system if he were to win,” said Dhu Thompson, a Louisiana attorney who lost a district attorney race to a Soros-backed candidate, James Stewart, in 2015. Soros gave over $930,000 — more than 22 times the local median household income — to the group boosting Stewart.

“I know some of his troubling opinions on social issues, especially the criminal justice system,” Thompson said. “I’ve never known him as an individual who was very strong on some of our crime and punishment issues. I felt it was very detrimental to the safety of Caddo Parish, and that’s why I took such a strong stand against him."
That said, we're sure any objections to George's plan is derived from a simple misunderstanding of his motives.  After all, last time someone said he wanted to "fundamentally transform" America it worked out pretty well, right?

Free Speech Dies In September, US Conditioned To Accept Censorship As UN Takes Over

The trend is deliberate and unmistakable. A global stifling that ends with the elimination of free speech is underway. Their intent is to control our communication with one another, to remove our ability to object to their tyranny and to prevent us from being able to rally to oppose their authoritarian dictates.

The globalist oligarchs have successfully enacted restrictions through the use of the filter of “hate speech” across Europe, where it is now a criminal act to object to the invasion of the continent in Germany and other countries. Islamist invaders have become a protected class that are not to be spoken of in negative terms. It is unlawful to denounce the accompanying crime, social degradation, cultural destruction, diminished standard of living, quality of life or to object to the Islamist’s aggression. To do so has been declared intolerant, Islamophobic or xenophobic. The globalists attach negative labels to the natural instinct for survival, making it sound like a medical condition that societal controllers must treat and remedy.

To use one of the forbidden words, it’s undeniably a worldwide “conspiracy” among those who have hijacked the individual nations on behalf of the globalist oligarchs. They are represented in Europe by the EU and in the US by the Democrats and treasonous Republicans, in service to their masters, most notably the evil one himself, George Soros.

The hate speech label is being applied here to patriots and Constitution-loving Americans. The selective censoring and attacking of the speech of the majority white population as being unacceptable to some “great unknown approval body” is anti-American. There is no mechanism in our Constitution for the critiquing of speech or its regulation.

They attempt to assign the Marxist justification of the “collective good” as an excuse to the herd and then send out their operatives in the guise of injured, thin-skinned victims of hurtful racism to advance their assault on our liberty. The only reason we’re hearing about white privilege is because it advances the stealth agenda of “black victimization,” which has nothing to do with black victims. It advances the goals  of what are marketed as minority rights groups but are merely cover for the contaminated, poison messaging of the central controlling fascist-Marxist oligarchs.

And it’s working. Our founding fathers would have exploding in anger at the concept of “free-speech zones” yet they have become commonplace. By definition their existence is an admission that speech is less than free in other areas.

The Elimination Of Free Speech As A Right Will Mark The End Of The United States As We Knew It

To condition the American people to tolerate and thereby accept the practice of having our free speech limited and controlled by distant, unaccountable bureaucrats, Facebook and Twitter have embarked on rampant programs of arbitrary censorship in which posts and entire accounts are routinely pulled down under the false and entirely subjective premise of meeting terms of service.

It is arbitrary stifling of free speech by monopolies that should have been broken up long ago were American anti-trust laws being enforced. Instead, it appears, the social media communications giants are being allowed to operate as an arm of the federal government. As was reported in the Wall Street Journal on Sunday, government control is the only mechanism by which monopolies are exempt from anti-trust regulations. That means that speech that is critical of the government and their actions is being removed from the public sphere by that same government in the most popular and influential communication realms. That sure doesn’t sound much like free speech.

The only area of mass communication that is not controlled by the globalist oligarchs is the Internet, and they are quickly working to add it to their portfolio of propaganda spreading structures. It will be the crowning jewel of their acquisition of total control, standing alongside the media posing as a free press, print, music, theater and television.

Constitutional, freedom-loving ideas are a threat to their power and they intend to remove our ability to communicate our ideals and objections to their violations among one another. The upcoming transfer of control of the Internet to the United Nations, the globalist government in sheep’s clothing, will be the beginning of the end of the free Internet and free speech globally.

Unaccountable, anonymous foreigners will be able to cancel, suspend or restrict our access and while we may or may not even be aware of it, we will regardless be unable to do anything about it. At that point their consolidation of power becomes an easy matter of controlling the message and herding the sheep.

The censoring of our free speech by Facebook and Twitter is a test by the Soros Obamanistas to evaluate our response and develop counter-measures. It is also the conditioning of the American people into the mindset that there is nothing we can do about it, and the reality that if we intend to be able to get our message out at all, we must soften our content. We are being told to make it less critical, less accurate, and more acceptable to our masters.

This is already happening with Facebook censoring titles as containing what they arbitrarily determine to be offensive words, such as “Muslim,” Islam,” “thug,” “KKK” or anything else that strikes some New Delhi import as being out of line or hateful. Perhaps he doesn’t like the word freedom or finds “American” to be discriminatory. Right or wrong, Constitutional or not are factors which will have no place in the decision. It’s completely subjective and that is how the globalist controllers want it.

Obama Facing Up To 10 Years To Life In Prison After His Term Ends

Do you remember the name Bowe Bergdahl?
If not, you’re not alone. Since the media cycle has turned its attention to other issues the POW/potential-deserter whose release was swapped for five Guantanamo Bay terrorists’ freedom has left the media spotlight.

However, despite the lack of headlines popping up there are still some major issues with the swap: most notably, the laws that President Obama broke to make it occur.
The first law that Obama broke in arranging for the swap was a law that he signed into effect himself. The law dictates that using taxpayer dollars to move prisoners of the military without giving Congress 30-days’ notice is illegal.
If you recall, President Obama gave no notice of the swap and took matters into his own hands.
The second law he broke is more serious and holds a ten-year prison sentence if Obama were to be convicted. Providing material assistance in any way to a terrorist organization breaks this law. Though it’s an interesting material—actual terrorist bodies that are living and breathing surely should qualify as material assistance. What better assistance could someone give a terrorist cell than additional bodies?
The five prisoners Obama released are currently being held in Qatar, where they’ll stay for a year. It is perhaps true that Obama avoided breaking the letter of the law by not sending the prisoners back into active combat, but after a year in Qatar there’s no saying where they’ll end up.
However, I sincerely doubt that these terrorists who have been held in prison for the past several years and are now older men are going to be grabbing AK-47s and joining the front ranks. In that regard, Obama is off the hook.
But proponents of the swap need to take into account the fodder that these released prisoners will provide to ISIS and other terrorists in the form of propaganda. As activists, these men could be the strongest weapon we’ve seen in the battle against terrorism.
Bergdahl is working in San Antonio while awaiting news on a possible court-martial to determine whether he left his post and is guilty of desertion. But Obama is still sitting in the White House. Let’s see if anyone is brave enough to bring him to trial for breaking the laws that he passed himself.


WikiLeaks Founder Just Revealed Why Sanders Really Dropped Out 

WikiLeals founder and editor Julian Assange has clear disdain for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and the system that got her the nomination. Last month he released emails, just prior to the Democratic National Convention, that showed that the Democratic National Committee had worked against Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders in favor of a Clinton nomination. The revelation caused outcry among Sanders’ supporters with accusations that the system had been rigged and that Bernie never had a chance. Although the emails show evidence of bias on the part of the DNC, Sanders nonetheless endorsed Clinton, citing party unity and the importance of preventing a Trump presidency.
However, Assange says that he knows the real reason Sanders dropped out: He was threatened. During an interview with John Pilger, an Australian journalist based in the United Kingdom who plans to create a documentary about the WikiLeaks founder, Assange was asked:
“Julian, we cut you off earlier when you were talking about what you felt were the most significant emails that you have released. Is there any last one that you’d like to mention? And also, do you have any thoughts on Bernie Sanders? I mean what is your opinion why Bernie Sanders drop out of the race?”
Here is Assange’s response:
Look, I think—you know, we know how politics works in the United States. Whoever—whatever political party gets into government is going to merge with the bureaucracy pretty damn fast. It will be in a position where it has some levers in its hand. And Bernie Sanders was independent candidate trying to get the nomination trough the Democratic Party and if you ask me he did get the nomination, but he was threatened to drop out.”
Assange says he plans on releasing more emails in the near future that show Clinton making deals with an alleged Islamic State sponsor that will lead to an FBI indictment. He also says he has damning emails about the Clinton Foundation, as well as more information about Sanders:
 “Of course we’re very interested in revealing the truth about any candidate and yes we have some material about Bernie Sanders that will be published.”

Brave Clinton Foundation Insider Agrees To Testify Against Clinton

American author Ed Klein has revealed that a brave Clinton Foundation insider has agreed to testify in a court of law against Hillary Clinton as the investigation into pay-to-play corruption continues to gain momentum.
Speaking on The Sean Hannity Show, Klein said Hillary Clinton is about to face some of her most challenging legal issues to date.
Reports of legal troubles for the foundation began last week when it was revealed that a joint FBI-US Attorney probe of The Clinton Foundation was currently underway. The charge is supported by a number of emails recently released by Judicial Watch, which suggest The Clinton Foundation engaged in pay-for-play while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State.
We are a long way from Hillary Clinton sliding into The White House without having some real serious legal problems before this election,” Klein said.
During his interview, Klein, author of the forthcoming book Guilty As Sin, dropped a number of bombshells:

– Klein confirmed that the ongoing investigation is being led by Preet Bharara, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Although he was appointed by Barack Obama, Bharara is known as a hard-nosed attorney–and has the track record to prove it. Bharara has successfully prosecuted dozens of Wall Street Executives and powerful politicians, including former New York’s Democratic Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, who was sent to prison for 12 years on federal corruption charges.
Bharara is reportedly working with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and two other District Attorneys, one in Little Rock, Arkansas, and another in Washington D.C.
This investigation, I would say, is hotter than ever,” Klein told Sean. Klein added that FBI Director James Comey may be seeking to “redeem himself” with a public corruption charge against Hillary after he failed to recommend indictment for her mishandling of classified information.
– According to Klein, Comey and Bharara have been in contact for months on the subject of Hillary Clinton’s public corruption with the Clinton Foundation while she was Secretary of State.
– Sources have confirmed to Klein that Bharara has lined up several witnesses who are willing to testify. According to Klein, at least one of those sources used to work for the Clinton Foundation, and would have first-hand knowledge of any pay-to-play which occurred.
Your sources are telling you that witnesses were said to be willing to testify that this was a quid pro quo–in other words that she sold access to her office?” Sean asked.
That’s my understanding from my sourcing,” Klein responded.
– Klein also claims to have spoken to three State Department employees that worked closely with Hillary Clinton while she was Secretary of State, who personally witnessed her dealing with State Department business.
They actually overheard her talking on the phone to a donor,” Klein explained. If true, Clinton’s actions would be a violation of a “memorandum of understanding” she signed prior to taking office, in which she promised to the Obama administration that she would not to engage in business connected to the foundation.
I’m not predicting this is going to happen,” Klein concluded. “All I’m saying is that the heat is on right now. Whether or not it’s going to flame into a real serious law case, who knows. Will Preet Bharara do the right thing? I hope so.”

YouTube video of Ed Klein talking to Sean Hannnity

The Church Of Climate Scientology: How Climate Science Became A Religion 

“Science” is perhaps the most abused word in the English language.

The word used to name the method of Galileo, Newton, and Einstein has also been used to rationalize some of the most destructive political policies in human history, such as socialism and population control. The Nazis invoked the once-renowned “science” of eugenics to justify a Holocaust of “scientifically inferior” races.

How do we protect ourselves against such abuses of science? By knowing the one key difference between real scientists and science abusers. Science abusers treat science as an infallible authority to be blindly obeyed by the public. Real scientists treat science as a method to be carefully explained to the public.

By this standard, today’s vaunted “climate science consensus”—that it’s been scientifically proven that we need to dismantle the fossil fuel industry, the economic engine of the world—is more Scientology than science.

Here are three ways the Climate Scientologists abuse science.

1.     They use manipulative language
 If you are ever asked the incoherent question “Do you deny climate change?” you have found yourself a Climate Scientologist.

No one denies “climate change.” “Climate change” is a constant. The “climate,” which is an averaging of weather over long timespan, is an inherently changing phenomenon. There’s no “climate non-change.”

Don’t tell me “Oh, we all know what we mean by climate change”–because I don’t, and neither do you.

“Climate change” is a manipulative, rubber term used to mean anything from “the climate changes” (which everyone agrees with) to “we impact the climate at least a tiny amount” (which everyone agrees with) to “we impact the climate for the better” (yes, that’s possible) to “we are making the climate much more dangerous” (which much fewer people agree with) to “we are making the climate much more dangerous and the only response is to stop using fossil fuels but also incoherently oppose nuclear power and hydroelectric power while advocating the worst-performing energy technologies, solar and wind.”

Climate Scientologists are usually advocates of the last, bizarre position. Since they can’t argue for that view honestly and directly, they dishonestly name their view “climate change.” That’s the equivalent of a eugenics advocate calling his view “evolution.” Which is, in fact, exactly what eugenics advocates did. And just as we needed more thinkers back then, so we need more Climate Thinkers today.

2.     They won’t admit when their theory fails
If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is – if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is all there is to it.
– Richard Feynman
Modern climate science is dominated by the hypothesis that CO2 is the major driver of climate—so much so that increasing it from .03% to .04% of the atmosphere has brought us to the verge of catastrophe.

One simple question to ask about this hypothesis, which has been around for many decades, is: “Does it agree with experiment?” Since the theory uses computer models to make apocalyptic predictions about the future, one straightforward question to ask is: can the climate prediction models actually predict climate?