Tag Archives: Real Reason for Libyan Invasion

The Roots of Europe’s Destruction and the Chaos in the Middle East

The roots of the European migrant crisis, which of course is directly tied to the proxy wars and chaos in the Middle East (particularly in places like Libya and Syria), run through foreign policy objectives implemented by Washington and Tel Aviv. This article will address them both, since that’s the only way you’ll be able to grasp what’s really going on as opposed to the constant media spin and propaganda we’re subjected to on a daily basis. First, let’s look at the US and NATO’s role in the attack on Libya and the underlying reasons for Gaddafi’s killing that naturally led to Libya becoming a completely failed state and breeding ground for terrorists.

Back in 2003, probably fearing that the Bush-Cheney regime would use his previous funding of certain groups the US designates as “terrorists” as justification to lump him in with the “Axis of Evil” list, Gaddafi renounced radical Muslim jihadists and handed over all his weapons of mass destruction (WMD’s) in a move that even Time magazine recognized by writing “Now Gaddafi’s a Good Guy”. He then established full diplomatic relations with the US shortly afterwards. Unfortunately, it wouldn’t last, since he’s wasn’t privy to a secret US military plan within the Pentagon hierarchy to take out 7 countries in 5 years including Libya. This plan was specifically told to Wesley Clark, who had been the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, by a 3-Star general in the Pentagon late in 2001. The countries that this general mentioned the Pentagon was going to take out were: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and finally ending with Iran. Later on in 2008, neocon Douglas Feith (under-secretary of defense for policy at the time) said that Donald Rumsfeld had sent a letter to President Bush on September 30th, 2001 that the US should seek to establish “new regimes” in the seven countries I’ve just enumerated.

After 9/11, the Neocons that came to power under the Bush-Cheney White House had previously written what their geopolitical playbook would be with “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” under the aegis of a Neocon think tank known as Project for the New American Century (PNAC), wherein they advocated that the US use its military might to project its power abroad to protect its “national interests” (i.e. US multinationals like Exxon-Mobile) and prevent any other country from becoming a legitimate rival to US hegemony now that the Soviet Union had dissolved as a major super power in the world. Another somewhat more covert (though no less important) aspect of US foreign policy as it pertains to the Middle East is its unequivocal support, both economically and politically, for the State of Israel that includes its illegal territorial ambitions in the region. We’ll deal with that later; for now let’s go back to Libya.

Prior to the French and US led NATO attack back in 2011, on behalf of radical Islamic jihadists in the Benghazi region, Libya was a flourishing and prosperous country. Gaddafi shared his country’s oil profits with his citizenry, had developed the largest agricultural irrigation project in the world helping to green the country for farmers, would advance $20,000 to newly married couples, and had the highest standard of living out of any African country. Where he made a fatal mistake, however, in terms of so-called US as well as French “national interests” is when he began to advocate for what he called a “Pan-African Union”. A major part of this philosophy was an economic system to fund their own development projects outside the control of the predatory IMF/World Bank system and the French domination of Francophone countries that would be backed in part by the Libyan Dinar, which was subsequently backed by gold and silver. This would not be tolerated by the IMF/World Bank nor France, who have always sought to plunder Africa’s rich mineral, oil, and precious metal resources on the one hand, while keeping the countries of Africa exploited and enslaved to debt on the other hand.

Disrupting that scenario, as Gaddafi did, is what triggered the coup d’etat of Western-backed rebel jihadists, who would take over the country only with the massive aerial bombing support by NATO fighter jets. So, even though the vast majority of the Libyan people were pro-Gaddafi, you had a handful of radical jihadists (including Al-Qaeda of North Africa and the Al-Nusra Front), who began an insurrection against him. Naturally, Gaddafi launched a counter-offensive, where he had practically wiped out these radical jihadists with very little bloodshed. The only stronghold left that they still controlled was in the city of Benghazi. At one point, he told the “rebels” to throw down their weapons, and they wouldn’t be harmed. However, it is at this stage in the campaign that the US State Department under Secretary Hillary Clinton pressed for attacking Gaddafi under the assumption that to do nothing would lead to a “bloodbath” of the civilian population in Benghazi. International human rights organizations like Amnesty International knew that it was an absurd claim, given that there was no indication that Gaddafi would risk being ostracized by the world community by committing such atrocities against his own people. But, as usual, lies and BS hysterics won out, and NATO launched a major bombing campaign against the Libyan army to aid the rebels in taking over the country, where it very quickly descended into civil war and chaos.

It is now known that military intervention into Libya by NATO wasn’t anything to do with humanitarian reasons. Even then Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta admitted in his memoirs that, “our goal in Libya was regime change.” As documented by David Ray Griffin in his excellent book, Bush and Cheney: How They Ruined America and the World, when Gaddafi’s own son, Saif, along with other high-ranking members of the Libyan regime tried to negotiate a resolution, Hillary Clinton told a general at the Pentagon to refuse to take the calls, since as an intelligence asset working with the Joint Chiefs of Staff told Saif, “Secretary Clinton does not want to negotiate at all.” So, if anyone was out for blood, it was then Secretary Hillary Clinton. After Gaddafi’s beaten, bruised, bloodied, and bayoneted dead body was shown in a video by the Benghazi jihadists, who would later kill US Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other staff members- Hillary Clinton crowed, “We came, we saw, he died.” By 2016, at least 100,000 Libyans left for Europe adding substantially to the refugee crisis there that continues to push their social service systems to the brink of collapse. And, after Gaddafi was taken out, his enormous weapons arsenal ended up in the hands of Al-Qaeda, Al-Nusra, and ISIS terrorists around the world, including Syria, where many went to fight a proxy war on behalf of what has become the US-Israel-Qatar-Saudi Arabian nexus against Syria’s Assad regime.

In fact, as I’ve discussed in a previous article about Libya, US Ambassador Christopher Stevens was helping the CIA and Pentagon under General David Petraeus run weapons out to radical jihadist groups that would later pop up in Syria and attempt to topple Assad. The consulate was little more than a convenient cover for this to take place. According to famed investigative reporter, Seymour Hersh, in an article published in the London Review of Books entitled “The Red Line and the Rat Line”:

“In January, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report on the assault by a local militia in September 2012 on the American consulate and a nearby undercover CIA facility in Benghazi, which resulted in the death of the US ambassador, Christopher Stevens, and three others. The report’s criticism of the State Department for not providing adequate security at the consulate, and of the intelligence community for not alerting the US military to the presence of a CIA outpost in the area, received front-page coverage and revived animosities in Washington, with Republicans accusing Obama and Hillary Clinton of a cover-up. A highly classified annex to the report, not made public, described a secret agreement reached in early 2012 between the Obama and Erdoğan administrations. It pertained to the rat line. By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi’s arsenals into Syria. A number of front companies were set up in Libya, some under the cover of Australian entities. Retired American soldiers, who didn’t always know who was really employing them, were hired to manage procurement and shipping. The operation was run by David Petraeus, the CIA director who would soon resign when it became known he was having an affair with his biographer.”

 

While Clinton claimed that she knew nothing about the weapons transfer taking place during the congressional hearings into the Benghazi scandal, Judicial Watch and Wiki-Leaks were able to show definitely that she was not only aware, she was actively pushing for weapons to be sent to “jihadists within Syria, including ISIS.”

Moving onto Syria, we learn that there are hidden motives, forces, and players at work, should we care to look below the surface of what is clearly one of the worst humanitarian crises on the planet right now. As I stated previously, Syria was on the list of 7 countries that the Pentagon wanted to orchestrate regime change against, but the $64,000 question is, “Why do they want to topple Syria’s Bashar al Assad?” Fundamentally speaking, the war is about the control of pipelines. According to long-time energy and geopolitical researcher, F. William Engdahl, “it became clear to some geopolitical Washington strategists that Qatar could play a strategic role in pushing Russia out of the EU natural gas game and put a US-controlled supplier, Qatar, in the dominant role.” That’s why back in 2009 the Emir of Qatar, who owns the largest gas fields in the world, went to Damascus to make a proposition to Syrian President Bashar al Assad. He proposed the construction of a natural gas pipeline that would begin in Qatar, cross over into Saudi Arabia and Syria, and finally end in Turkey, where the gas would be sold to the lucrative EU markets.

Assad, however, declined the offer, saying that he wanted to “protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe’s top supplier of natural gas.” As Engdahl says, “This was the beginning of the NATO decision to militarily destroy the Assad regime.” Instead, Syria decided to broker a deal for an alternative route that would run a pipeline from Iran through Iraq and on to Syria thereby leaving Qatar and Turkey out in the cold. In July of 2012, the three countries of Iran, Iraq, and Syria signed a Memorandum of Understanding, which officially outlined the proposed pipeline sometimes called the “Shi’ite Pipeline”. Besides bringing great riches to Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, should Assad be defeated and the pipeline built, the war had at least three main goals. According to geopolitical analyst Dmitry Minin, they were:

1) Break Russia’s gas monopoly in Europe. (Russia currently supplies around 40% to the EU market…not a complete monopoly but clearly the largest seller)

2) Free Turkey from its dependence on Iranian gas.

3) Give Israel the chance to export its gas to Europe by land at less cost.

As I’ve pointed out in my past articles on the Para-Political Journal, Israel has definite geopolitical goals in the Middle East, which contribute greatly to its chaotic conditions as well as the Muslim world’s hatred of the US for being their primary unconditional ally. But, just what are Israel’s long-term geopolitical goals in the Middle East? One of the best sources for understanding those goals comes from Christopher Bollyn’s book The War on Terror: The Plot to Rule the Middle EastIt’s in that book that he discusses what’s called the “Yinon Plan” based on the work of an Israeli strategist named Oded Yinon, who wrote about the plan in a document called “A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties”. Published in Hebrew back in 1982 by the World Zionist Organization’s Department of Information, the “Yinon Plan” (as it’s commonly known as) calls for “the destruction of the armies of large Arab states and the Balkanization of their nations into ethnic mini-states.” In the English version, under the title The Zionist Plan for the Middle East, Yinon states:

“The Western front, which on the surface appears more problematic, is in fact less complicated than the Eastern front, in which most of the events that make the headlines have been taking place recently. Lebanon’s dissolution into five provinces serves as a precedent for the entire Arab world including Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and the Arabian Peninsula, and is already following that track. The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unique areas such as in Lebanon, is Israel’s primary target on the Eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution of the military power of those states serves as the primary short term target. Syria will fall apart, in accordance with its ethnic and religious structure, into several states such as in present day Lebanon, so that there will be a Shi’ite Alawi state along its coast, a Sunni state in the Aleppo area, another Sunni state in Damascus hostile to its northern neighbor, and the Druzes who will set up a state, maybe even in our Golan, and certainly in the Hauran and in northern Jordan. This state of affairs will be the guarantee for peace and security in the area in the long run, and that aim is already within our reach today.”

This was written when Israeli attacks against Lebanon were at their fiercest, turning cities like Beirut into a similar kind of war zone hell hole that we see in places like Syria’s Aleppo today. Millions have fled into neighboring countries and migrated as far north as Sweden in the EU. As Christopher Bollyn relates in the book, “The Zionist vision for the Middle East rests on two essential premises: To survive, Israel must become an imperial regional power, and must effect the division of the whole area into small states by the dissolution of all existing Arab states.” And, this is precisely what’s occurring in the Middle East with the US-Israeli plans to redraw the map of the Arab states according to their own geopolitical strategies, which although not exactly the same certainly dovetail together. Despite what Neocon and Neo-Liberal politicians try to tell us, the Zionist plans for the Middle East most certainly are not in our best interests. As Linda Heard in an article entitled “Is the US Waging Israel’s Wars?” tells us:

“There is one thing that we do know. Oded Yinon’s 1982 Zionist Plan for the Middle East is in large part taking shape. Is this pure coincidence? Was Yinon a gifted psychic? Perhaps! Alternatively, we in the West are victims of a long-held agenda not of our making and without doubt not in our interests.”

Finally, I’d like to address the cultural, social, and ethnic destruction of Europe due to the millions of Arabs, who have migrated into the EU due to in large part to the proxy wars being fought in the Middle East (particularly those of Libya and Syria that I’ve documented thus far). However, in spite of real refugees in certain war-torn countries, there are also greater economic, political, and social opportunities available that are drawing people to migrate to Europe that simply don’t exist in many Middle Eastern countries. European countries, many of which are still trying to recover from the devastation of the 2008 financial crash, are now having their social service systems put under even greater strain by being forced by their own governments to accept millions of Arab immigrants, most of whom aren’t interested in culturally assimilating whatsoever. European countries such as France, Germany, and Sweden that have allowed for the greatest number of Arabs to migrate in are also experiencing a huge rise in crimes (thefts, assaults, rapes, murders, etc.) committed against their domestic population, which has quite naturally led to a rise in nationalist/identity movements in spite of the mostly PC climate among the establishment that dismisses their concerns as nothing but racist “Islamophobia”.

The question that politicians like France’s Emmanuel Macron or Germany’s Angela Merkel simply refuse to answer, it would seem, is: “Does a sovereign country have the right to defend their national culture, ethnic heritage, language, religious values, and integrity against total dissolution by an outside foreign element that seeks to replace it?” If the answer is “yes”, then the EU would be wise to limit how many immigrants they allow in before a civil war erupts between the newly arrived mostly Muslim and mostly Arab immigrants and the mostly Christian and mostly white European nationals. When you look at a documentary on Sweden’s current immigrant crisis, for example, especially when reports about Swedish girls being raped by the recent transplants go unaddressed by the justice system, I think it’s high time that Europe start seriously thinking about stemming the tide of migrants flooding into their countries before they wake up one day and can’t recognize their own country anymore. Many are already saying just that. As unbelievable as it might sound, however, even the massive amount of migrants flooding into Europe from Middle Eastern countries could well be part of a social engineering program that was actually outlined in detail some 100 years ago by a man many consider to be the “father of the European Union”. This man is Count Richard Nikolas von Coudenhove-Kalergi.

As documented in the book The Killing of Uncle Sam, “Coudenhove-Kalergi became an advocate for Woodrow Wilson’s ‘Fourteen Points’ and the pacific initiatives of Karl Hiller. In 1921, he joined the Masonic lodge Humanitas, which he used as the launching pad for his Pan Europa movement. One year later, he published the Pan Europa manifesto, which captured the attention of Baron Louis de Rothschild and Max Warburg (father of Paul, the founder of the Federal Reserve), who opted to fund the movement to unify Europe with 60,000 gold marks. In his books Praktischer Idealismus and Kampf im Paneuropa, Coudenhove-Kalergi argued for the dissolution of national borders and the promotion of mass allogenic (genetically dissimilar) immigration. The result of this immigration, Coudenhove-Kalergi wrote, would be the creation of ‘the men of the future,’ whom he called mestizos. Such men would be of mixed Caucasian, Negro, and Asiatic blood and would appear ‘very similar to the ancient Egyptians’. The mongrelization of mankind, according to Coudenhove-Kalergi, would produce salubrious results, such as the dissolution of nationalism, the elimination of racism, and the eradication of disparities in levels of human intelligence. Since the mestizos would be of limited intelligence, Coudenhove-Kalergi maintained, they could be easily manipulated and controlled by ‘Jewish leaders of socialism’ (herrenmenschen), who had been singled out by divine providence to rule the world.”

So, here is Coudenhove-Kalergi talking about the dissolution of national borders via a Pan Europa superstate, mass genetically-dissimilar immigration, the creation of a mestizo racially mixed “man of the future” that looks similar to the beige color of the ancient Egyptian (albeit with very limited intelligence), and the control of such a thoroughly mixed and culturally inert population by a Jewish socialist elite, whom divine providence has made them “with their most exalted unselfishness, to erase the original sin of capitalism, to free people from injustice, violence, and subservience and to change the redeemed world into an earthly paradise”. Reading that last quote, I’m thinking, “What are you, fucking nuts?! Take a look at the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, if you want to get a sense of what Jewish injustice, violence, and subservience really looks like rather than being so deluded as to thinking they’re going to free you from it.” But, as crazy as his theories are to my mind, he was able to garner some very powerful support and backing, which again appear to be playing itself out on the world stage now.

After WWII broke out, Coudenhove-Kalergi first fled to France and then to the US after the Nazis invaded in 1940 where he came under the care of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) that has essentially dominated US foreign policy since their founding in 1921. During that time, he helped to draft the wartime strategy of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and the postwar plans for the revitalization of Europe. Among his many disciples included such notable and powerful men as Senator William Fulbright, Allen Dulles, Thomas W. Braden, William J. Donovan, Arthur Goldberg, Jay Lovestone, and Joseph H. Retinger, who worked together to create the American Committee for a United Europe. This committee would then give rise to the European Coal and Steel Community, which was the predecessor to the European Union. This man was very well respected by some of the highest ranking men in the councils of government, as this list clearly shows and as his duties entailed, and this is only proven further when in 1950 he received the first annual Karlpreis (Charlemagne Award) for his contribution to European ideals. And, as far as Coudenhove-Kalergi is concerned, part of those “European ideals” apparently calls for the elimination of the Caucasian race and the creation of a socialist Superstate in a similar vein as to what the EU actually is today. Now, with an understanding of the writings of Coudenhove-Kalergi firmly in mind, suddenly the cultural crisis stemming from the mass migration from Arab countries aided and abetted by certain well-placed NGO’s that have a far reaching agenda for Europe, we can begin to see that it’s perhaps not such an accident after all but rather the playing out of Kalergi’s Pan Europa Plan.

 

Primary Sources

Griffin, David Ray. Bush and Cheney: How They Ruined America and the World. Olive Branch Press, 2017.

Bollyn, Christopher. The War on Terror: The Plot to Rule the Middle East. 2017

Howard-Browne, Rodney and Paul L. Williams. The Killing of Uncle Sam: The Demise of the United States of America. River Publishing, 2018.

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Is Donald Trump a Target for Political Assassination?

Target Trump

The author of such prescient classics as Animal Farm and 1984, George Orwell wrote, “Those who control the past, control the future. And, those who control the present now, control the past.” And yet, I doubt many people could have predicted the insane 3-ring political circus that is being orchestrated before our eyes not merely for our amusement but to readily capture our hearts and minds for the upcoming November elections in the battle for what will become of this once great nation that has become a corporate and consumerist caricature of its former self.

While I’m wise (and some would say cynical) enough to see the duopoly of the 2-Party System as essentially a rigged game, this doesn’t imply that there are no differences between the two candidates this year at least based on what they claim to stand for in style if not entirely in substance. Personally, I’m nauseous just thinking about Hillary Clinton as the Commander-in-Thief. Based on everything that I’ve read, researched, and heard from her- it should be obvious to everyone that she will essentially be nothing but an establishment puppet in the same vein as Barrack Obama was albeit without the swagger and charm of Obama and likely more bloodthirsty for war with Syria and Russia.

It’s known that the Clinton Foundation is a slush fund for political kickbacks and bribery. Even back when Bill was office, the Chinese were providing campaign cash for US military and technological secrets were initially investigated and then squashed. Whitewater, Mena, AR Cocaine Trafficking, Travelgate, Waco, OKC Bombing, TWA 800, Vince Foster’s Death, and the sexual assault and rapes of multiple women by Bill Clinton all occurred while Hillary Clinton (like Tammy Wynette would sing) “stood by her man” not because she particularly loved him at that point as her cussing tirades in front of aides and Secret Service agents would attest but for what I can only assume is political expediency.

Hillary in Hell

Later, her lust for political power would lead to an unsuccessful run for the presidency in 2008 given the meteoric rise of what I saw as a False Messiah and Manchurian Candidate, given his family’s CIA pedigree via the USAID. It’s rumored that Obama even told former classmates that he was “an Indonesian Prince” or “Kenyan Royalty”, which would seem to confirm my suspicions that candidates are “selected by blood” rather than elected by popular vote. Naturally, we learned much later that he was actually a distant cousin of Dick Cheney, the Dark Lord of the Neo-Con Empire that Obama was supposed to be huge reprieve from. Hillary knew she was next in line and therefore had time to stoke the flames of her rise to the top of the DNC totem pole with stint as Secretary of State, where she also had time to preside over one of the worst scandals of the Obama Administration with Benghazi, feign surprise at the fake bin Laden assassination, and gloat over the murder of Gaddafi in an invasion that cost thousands of Libyan lives.

What the American people weren’t told about the Libyan attack mainly by French forces was that in addition to securing France’s neo-colonialist position in Francophone countries of Africa and gaining a goodly share of Libyan oil reserves, Libya held 143 tons of gold and a similar amount in silver. Wikileaks released an unclassified US State Department document that was emailed to Hillary Clinton on April 2nd, 2011 from Sidney Blumenthal, which essentially spelled out how Libya was attacked not for being a threat but to loot its gold and silver reserves. These precious metal reserves were going to back a Pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar as an alternative to the French Franc. Needless to say, the mainstream snooze media never got around to reporting this.

My point to clarify once and for all (as if the disenfranchised Bernie Sanders supporters didn’t already know) is that Hillary Clinton is a lying, manipulative, greedy, power-hungry, and vicious establishment shill, who will do and say anything to get into the Oval Office. And, seeing Bernie Sanders capitulate the way he did at the DNC National Convention, where the primaries looked to be rigged in Hillary’s favor as the DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Shultz clearly favored and collaborated with Hillary to give her the nomination, was just plain sad to see. Whether or not Bernie was roughed up, threatened, or bribed to back Hillary at the convention, I can’t really say one way or another. However, his passionate and principled supporters were essentially railroaded and cheated out the nomination for Sanders, who I think stood a better chance against Trump anyway all things being equal.

Congrats Bernie Sanders

As for Donald Trump, he has said a great many things that make a lot of political analysts very angry and worried apparently. In terms of the general public, some see him as a bloated narcissist, others as the voice of disenfranchised mostly poor and middle-class white people. Some see him as a dangerous proto-fascist demagogue, others as a champion of “Making America Great Again” (whatever that entails). So far, there’s a lot of political platitudes as were in abundance at the GOP Convention and not much in the way of specifics and substance as in how he’s actually going to achieve all his lofty goals like building a wall between the US and Mexico border while getting Mexico to pay for it, being the greatest jobs president, renegotiating our financial obligation to NATO, eliminating the Trans-Pacific Partnership, getting rid of Obama Care, supporting our Vets, etc.

Whether you agree with his policy stances or are totally opposed, one thing is for sure- “Donald Trump is a big political unknown in terms what he’ll actually do if he gets into the Oval Office, and it is this question mark that I believe is scaring the shit out of the establishment right now.” There’s enough to see in his business history as a real estate mogul and entrepreneur (from what I’ve seen) to predict that Trump will do what’s good for Trump and his over-sized ego whether or not the public likes his ideas or not. His wife and kids do help to humanize his larger than life persona, but this is a double-edged sword. Recently, he made some strides towards playing ball after having completely ostracizing himself from the GOP establishment by endorsing Majority Leader Paul Ryan and Senator John McCain for their respective seats. But, his alienation from party leaders has a long way to go before he could potentially collaborate with them successfully should the GOP come to dominate the Congress.

Here’s the real question that I’ve been pondering as of late as the police shootings by angry (and mostly military-trained) black people continues…”Is Donald Trump a target for political assassination?” Former maverick governor of Minnesota, Jesse Ventura, certainly seems to think so now that Trump has picked party mainstay Pence as his running mate. There’s certainly no shortage of available patsies and willing dupes out there, especially when you consider him being painted as anti-Muslim, anti-Mexican and protests by the “Black Lives Matter” people with his very vocal support of the police. If for whatever reason it looks like Hillary Clinton can’t simply rig the swing states to give her the election the way that George W. Bush was able to do via electronic voting machines, Trump would likely be target by either a MK-Ultra styled mind-controlled assassin like Sirhan Sirhan or Mark David Chapman, who after he shot John Lennon calmly sat down outside the Dakota Building and began reading The Catcher and the Rye.

In the case of the RFK assassination, Sirhan Sirhan was essentially a programmed mind-controlled assassin but didn’t fire the fatal shots that were fired into Robert Kennedy’s head from the rear. All witnesses inside the kitchen pantry that day said that Sirhan Sirhan was always in front of Kennedy about 4 to 6 feet way. It was clear to everyone that night in Los Angeles in 1968 that Robert Kennedy was well on his way to winning the Democratic primaries to be the nominee, where he was expected to win the presidency. He had built his platform on a very sympathetic idealistic populism that couldn’t be stopped by simply manipulating the primaries and controlling the Super Delegates the way Bernie’s campaign was derailed. Therefore, the ruling Cabal decided he had to go just as JFK was killed before him.

RFK Lays Dying

In other words, the status quo was thought to be inviolate just as I’m sure it is considered to be today. Those that threaten the established order of things are considered dangerous to the ruling Cabal, who could easily target them for elimination. Let’s take it a step further, since I like to deal in hard verifiable truths. Shortly after the aforementioned politically-active John Lennon was assassinated by a mind-controlled CIA asset, Ronald Reagan barely survived an assassination attempt on his life. Previously on the campaign trail, Reagan attempted to distance himself from the Cabal and one of their front men, George H.W. Bush Sr., who was not only a former head of the CIA but a member of the secretive Skull and Bones. This is no ordinary college fraternity as some assume, but (as I detailed in a previous article of mine) has connections going back to the British East India Company’s Opium trafficking into China up through their backing of Nazis via Brown Brothers Harriman and the Union Bank that was busted under the “Trading With the Enemies Act” when Prescott Bush was a board member and on through the heroin trade during Vietnam and beyond.

Keeping all that background in mind, once Reagan allowed Bush to be his VP the stage was now set for a political coup d’etat. The would-be assassin, John Hinckley Jr., claimed he wanted to impress Jody Foster, who famously played a teenage prostitute in the movie Taxi Driver. Her loner, self-appointed defender was played by Robert DiNiro whose character, Travis Bickle, also wanted to impress an attractive campaign worker for a presidential candidate by killing the guy (who represented a kind of father figure to the country). When he failed to do that, he settled for killing the pimp (the figurative father figure) of Iris the teenage prostitute played of course by Jody Foster. Interestingly enough, John Hinckley Jr.’s older brother Scott Hinckley was planning on having dinner with one of George H.W. Bush’s sons, Neil Bush, the same day as the assassination attempt in Neil’s Denver, Colorado home. Apparently, the father, John Hinckley Sr., and the Bush family were old friends, and he contributed money to Bush’s political campaign. Bear in mind that we are supposed to think of all of this as just some odd coincidence. When John Hinkley Jr. was sentenced, he was found “not guilty” by reason of insanity and admitted to St. Elizabeth’s Hospital in Washington D.C. where he stayed until just this year when he was unexpectedly released for the first time. The question is why now?

Travis Bickle a Man of the People

This isn’t to imply that he’ll be reactivated as some sort of revived Manchurian Candidate, but the timing, at least in terms of a subtle hint, is telling when you consider Bush’s aforementioned connection here. Obviously, Bush Sr. was hoping that his other son, Jeb Bush, would continue the dynastic rule of the White House. So, Trump’s unlikely ascendancy to the top of the GOP heap where Jeb’s anemic pretensions were easily seen through must have been a source of anguish for Poppy Bush and his sinister burgeoning brood. At one point, when he was asked about Trump, he seemed to symbolically gesture a kind of throat cutting with his hands on camera that you can see for yourself pretty clearly. Coming from Bush Sr., this is indeed an ominous foreboding.

Back in 1992, Ross Perot (much like Donald Trump now) decided to put up his own considerable wealth in running for the presidency. He was brazenly outspoken, didn’t care about political correctness, and appeared to shoot from the hip in his manner of speaking that really resonated with the masses at the time. Sound familiar yet? Seemingly coming out of nowhere as an improbable 3rd Party candidate, he spoke in the kind of “plain spoken” folksy common sense language that appealed to many disenfranchised voters and scored a major coup when he was allowed into the presidential debates. However, when it looked like he was going to win…he did two things that completely sunk his campaign. The first was making a politically at least idiotic mistake in who he chose as his running mate, namely a guy that looked and sounded like he was two sandwiches short of picnic. Then, he did something that made absolutely no sense whatsoever…he dropped out of the race. By the time he came back, he had lost what momentum he had, and the vote was swung to Bill Clinton. Shortly after Clinton got into office, he passed NAFTA that led to that giant sucking sound that Perot warned everybody about, only this time it wasn’t Monica Lewinsky doing the sucking it was jobs going south of the border. So, Perot ended up splitting the GOP ticket the same way Teddy Roosevelt did with the Bull Moose Party, who ended up splitting up the sure Taft ticket that paved the way for Woodrow Wilson to get in, where he could pass the Federal Reserve Act. Motivated by his desire to defeat Bush and prevent him from serving a second term, Perot entered the race without necessarily even needing to know he was used as a ringer to get Clinton into office. After all, Bush knew that it would easier for Clinton to pass NAFTA given a majority Democratic Congress. He would have known Clinton having been to the Bilderberger Group in 1991 was one of the boys after all.

Ross Perot at the Debates

As for Ross Perot, he was a staunch advocate for the MIA/POW cause and found out that the US still had POWs in Laos and Cambodia. He also likely would have known of the heroin being flown and sailed out of the Golden Triangle had CIA fingerprints all over it. When Green Beret Col. Bo Gritz met with the major heroin kingpin warlord, Khun Sa, he fingered George H.W. Bush Sr. as being one of the major traffickers, who used his main operative Richard Armitage in Southeast Asia as a conduit for the heroin. Perot likely also knew that had he spilled the beans about Bush Sr. that he would have been killed as readily as JFK was, and I suspect feared for not just his own life but that of his family. It would certainly go a long way towards explaining his actions in the race that year. Officially, he claimed that top GOP operatives connected with Bush/Quayle were using “dirty tricks” against him such as threatening to disrupt his daughter’s wedding along with posting fake pictures of her with the media (reportedly implying that she was a “lesbian”). He was also told of a plan to tap his phones at his office in Dallas. However, as elaborated by the New York Times, he said that there were at least 7 reasons as to why he was dropping out of the race, and the ones he told 60 Minutes seemed rather small to my mind as to why he dropped out with so much invested at that point. The “unofficial” reason that was never revealed might have had something to do with the aforementioned threat to his and perhaps his family’s life. Former Black-Ops Soldier working in the clandestine Project Pegasus, Gene “Chip” Tatum, claims he was actually assigned to “neutralize” (assassinate) Ross Perot by George H.W. Bush back in 1992, but he luckily turned it down. He even wrote a letter to Ross Perot back in April of 1996 about this very contract along with what happened to him afterwards that you can read on the right side of the website by going here. Later on, Chip Tatum would be taken out in a contract hit himself based on what he knew and threatened to reveal about the Bush Cocaine/Covert Ops Crime Syndicate. After Ronald Reagan was shot back in 1981, he got the message apparently and went on to sell his soul to the Enterprise as we all learned from his involvement in Iran/Contra among other things during his presidency. As for Trump, all I can say is- “Watch your back!”