The news came fast and furious this past week I seem to say that a lot, but the past seven days have been off the charts. Let’s take a look at it.
It seems like longer than that, but it was just last weekend that alt-media superstar Mike Cernovich revealed that Obama administration official Susan Rice was the one who requested the unmasking of Trump transition team officials.
In March Trump sent and outraged tweet claiming that Obama “wiretapped” him, which prompted howls of protest from the mainstream media. Trump had no proof they said. What do they say now?
If one were to take the term “wiretap” in the strictest literal sense, then the revelations about Rice do not support Trump’s allegation. But if we understand “wiretap” as a general term for surveillance, then, yes, the story certainly does back up Trump.
So just what is unmasking, anyway? To quote the Wall Street Journal, “Unmasking is a term used when the identity of a U.S. citizen or lawful resident is revealed in classified intelligence reports. Unmasking is justified for national security reasons but is governed by strict rules across the U.S. intelligence apparatus that make it illegal to pursue for political reasons or to leak classified information generated by the process.”
But what are we to think when the National Security Advisor of an outgoing presidential administration requests the unmasking of names in transcripts of legal telephone calls involving aides to the oppositions parties presidential candidate? By any reasonable standard, this smacks of politically motivated snooping. In other words, it’s Watergate 2.0.
And it’s not as if Susan Rice requested just a little information. As the Daily Caller reports, “Susan Rice ordered U.S. spy agencies to produce ‘detailed spreadsheets’ of legal phone calls involving Donald Trump and his aides when he was running for president, according to former U.S. Attorney Joseph diGenova.
Doubtless, there is much more to be revealed about the extent of the Obama administrations spying on Trump. But the Rice revelations clearly support Trump’s allegations that he was “wiretapped.”
By contrast, the many months of investigations into Trump’s alleged ties to Russia have produced nothing but hot air.
Not that total lack of any evidence has stopped Democrats from pushing this absurd narrative. It would seem that they just cannot get over the fact that after all their rigged polling, rigged debates, and voter fraud, they have nothing to show for their efforts.
It must be the Russians!!
The Democrat’s conspiracy theory of Russian election hacking is so threadbare that even Noam Chomsky, every liberal’s favorite public intellectual, recently called their obsession with the story “a joke.”
If lack of evidence won’t persuade the Democrats to drop the charges of Russian hacking, perhaps an investigation into the Susan Rice unmasking incident will.
This week saw a couple more terrorist attacks by followers of the religion of peace. On Monday, a blast in St. Petersburg, Russia killed 14. The attack was carried out by Akbarzhon Jalilov, a man born in Kyrgyzstan.
In what has become a tragic trend, an Uzbeki national drove a truck into a department store killing 5 and injuring 15. As Al Jazerra notes, as of today it has not been determined whether the suspect was legally in Sweden.
But regardless of the legal status of the perpetrator, this is yet one more example of abject failure of the immigration/refugee policies put in place by corrupt Western governments.
Had the Swedish government not spent decades importing Muslims at taxpayer expense while simultaneously suppressing the objections of their own citizens, the very people who were called on to foot the bill, it is doubtful this incident would have occurred at all.
One Swede who is not afraid to speak about the problems of mass Muslim immigration is Peter Springare, a veteran policeman. His remarks in the Sunday Times are instructive,
The highest and most extreme violence – rapes and shooting – is very dominated by criminal immigrants.
This is a different criminality that is tougher and rawer. It is not what we would call ordinary Swedish crime. This is a different animal.
It is taboo to talk about the issues behind it [the rise in violent crime]. If we bring it up, the politicians of the centrist parties, the ones with power, brush us off. They say, “We know, we know there are challenges.” it is not just a challenge – it is a problem.
This is not just a problem in Sweden. Almost without exception, Western elected officials eagerly betray the interests of their voters in favor of a globalist policy of importing immigrants and refugees from the farthest corners of the earth and sticking their own citizens with the bill.
And if anyone complains about this, quite obviously the problem is with him, not the immigration policy.
But as tempting as it is to pin the problem of Muslim terrorism in Western countries on the Muslims, the biggest fault lies with us in the West.
Had Western nations not rejected Christ for secular humanism, we never would have built the huge welfare states that are so attractive to the Islamists.
Had Western nations, the US in particular, not rejected the Christian doctrine of minding their own business in favor of a policy of global interventionism which has seen them blow up half the middle-east, there wouldn’t be all those terrorist Muslim refugees in the West in the first place.
The root cause of the obvious problems the West is experiencing with immigration and terrorism is not economic, Neither it is political. Rather, it is spiritual.
Western civilization was built on the widespread preaching of, and belief in, the gospel of Justification by Faith Alone.
Now that belief in the gospel is fading, so too is the civilization that it built.
On Tomahawk Cruise Missiles
Has Trump gone full neocon? It certainly looks that way.
On Thursday, Trump gave the go-ahead to launch 59 Tomahawk Cruise Missiles at a Syrian air base in response to a sarin gas attack allegedly perpetrated by Syria’s president Bashar Assad.
This action represents a significant break from Trump’s foreign policy stance while a candidate. During the 2016 campaign, Trump ran on a policy of America First with an emphasis on staying out of foreign wars.
Just last week, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson announced that the removal of Assad was no longer a goal of American policy in the region.
But the gas attack earlier this week which left 85 people dead changed all that.
Now we’re back to “Assad must go!”
But what if Assad was not responsible for the attack?
On his “Liberty Report” YouTube channel, Ron Paul advanced the notion that the gas attack may have been a false flag attack. A false flag is where an attack is committed by one party but done is such as way as to make it appear that another party carried it out.
This may sound absurd and conspiratorial to some, but a very good case can be made that all is not as it appears.
As Paul points out,
Before this episode of possible gas exposure and who did what, things were going reasonable well for the conditions. Trump said let the Syrians decide who should run their country, and peace talks were making out, and Al Qaeda and ISIS were on the run.
It looks like, maybe, somebody didn’t like that so there had to be an episode, and the blame now is we can’t let that happen because it looks like it might benefit Assad…
It makes no sense, even if you were totally separate from this and take no sides of this and you were just an analyst, it doesn’t make sense for Assad under those conditions [he was winning the civil war] to all of the sudden use poison gases. I think it’s zero chance that he would have done this deliberately.
Cui bono?, who benefits? was a question asked by the ancient Romans. And we would do well to ask the same.
The neoconservative foreign policy establishment that has been behind America’s wars in the middle-east would be one obvious beneficiary of a gas attack blamed on Assad. Earlier this week, prominent John McCain ripped the Trump administration’s Syria policy, calling it “another disgraceful chapter in American history.”
The CIA is another winner. There is substantial evidence that the CIA has been funding ISIS for the purpose of overthrowing Assad. According to congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, the “CIA has also been funneling weapons and money through Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and others who provide direct and indirect support to groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda. This support has allowed al-Qaeda and their fellow terrorist organizations to establish strongholds throughout Syria, including in Aleppo.”
The Federal Reserve is another winner. By attacking Assad, Saudi-backed ISIS is strengthened, thereby supporting the petrodollar, a critical link in maintaining the dollar as the world’s reserve currency.
Israel also benefits. As a strong, militarily successful nation, Syria is seen as a threat to Israeli interests. Taking down Assad and partitioning the nations serves the strategic interests of Israel.
Finally, I would suggest the Deep State benefits by having the investigation into the Obama administration’s apparent illegal surveillance of Trump knocked off the front pages. Does anyone even remember Susan Rice?
With a gas attack blamed on Assad in the obvious interest of these powerful groups, it is the opinion of this writer that the sarin gas attack in Syria is most likely the result of a false flag.
Of course, as a result of Trump’s shoot first and ask questions later missile attack, we likely never will know for sure.
The losers? Well that would be the American people who would rather not be taxed and killed in foreign wars that have nothing to do with their interest.
Losers also are those who voted for Trump hoping that he would pursue a different foreign policy than his predecessors, this author included.
I’m old enough not to be surprised when politicians break their campaign promises. But Trump, it would seem, abandoned his faster than most.