The Deep State has tried to depose a duly elected president on totally specious grounds. None dare call it treason. From Joe Lauria at consortiumnews.com:
A new book, an anonymous Op-Ed and an Obama speech in the first seven days of September appeared to reveal dangerous insider moves against a dangerous, but constitutionally elected president, writes Joe Lauria.
In the first seven days of September efforts to manage and perhaps oust a constitutionally elected president were stunningly made public, raising complex questions about America’s vaunted democratic system.
What unfolded appears reminiscent of the novel and film Seven Days in May: the story of an attempted military coup against a U.S. president who sought better relations with Russia. The fictional president was based on the real one, John F. Kennedy, who opened the White House in 1963 to director John Frankenheimer to film the only scenes of a Hollywood movie ever made there.
Kennedy was well aware of the Pentagon brass’ political fury after his refusal to proceed with a full-scale assault against Cuba in the Bay of Pigs operation. It was compounded by his desire for detente with Moscow after the Cuban Missile Crisis, which Kennedy expressed forcefully in his seminal American University address, five months before his death.
Posted in Crime, Cronyism, Geopolitics, Government, History, Intelligence, Investigations, Media, Morality, Politics
Tagged Barack Obama, CIA, FBI, Fusion GPS, NY Times anonymous editorial, President Trump, Seven Days In May
It is good to know that wise Deep Staters are protecting us from the “depredations” of the man we elected to take on the Deep State. From Allan Stevo at lewrockwell.com:
September 5, 2018, the New York Times ran an anonymous op-ed from “a senior White House official,” in which he criticizes Trump as being “anti-democratic.” The senior official goes on to hypocritically explain how he secretly works each day to undermine the duly elected President of the United States.
One such example, according to the anonymous author, is how the deep state saboteurs in the White House successfully provoke aggression with Moscow in order to “frustrate” Trump’s attempt to de-escalate with both Russia and North Korea, long derided targets of neo-con enmity.
Why hasn’t Trump been able to de-escalate tension with Russia as much as he’s wanted to? Because, according to this anonymous deep state bureaucrat, “his national security team knew better” than to allow him to de-escalate. Continue reading
A new bull market is coming that will wipe out many of the current bull markets.
Its chart looks good—building a base for decades, lately bursting through the top of its range. The ascent has been steep, pullbacks minor, and it looks like it’s gathering steam for a long run.
Anger is lifting off in what market technicians would call the first impulsive wave of a new bull market. That’s the technicians’ way of saying this is just the beginning. Punctuated by brief remissions, there are many more and much larger waves to come before this trend is exhausted.
One of the best technicians of them all, Robert Prechter, has spent his career analyzing the indicators and dynamics of social mood, his touchstone term that has yet to make it into the popular lexicon. By the time this trend exhausts, perhaps there will be more widespread recognition of both the term and its awesome power. The anger waves will lay waste to the best laid plans of mice, men, women, and whatever you want to call those witless, arrogant creatures who inhabit central banks, governments, and globalist fronts…and those who pull their strings. Continue reading
Posted in banking, Business, Collapse, Crime, Debt, Economy, Financial markets, Foreign Policy, Geopolitics, Governments, History, Intelligence, Investigations, Military, Politics, War
Tagged Bob Woodward, central bank policy, Financial crisis, NY Times anonymous editorial, President Trump, Syria
There’s a fifth column working againt Trump within his own administration. From Justin Raimondo at antiwar.com:
I’m often asked “How can you claim President Trump is in any way supporting your antiwar agenda when he …” and this is followed by a reference to at least one of the places on earth where he’s violating his “no more regime change” pledge or otherwise supporting the unsupportable, as in Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen. I’ve always answered by saying that, in the long run, and in a general sense, his November 2016 win was a giant step forward in that the anti-interventionist principle has been victorious even if it’s being imperfectly implemented.
However, back in April I raised the possibility of an active “resistance” inside the White House that is specifically preventing him from carrying out his mandate for peace. In “A President Held Hostage?” I outlined the scenario an anonymous White House official described in a recent New York Times op ed piece, wherein he or she describes the forces out to destroy Trump’s presidency:
“The dilemma – which he does not fully grasp – is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.
“I would know. I am one of them.”
Now the establishment is going to try to get of Trump via the 25th Amendment. This effort will go no better than the previous efforts. From Tom Luongo at tomluongo.me:
If there’s one thing that makes this job difficult it is the endless smokescreens. Filtering out the noise is draining. From the double-speak of politicians to the endless manipulations of financial markets by central bankers the world is awash in fake news, fake prices and fake geniuses.
So, when a series of events occur that bring clarity to the circus that is world politics, my first reaction is to distrust them. It’s that weird moment when the evil-doers rip off their masks and just start telling you what their intentions are. This creates cognitive dissonance in those of us conditioned to reading between the thinnest of lines.
But, sometimes things are exactly what they appear to be. Continue reading
Nobody outside the Washington circus is paying much attention to what’s going on inside the circus. From Christian Whiton at nationalinterest.org:
The media is determined to prove that Donald Trump is unfit to be president.
My first reaction to the anonymous anti-Trump op-ed in the New York Times was perhaps unusual for a resident of the swamp, which has been so hyper this week: I chuckled, rolled my eyes, and didn’t even make it to the end of the article before losing interest.
It probably helps that I spent the week in Colorado and Utah, where seemingly no one cares. In the conversations in which I have participated or overheard, this subject has come up zero times. Muted televisions in airports and hotel lounges, which still carry CNN and its angry commentators out of habit, are blissfully ignored as life happens.
Most people outside the swamp either know what the media is up to or just don’t care anymore. Continue reading
And the answer is…. From Paul Craig Roberts at paulcraigroberts.org:
I know who wrote the anonymous “senior Trump official” op-ed in the New York Times. The New York Times wrote it.
The op-ed (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/50194.htm) is an obvious forgery. As a former senior official in a presidential administration, I can state with certainty that no senior official would express disagreement anonymously. Anonymous dissent has no credibility. Moreover, the dishonor of it undermines the character of the writer. A real dissenter would use his reputation and the status of his high position to lend weight to his dissent.
The New York Times’ claim to have vetted the writer also lacks credibility, as the New York Times has consistently printed extreme accusations against Trump and against Vladimir Putin without supplying a bit of evidence. The New York Times has consistently misrepresented unsubstantiated allegations as proven fact. There is no reason whatsoever to believe the New York Times about anything.