Joel Skousen on the NWO Conspiracy
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- World Affairs Brief, December 16, 2016 Commentary and Insights on a Troubled World. World Affairs Brief, December 16, 2016 Commentary and Insights on a Troubled World. Copyright Joel Skousen. Partial quotations with attribution permitted. Cite source as Joel Skousen's World Affairs Brief (http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com). This Week’s Analysis: Bogus Claims of Russian Influence in US Election Disinformation “Leaks” Creating Fake News What’s Behind the Anti-Russia Attacks? The Real Atrocities in Syria Assad’s View of the War in Syria More Trump Picks Preparedness Tip: Wood Stoves BOGUS CLAIMS OF RUSSIAN INFLUENCE IN US ELECTION The mainstream media has been trumpeting warnings about fake news in order to discredit the alternative media, including blaming the free media for acting as outlets for Russian ‘propaganda’, which is ludicrous. However, this easily discredited assault on the free media pales in comparison with the explosion of claims this week that Russia was responsible for hacking the DNC emails, and passing them on to Wikileaks, which revealed so many embarrassing facts about John Podesta and Hillary Clinton. Yesterday we were told this foreign manipulation on behalf of Donald Trump was directed by Putin himself—all without any proof whatsoever. Now, it seems we’re going from fake news to fake intelligence, as this story is a US intelligence fabrication from beginning to end. Usually the media is careful to only manipulate and/or omit key details about news in order to distort listener conclusions. However this latest gambit truly amounts to the “Big Lie.” It’s easy to do in our society because of the uncritical acceptance that media and politicians give to US intelligence. But, as I will demonstrate below they are the core of the operational dark side of government—the “deep state” —and because of an impenetrable wall of secrecy, no one—not even Congress—is allowed to see the raw data they supposedly use to reach these bogus conclusions. We just have to “take their word” for it. There was even a flurry of stories in the media about Russia trying to hack US electronic voting machines which, given the diversity of machine types, and the fact that they aren’t connected to the internet, is virtually impossible from a foreign country. They are capable, however, of being hacked locally by direct manipulation, and there were multiple jurisdictions in the last election where machines switched votes in favor of Hillary Clinton. Many voters witnessed their vote for Trump changing to Hillary, no matter how many times they tried to correct it or change it back. In the Michigan recount it was discovered that one-third of all Detroit precinct computers registered more votes than the actual number of paper ballots inside the ballot box that are supposed to back up the computer generated figures. While the Detroit News covered it but election officials always find some way to explain it away. Detailed reports from the office of Wayne County Clerk Cathy Garrett show optical scanners at 248 of the city’s 662 precincts, or 37 percent, tabulated more ballots than the number of voters tallied by workers in the poll books. Voting irregularities in Detroit have spurred plans for an audit by Michigan Secretary of State Ruth Johnson’s office, Elections Director Chris Thomas said Monday. Obviously, this cannot have been done by the Russians, and the skewed results were all for Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump. Overall, state records show 10.6 percent of the precincts in the 22 counties that began the retabulation process couldn’t be recounted because of state law that bars recounts for unbalanced precincts or ones with broken seals. [That means tampering with results.] The problems were the worst in Detroit, where discrepancies meant officials couldn’t recount votes in 392 precincts, or nearly 60 percent. And two-thirds of those precincts had too many votes. The new report, compiled by Wayne County elections officials, sheds light on the extent of the problems and shows a systematic tendency toward counting more votes than the previous Wayne County report, which didn’t specify if precincts had over-counted or under-counted ballots... The state is not calling the audit an investigation, “but based on what we find, it could lead to more,” he said. [I doubt it will ever be investigated] The Washington Post broke the story about the DNC hack “by Russia,” thus influencing the election to Donald Trump. Despite the fuzzy, wiggle-room language and lack of evidence cited by the Post, I believe this was fed to them directly by the CIA, as is often the case. Naturally, the NY Times followed up creating a drum-beat of support: American intelligence agencies have concluded with “high confidence” that Russia acted covertly in the latter stages of the presidential campaign to harm Hillary Clinton’s chances and promote Donald J. Trump, according to senior administration officials. They based that conclusion, in part, on another finding — which they say was also reached with high confidence — that the Russians hacked the Republican National Committee’s computer systems in addition to their attacks on Democratic organizations, but did not release whatever information they gleaned from the Republican networks. [This last little tidbit was necessary to prove bias toward the Republicans and Trump.] In the months before the election, it was largely documents from Democratic Party systems that were leaked to the public. Intelligence agencies have concluded that the Russians gave the Democrats’ documents to WikiLeaks. Let’s dispose of this last claim right off the bat, as noted by ZeroHedge.com, The former intelligence analyst, British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, and chancellor of the University of Dundee, Craig Murray, wrote yesterday: “As Julian Assange has made crystal clear, the leaks did not come from the Russians.” Murray – a close friend of Julian Assange – says he knows for a fact that there were no hacks at all … instead, an American insider leaked the information to Wikileaks. He quotes Assange as saying, categorically, “As I have explained countless times, they are not hacks, they are insider leaks – there is a major difference between the two...I know who leaked them. I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.” Murray concludes, “I had a clandestine hand-off in a wooded area near American University with one of the email sources... The leakers' motivation was ' at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the 'tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders'” The President, the Senate and the House are all planning on holding hearings or doing separate investigations. Don’t expect anything to come out of these as they will all be forced to rely on the testimony of the CIA or FBI, which have access to NSA spying intercepts, and who will never share with anyone the raw intercepts or data they claim supports their conclusions. They will simply continue to say that “with high reliability” we know the Russians did it. These assurances are always good enough for members of the House and Senate Intelligence committees, tasked with overseeing these secret agencies. But how can you do oversight when you never see the raw data? How can you judge the conclusions? You can’t. Washington’s True Pundit echoes these suspicions with the headline: Washington Post Report Linking Russian Government to Trump & Election Hacking Is “Outright Lie” Actually, what the anonymous pundit is reporting is that CIA agents he knows personally say the agency is lying, and that they know of no such evidence. “It’s an outright lie,” a CIA analyst divulged to True Pundit. “There’s nothing definitive like that... Multiple CIA sources are now denouncing the Washington Post for knowingly reporting misleading national security intelligence. Intelligence insiders said no one in the Agency or in the FBI, who is running at least one parallel inquiry, has ruled out a possible internal leak within the Democratic National Committee from actor(s) inside the United States who funneled private DNC emails to Wikileaks. [Just what Assange says is the source of the leak.] On the rabid Sunday morning political talk show circuit yesterday, fueled by the Washington Post’s thinly-sourced yet highly-lauded reporting, Sen. John McCain [a globalist insider] implored President Elect Trump to look at the CIA-Russian information which he said was credible. McCain, however, as the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, had strangely never publicly disseminated such intelligence prior to Sunday. And no other elected officials have stepped up to echo his narrative or that of the Washington Post. [But, now they all are echoing the story.] “If he (McCain) in fact is being told that information, it is bad information,” a CIA source said, pondering whether McCain had perhaps been briefed by outgoing CIA Director John Brennan or his loyal Agency underlings. [Brennan is a really bad actor.] Multiple sources said Brennan and his inner circle in the Agency could not be trusted to disseminate any true intelligence, especially in their final days on the job, without tainting raw data with political ideologies that parallel their White House boss. Commentary on the Washington Post: The CIA sources’ collective assessment that the Washington Post purposely and brutally misrepresented the CIA’s findings is the third blow to the embattled newspaper in the last week, having been busted writing two other high profile fake stories on national security that were quickly proven to be problematic and ultimately bogus. A veteran beltway journalist, author and award-winning professor said very little has changed at the Washington Post... “They just make news up, fabricate whatever news was required at the time, especially when they were scooped or embarrassed by other publications,” said Gregg Morris. “Sometimes they did it because they believed they were entitled. Nothing has changed.” Morris is partly wrong. The Post doesn’t just make up news. They get feeds from the CIA which makes up news and disinformation, which the Post passes on. William Colby, former CIA director from 1973-1976, said, “The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media.” Another former CIA director James Woolsey (a PNAC signatory and neocon advisor to Donald Trump) denied the claim, which I think indicates he is still on the dark side. The Intercept.com documents here how the CIA still interacts today directly with mainstream press outlets. Trump, in an interview with “Fox News Sunday,” dismissed the revelations in the Post as complete partisan nonsense. He was roundly criticized in the media not only for this statement but for refusing daily intelligence briefings. Obviously, Trumps suspects he has been getting a very biased globalist view during the briefings he has had so far. Various politicians and pundits charged Trump with being reckless by refusing the briefings and warned him that “he could be blamed” for a major mistake in foreign policy if he refuses the briefings. And why should Trump believe his briefings? Trump’s transition team tweeted, "These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction." Sundance at the Conservative Tree House added more evidence to boost Trump’s distrust of briefings: More than 50 intelligence analysts working out of the U.S. military’s Central Command have formally complained that their reports on ISIS and al Qaeda’s branch in Syria were being inappropriately altered by senior officials. The complaints spurred the Pentagon’s inspector general to open an investigation into the alleged manipulation of intelligence. The fact that so many people complained suggests there are deep-rooted, systemic problems in how the U.S. military command charged with the war against the self-proclaimed Islamic State assesses intelligence. “The cancer was within the senior level of the intelligence command,” one defense official said. Another story surfaced that the FBI disagrees with the CIA on Russian influence on the election. The FBI did not corroborate the CIA’s claim that Russia had a hand in the election of President-elect Donald Trump in a meeting with lawmakers last week. A senior FBI counterintelligence official met with Republican and Democrat members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in order to give the bureau’s view of a recent CIA report. The official did not concur with the CIA, frustrating Democrats. The writer gives the following naive interpretation explaining away the difference: The different conclusions reached by the two intelligence agencies is a reflection of their different institutional styles. CIA officials often use past behavior and analysis based on gathered intelligence to advise leaders, whereas the FBI comes from a more legalistic background which relies on hard evidence to make a case. Nonsense. Both engage in politicized intelligence (at the Director level). For example, the FBI was also caught trying set up Julian Assange for a frame-up/sting operation, but was thwarted by the Icelandic government as Will Grigg of Liberty News Daily reported, An effort by the FBI to frame WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange failed after the government of Iceland refused to play along, according to Ogmundur Jonasson, who was the country’s interior minister at the time. In June 2011, the Obama administration suggested to Icelandic officials that hackers were targeting that government’s software systems, and offered to assist them. A few weeks later, Jonasson recalls, the administration “sent a planeload of FBI agents to Iceland seeking our cooperation in which I understood as an operation set up to frame Julian Assange and WikiLeaks,” he continues. “Since they had not been authorized by the Icelandic authorities to carry out police work in Iceland, and since a crackdown on WikiLeaks was not on my agenda … I ordered that all cooperation with them be promptly terminated and I also made it clear that they should cease all activities in Iceland immediately.” In fact, the FBI was involved in the preliminaries for this DNC “hacking” claim by the CIA. It warned the DNC of a potential intrusion on their server in September 2015, more than a year before these current politicized revelations by the CIA. But nothing was done about it by the DNC until March of 2016 when the leaked emails were released. That’s when the Russian hacking plot was hatched out of nothing. Interestingly, no one in the press asked the question, “How did the FBI know a potential breach had occurred at the DNC unless the government is monitoring the entire internet 24/7, through the NSA?” Because of what certain members of these Intelligence Committees have told the media, we already know what the CIA is going to claim in these investigations, while refusing to provide provable details: 1. The CIA is claiming that there were “anomalous visitors” to the DNC using specific IP addresses and hacker software that they say “fit a pattern” that they associate with one or two Russian hacker groups. 2. And that those hacker groups are connected to Russian intelligence. 3. That Putin himself directed this hack by his intelligence agencies. Let’s dissect these claims to show just how little they prove. It is true that the major internet computer servers that control every local email hosting company (such as the DNC, or Hillary’s smaller private email server) always record a unique digital ID (the IP Address) for every computer that accesses that server. That’s how the government can track a good deal of what is on the net. However, hackers know how to mask their IP address. Even regular people can set up an anonymous IP address with a VPN (Virtual Private Network) server located in a much different place from your actual physical location, and then using an encrypted connection, you send all your messages through your VPN. HMA (Hide My ***) is one of the most popular servers for a modest fee. The remote server gives out its address instead of yours and routes your message through other computers in order to further mask your trail. So, let’s say the CIA (actually, it’s the NSA that is doing the tracking) says it recognizes both the VPN the Russian hackers normally use and the software they claim the Russians used before. This is not even close to proof. Russian intelligence is one of the most sophisticated hacking organizations in the world, and the best hackers can hack in and out of a server without a trace by modifying the tracking records. Are we to believe that Russia would hack into the DNC in a traceable fashion? I don’t think so. However, it is equally possible for the NSA, which hires or trains the best hackers in the world, to simply create this hack using their so-called “Russian finger prints.” That’s what NSA whistleblower William Binney thinks: “If it were Russia – they probably would have used a different, covert method, so people couldn’t see their fingerprints (like the U.S. did with the Stuxnet hack).” Binney told Washington’s Blog that the hack of Democratic emails may well have been carried out by an NSA or Democratic party whistleblower. Given that Assange has said that he knows the DNC insider who provided the leak to Wikileaks, and that he isn’t Russian, is strong evidence that the CIA/NSA is making a false claim, as well as the false internet trail to “prove it” —which is easy for the government that controls all the internet node/servers in the Western world to do. In addition, many on the Right are quoting an astounding statement by neocon former UN Ambassador John Bolton, who has been chosen by Trump as Undersecretary of State (bad choice): Bolton told reporter Eric Shawn of Fox News on Sunday that the hacks may not have been carried out by Russia, as the intelligence community believes, but rather an Obama Administration false flag: “It is not at all clear to me just viewing this from the outside, that this hacking into the DNC and the RNC computers was not a false flag operation.” “False flag” is, as you know, is a term that refers to covert activities by a government and designed to cast blame on another government or entity. Bolton, as one of the chief architects of the phony war on terror (where government does terror acts and blames them on terrorists they hire covertly) would never admit to government false flag operations. It turns out, he did, perhaps by incautiously saying something he shouldn’t have (being that he is used to speaking of the Obama Administration as the enemy), but he then denied it the next day: Bolton said on “Fox & Friends” that the operation could have been carried out by China, Iran or North Korea, and he denied he meant to imply that the Obama administration may have been involved.”Typical bad reporting,” Bolton said. No, it wasn’t bad reporting. Here’s what Bolton said, Shawn pressed him on his statement: “Are you actually accusing someone here in this administration, in the intelligence community, of trying to throw something?” said Shawn. “We just don’t know,” Bolton responded, claiming the intelligence community has been “politicized” under President Barack Obama. Bolton later added, however, that if it turns out Russia did attempt to influence the election, “we should retaliate.” So it’s clear that Bolton was accusing the Obama Administration of falsifying (politicizing) the event. I might also add that Bolton was very anti-Russian during the entire interview, so his false flag remark was not typical of where he was going in the interview. Then there is the issue of US hypocrisy in all the chest beating about Russia interfering in a US election. The CIA is notorious for interfering in elections around the world in order to oust candidates hostile to the West, or help put in controlled candidates. For example, the CIA ran covert surveillance operations to help elect president Fujimori in Colombia, as I wrote about on Dec 10, 2000: Early on, when Fujimori was fully cooperating with US demands, Montesinos was given secret assistance by the CIA to set up elaborate surveillance capabilities to help Fujimori maintain power over his opposition. Bribery and payoffs of opposition leaders is common in SA. When Fujimori fell out of grace, the CIA used its own surveillance system to turn the tables on Montesinos, showing him in the act of making a payoff to another Peruvian legislative leader. With predictable media outrage, that’s all it took to bring down Fujimori’s government. Fujimori said he would step down, but tried to protect his faithful cadre of anti-Communist military leaders by proposing a trade--amnesty for the military, for new elections. No deal. The left smelled blood and knew the US was on their side and would deliver the victims without compromise. Fujimori fled to Japan for safety. Now, THAT is real interference in a foreign election. There are many more examples, in Chile, El Salvador, and Guatemala. Obama is now claiming that he is going to retaliate against Russia in some future unspecified way—which might be dangerous. Lastly, here’s one of the most important speeches by a CIA whistleblower on how the dark side of government operates and how it threatens good employees from speaking out. The speaker is Kevin Shipp, a former CIA officer of wide experience and author of Company of Shadows . It’s the best exposé, so far, that I’ve seen of the government’s use of secrecy to cover for what many call the “deep state”. In this important video presentation, Shipp is speaking before a Geoengineering Watch conference helping explain why none of the airline pilots, or Air Force pilots speak out about spraying the skies with sun blocking chemicals (chemtrailing), which I’ll revisit again in the future. DISINFORMATION CREATING FAKE NEWS The real fake news in the alternative media comes from disinformation sources which love to fool conservatives into believing and repeating false conspiracy theories. The Russian hacking claim brought out the disinfo agents in droves. As much as I’ve tried to warn the conservative internet community to never pass along quotes by a non-existent source called EU Times or Sorcha Faal, it keeps happening. The telltale sign of Faal’s claims is “according to sources in the Kremlin.” Sorcha Faal is actually not a woman as claimed, but one David Booth in the UK. A truly grim Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) report circulating in the Kremlin today states that 3 hours ago [1137hrs local Moscow GMT+3/0337hrs local Washington D.C. GMT-4], the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) came to the defense of President-elect Donald Trump and canceled the leaves of all of its 35,000 agents, intelligence analysts and employees in a bid to stop the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from overthrowing the democratically elected government of the United States. Faal (or Booth) always knows how to play to the instincts of conservatives by serving up big falsehoods that piggy back on a true conspiracy. The FBI has not cancelled all leaves and the CIA has no intention of “overthrowing Trump.” Sure, they try and control him through disinformation, playing to his weak judgment on people, but the FBI leadership is just as much controlled by the same globalists that control the dark side of the CIA. That said, there is a move by certain pro-Clinton electors to demand they see the results of the investigation on Russian influencing the election before they cast their vote. Some 20 electors, all Democrats, are making the protest. I don’t believe it be enough, especially now that we finally have a court case that mandates electors vote according to the popular vote, not their own wishes, in states like Colorado that legally bind electors. WHAT’S BEHIND THE ANTI-RUSSIA ATTACKS? As I pointed out last month (WAB Nov. 4) this manifest hostility toward Russia is relatively new. The globalists have always been permissive with Russia even during the cold war, despite the occasional hostile rhetoric, as evidenced by their consistent refusal to counter Soviet aggression, the transfer of military technology to Russia and continual one-sided disarmament pacts. Even during the Crimea and Ukraine crises, the US bluster against Russian aggression was all talk and no action. Yes, the US supported sanctions against Russia, but they were token sanctions, easily avoided, and the US continued to buy Russian oil and rocket motors. The real change came when Russia came to the rescue of Syria. That intervention put a block on a major globalist agenda of taking down Syria and then Iran. Those conflicts had an additional agenda of creating millions of refugees that globalists wanted to swamp Europe with in order to undermine Western culture and foment the continuing war on terror. Russia’s move into Syria was as much a surprise to the globalists as it was to me, after watching Russia sacrifice Iraq and allow the US to walk all over Afghanistan and Syria (initially). As I said at the time, I believed they were sacrificing Arab allies in order to eavesdrop on US military technology and tactics—which they were, in spades. When you understand the globalist’s long-term desire for a Russian/Chinese nuclear attack on the US military (in order to drive Americans into a militarized global government in response), and a subsequent WWIII, you’ll understand why they keep weakening the West with disarmament and dealing permissively with Russia on Ukraine. But with Russia getting in the way of a separate but important globalist agenda in the Middle East (to take down Iran as an independent military power), this is another thing entirely that is really frustrating the globalists. The irrational attacks on Russia for hacking the election are only the newest attack. For over a year now, the globalists and their media lackeys have been falsifying the intelligence and rationale for war on Syria to always cast Syria and Russia as the violators of human rights. THE REAL ATROCITIES IN SYRIA The outright falsifications of the claims about Assad using chemical weapons on his people, or indiscriminate attacks on civilians and hospitals in Aleppo are total fabrications, or excusable by the fact that the US backed rebels refuse to let civilians flee and purposely set up fighting positions in hospitals that draw fire. It’s one thing to make an unsubstantiated claim about Russian hacking of the DNC, but what is going on is Syria is a quantum leap higher in evil. It is worse than fabricating lies. The US is regularly using its terrorist surrogates to attack humanitarian aid convoys and kill civilians and hospitals so they can blame it on Assad, as veteran Middle East reporter Robert Fisk recently wrote as summarized here by Will Grigg. The estimated 250,000 civilians who were trapped in the city amid a ferocious joint bombardment by the Syrian government and the Russian military were imprisoned by US-supported Islamists who cynically used them as human shields. The Syrian rebels supported by Washington and its European allies “are among the cruelest and most ruthless fighters in the Middle East,” states Fisk with the authority of someone who has covered more than a dozen conflicts on the ground. Among the people he recently interviewed is “one of the very first Muslim families to flee eastern Aleppo during the ceasefire,” who condemned the US-backed Islamist militants for “putting weapons close to hospitals,” thereby drawing fire from the Assad government and its Russian allies. That is exactly what is happening in Aleppo as the first ceasefire agreement was cancelled for continued fighting. The second ceasefire agreement is working, that still didn’t stop the NY Times from blaming Iran and Syria for breaking the deal (which allows rebels to leave with their personal arms). They did give token coverage of the Syrian view at the very end: The Russian Defense Ministry blamed the rebels for the impasse, saying that they had “resumed the hostilities” that morning, and had tried to break through Syrian government positions to the northwest. Samantha Power, the United States ambassador to the United Nations, gave an emotional speech decrying claimed cease fire atrocities by Syria, Iran and Russia. “Is there literally nothing that can shame you?” However, Russian ambassador to the UN, Vitaly Churkin, reprimanded Powers for claiming that only she had the moral high ground. Russia had investigated claims of “ill treatment” of civilians and found “not a single fact” that was true. American TV media showed only Arabs and victims who would claim that the Syrian army was violating the truce and that Syrian snipers were shooting at ambulances. But when you consider that the US government shipped in chemical weapons to the rebels (through Saudi Arabia and Turkey) in order to blame the subsequent attacks on Assad, why wouldn’t they stoop to firing on ambulances or bombing hospitals to blame Assad? I saw the videos in Aleppo and no one could see who was shooting at them. Witnesses were only assuming it must be the Syrian army since they were the opposition. They also interviewed the notorious White Helmet NGO, who have a long track record of falsifying claims against the Syrian government. ASSAD’S VIEW OF THE WAR As a political commentator, it is very difficult for me to find the Syrian side of the news. Try and Google that and you’ll find only Western media commenting on Syria. In the following excerpts from a recent interview with Syrian president Bashar al Assad. He shows a remarkable understanding of the war and the role the US is playing to undermine peace. (Syrian TV) On negotiations: “military operations do not stop during negotiations, because we do not trust the terrorists, because they often say something and do the opposite. They used to ask for ceasefires only to strengthen their positions and obtain supplies consisting of weapons, ammunition, etc. That’s why we do not allow that. Only when we agree to something specific, we do that.” On his understanding of US support for ISIS: “ISIS exists in Syria, in al-Raqqa in the north, where the American alliance is supposed to have been shelling ISIS for the past two years, which is not true. ISIS is there in Deir Ezzor where the American forces and warplanes, together with the [rebel] alliance, have shelled Syrian forces instead of ISIS. Our real perception of the latest ISIS attack a few days ago on Palmyra in large numbers of fighters, with sophisticated weapons which ISIS did not have before, and in an area which exceeds tens of kilometers, means that ISIS received direct support from [the United] states. It’s not the case that ISIS just came from Mosul. How could they bring heavy artillery from Mosul? What have American warplanes in Mosul or al-Raqqa been doing? The fact is that the large majority of those came from al-Raqqa and Deir Ezzor, either through direct American support, or at best the Americans knew but turned a blind eye and left the implementation of the operation, in terms of funding and support, to Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia.” On the loss of Palmyra to ISIS: “The real objective of the Palmyra operation, and the timing of the attack on the city, is directly linked to the battle of Aleppo. Why didn’t ISIS attack Palmyra a month ago, for instance? They were able to do so, but the attack started when significant progress was being made in the city of Aleppo. That’s why this operation has two objectives: first, to undermine the importance of liberating the city of Aleppo and... to distract the Syrian Army and fragment its efforts in different directions so that the major force operating now in Aleppo would have to withdraw towards Palmyra. In the end, as we liberated Palmyra in the past, we will liberate it again. It was under ISIS control and the Syrian Army, with Russian support, liberated it. We will do that again. This is war: you win somewhere and lose somewhere else. But we should know that the main thrust now, and the priority, is the city of Aleppo.” On Obama’s lifting the embargo on weapons to “moderate rebels” “The Americans are treacherous. Lifting the embargo did not necessarily happen when Obama announced it. Probably it was announced days after it actually happened, only to give it legitimacy [very true]. That’s why I would like to link the timing between the Obama announcement of lifting the embargo and the ISIS attack. Where did these weapons go? Either to Jabhat al-Nusra or to ISIS, which are one and the same thing, regardless of the labels. I do believe that this is also linked to the advance the Syrian Army is making in Aleppo, and the response was in Palmyra, and it might be in other places. But if you look at the way the Americans behave in such cases, when American plans fail, what do they always do all over the world? They create chaos. This outgoing administration tries to create the largest possible number of problems so that these problems impede the rapprochement between Russia and the United States. So, this announcement, which is a brief one, might have different and significant aspects and impacts. On US control of ISIS and all terror groups: During the past few years, the US has tried to promote the idea that there is something called “moderate opposition” or “moderate fighters.” They haven’t been able to market this lie because the facts on the ground proved the opposite, that all those they support are extremists, whether they belong to al-Nusra, ISIS, or other organizations with the same extremist and terrorist ideology. Now they are trying to leave ISIS in certain areas and then rely on these groups, part of which was originally in ISIS and al-Nusra, but shaved their beards and dressed differently and acquired a moderate name, and that they will liberate those areas of ISIS. So, it is a charade, ISIS under US control, who will in turn control the moderates. On Trump’s election relative to Syria: “Trump’s statements were clear during his campaign in relation to fighting terrorism, non-intervention against states in order to depose governments, as the United States has been doing for decades. This is good, but this depends on Trump’s will to carry on with this approach, and his ability to do that. We know that there are powerful lobbies [I would say conspiratorial forces] in the United States which stood against Trump and they will exert their utmost pressure, when he is in office, to push him towards retracting what he said in this area and in other areas as well. Otherwise, he will have a confrontation with these lobbies in the Congress, in the Senate, in the media, and in the industrial lobbies which gain from wars, like what happened in Iraq and Yemen recently. That’s why if Trump was able to overcome all these obstacles and really act against terrorism, I believe that he will be our natural ally and your natural ally. This Western trained doctor is very different from his autocratic father. He may not fully understand the globalist agenda driving the US government, but he can see through the US pretensions for “fighting terror.” It is little wonder that the media rarely gives Assad this much time to lay out his case for war and peace. With the email leak of Hillary Clinton admitting that ISIS is being funded and armed by US allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar, a few gutsy Congressmen and women feel more at liberty to expose US backing of ISIS. As Zerohedge.com reported, Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard has broken free of the corporate media’s narrative by accusing the United States of funding and arming terror groups al-Qaeda and ISIS. “If you or I gave money, weapons or support to al-Qaeda or ISIS, we would be thrown in jail.” She is co-sponsoring the bill with Rep. Thomas Massie, who says the bill “would prohibit the U.S. government from using American taxpayer dollars to provide funding, weapons, training, and intelligence support to terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS, or to countries who are providing direct or indirect support to those same groups.” These concerns are not conjectures — they can be verified by none other than suspected war criminal Tony Blair. A think tank founded by the former U.K. Prime Minister released a report in 2015 that concluded it was ultimately pointless to make a distinction between the various rebel groups on the ground since the majority of these groups share ISIS’s core belief system (and would impose Sharia law if they came into power). “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,” Gabbard stated on the House floor last week. The CIA has long been supporting a group called Fursan al Haqq, providing them with salaries, weapons, and support, including surface to air missiles. This group is cooperating with and fighting alongside an al-Qaeda affiliated group trying to overthrow the Syrian government. The Levant Front is another so-called moderate umbrella group of Syrian opposition fighters. Over the past year, the United States has been working with Turkey to give this group intelligence support and other forms of military assistance. This group has joined forces with al-Qaeda’s offshoot group in Syria.” “This madness must end. We must stop arming terrorists. The Government must end this hypocrisy and abide by the same laws that apply to its’ citizens.” Suddenly information exposing US and allied duplicity in the war on terror is coming out despite suppression. As Fox News reported, the battle for Mosul uncovered a weapons factory and all the parts were coming from Turkey. The Islamic State group was manufacturing weapons in and around Mosul on an industrial scale with products largely purchased in bulk from Turkey, according to a report published by an arms research group Wednesday. The findings show that ISIS maintained a "robust and reliable" supply chain between Turkey and Iraq that allowed the fighters to produce tens of thousands of weapons, the London-based Conflict Armaments Research said. The group's researchers studied ISIS weapons found at manufacturing facilities and on the battlefield during the Iraqi operation to retake Mosul that is underway. MORE TRUMP PICKS Tillerson for Secretary of State: Donald Trump has named Rex Tillerson, CEO of ExxonMobil, as his Secretary of State. This oil giant is deep into the globalist agenda, and Tillerson has been right in the middle of supporting Russia’s oil industry modernization and other mainstream objectives. He is in favor of global warming legislation, and sadly supports a carbon tax. He supports Common Core, and has embraced leftist social causes such as Planned Parenthood. He also presided over the change in the Boy Scouts to include gay scoutmasters, as president of the organization from 2010 to 2012. There is no doubt Tillerson is intelligent, competent and has wide contacts around the world. He is a church-going Christian but that doesn’t really tell us much. Tillerson doesn’t support sanctions on Russia, calling them ineffective—but that’s because they are token sanctions, not real. While he isn’t a member of the CFR, he has spoken before them, and also to the globalist Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, where he pushed for more free trade agreements. Although Tillerson has spent his entire business career at Exxon, he has found time for other activities, including continuing his support for Boy Scouts of America. As the Dallas Morning News reported in a profile of Tillerson, he was president of the organization from 2010 to 2012. During his tenure, he convinced the Boy Scouts to allow openly gay youths to join, but it wasn’t until July 2015 that the ban on gay adult troop leaders was lifted. Despite Tillerson’s support for gays in the Boy Scouts, it wasn’t until January 2015 that Exxon finally changed its Equal Employment Opportunity policy to include banning discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, the Human Rights Campaign reported. In short, even though he may not be a card-carrying globalist, he has no intellectual or spiritual resistance to their agenda. It is also telling that Tillerson has been endorsed by Henry Kissinger, the ultimate globalist insider. And it’s not a good sign that Trump has named former UN ambassador John Bolton selected as Deputy Secretary of State to Tillerson. Bolton will run the day-to-day affairs of State, and be directing a lot of neocon proposals onto Tillerson’s desk. Bolton is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a neocon think tank whose vice president has described Trump as “an idiot.” Bolton, as a globalist, is anti-Russia for reasons I’ve previously explained and has complained about Obama’s willingness to engage in limited cooperation with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Syria and Iran. Rick Perry for Energy Secretary: Rick Perry, Ex-Governor of Texas, is Trump’s pick as Energy Secretary. That’s the Department that Perry wanted to eliminate. However, I don’t think he understood at the time that the Energy department runs all US nuclear weapons and power operations, which can’t be eliminated. I don’t think Perry is competent or smart, but he will follow through with Trump’s mandate to free up coal and oil exploration. Ryan Zinke for Interior Secretary: Montana Governor Zinke could be good or bad depending on what former position he brings to the fore. He has been on both sides of the federal lands issue. He’s a former Navy SEAL commander and has been very conservative at times but also compromised in other situations. He’s been more conservative when running for office than when in office. For example, as a candidate for lieutenant governor in 2012, Ryan Zinke signed the Montana Constitutional Governance Pledge, which states that federal lands in Montana are unconstitutional. Earlier this year, Rep. Zinke voted for a bill that would have transferred management of millions of acres of American forest lands to Western states. The policy—a precursor to the “transfer” of public lands—was widely panned by conservation and sportsmen organizations. At the same time, Rep. Zinke resigned his position as a delegate to the Republican National Convention in protest of the Republican Party platform, which advocated for disposing of American public lands into state and private hands.” So, anything could happen with Zinke. Carly Fiorina for Director of National Intelligence: This is still tentative but would be a bad pick. Not only is she unqualified, not being aware of the deep state conspiracies within the US intel community, she has served on an intelligence review board (they only pick yes-people to serve) and Fiorina urged Apple, Google and others to "tear down cyberwalls" to help track down criminals. That means she would be against personnel encryption unless it allowed government back doors. Not good. Goldman Sachs CEO as economic advisor: Trump gave the nod to Goldman Sachs President Gary Cohn to get the job as his top economic adviser, and to direct the National Economic Council. This is obviously no way to “drain the swamp” of Washington and Wall Street insiders.