Al Gore blames the ‘climate crisis’ for cold weather. but actually,it’s just January.–

21jh.,b38

Remember when global warming meant the planet was supposed to, well, warm up? Temperatures would rise, and all manner of ecological calamity would ensue?

Me too. So it was surprising to find myself shivering, like other Americans, through several days of arctic chill and extreme cold, only to hear Al Gore blame it on global warming.

He didn’t use the w-word, though. “It’s bitter cold in parts of the U.S., but climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann explains that’s exactly what we should expect from the climate crisis,” Gore tweeted on Jan. 4.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can’t be done alone. Find out more >>

See, it’s a “climate crisis” now. But it’s hard to blame him for trying some rebranding. After all, prediction after prediction has come to naught.

But no matter: Like other Doomsday prophets, Gore just acts like the last missed deadline didn’t happen and comes up with a new one.

Which is why it’s important to remind ourselves of what Gore has said in the past.

Consider, for example, how he said global warming would cause the north polar ice cap to be completely free of ice within five years. When did he say that? Nine years ago.

News flash: The Arctic still has ice. Indeed, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, “ice growth during November 2017 averaged 30,900 square miles per day.” Oops.

So how about the evidence for the latest cold snap?

Gore’s source, Michael Mann, says the ultra-chilly temps we’ve been enduring are “precisely the sort of extreme winter weather we expect because of climate change.” As the planet warms, he says, we’ll see more cold snaps and “bomb cyclones.”

Seems counterintuitive, but Mann suggests this is because warming is “causing the jet stream to meander in a particular pattern” that leads to these cold spells.

I use the word “suggests,” however, because this is simply a theory—one that other scientists are not sold on. (Gore and the rest of the climate-crisis crowd often act like their ideas are universally accepted—that the scientific community is in complete agreement with them. But there is more room for doubt and disagreement than they care to admit.)

Just ask Kevin Trenberth, a scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

“Winter storms are a manifestation of winter, not climate change,” he recently told The Daily Caller. “The Arctic is greatly affected by climate change, and it has a feedback effect—but not in winter.”

Even if Gore and Mann are correct about the link between global warming and cold snaps, the record works against them there, too.

“The frequency of cold waves have decreased during the past 50 years, not increased,” University of Washington climatologist Cliff Mass says. “That alone shows that such claims are baseless.”

The term “bomb cyclone” is new to most of us, but it’s been around for a while. Climatologist Judith Curry recently told the Caller that it was coined almost 40 years ago by Fred Sanders of MIT, who spent a lot of time studying such storms.

Moreover, there are about 50 or 60 bomb cyclones every year, but most of them occur too far out to sea for us to notice.

Gore and his fellow travelers may have trouble admitting that they could be wrong. But their never-look-back crusade isn’t helping scientific research.

“It is very disappointing that members of my profession are making such obviously bogus claims,” Mass said. “It hurts the science, it hurts the credibility of climate scientists, and weakens our ability to be taken seriously by society.”

That’s what happens, though, when we bend facts to fit theories—and not the other way around. And remember, Al, as the old song goes, “Baby, it’s cold outside.”

source-The Washington Times.– Ed Feulner– Kevin Trenberth,– Cliff Mass– Fred Sanders– The Daily Caller.

Advertisements

Judicial Watch: at least 18 classified emails found on Weiner’s laptop-

-JANUARY 04, 2018–47Jh.,B43

State Department Releases 147 New Huma Abedin Work-Related Emails, 806 Total Emails

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch revealed today that there are at least 18 classified emails in the 798 documents recently produced by the State Department from the FBI’s investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s elicit email system. The emails were found on the laptop of Anthony Weiner, who is the estranged husband of former Clinton aide Huma Abedin.

Abedin was Clinton’s deputy chief of staff. Weiner is a disgraced former congressman and New York mayoral candidate who pleaded guilty to transferring obscene material to a minor. Abedin kept a non-State.gov email account on Hillary Clinton’s notorious email server that she used repeatedly for government business.

There are five new classified emails among 147 new Abedin work-related documents released by the State Department on Friday, December 29, 2017.

Thirteen emails containing classified information were also found on the Weiner laptop computer that had already been released to the public. This classified material includes discussions about Saudi Arabia, The Hague, Egypt, South Africa, Zimbabwe, the identity of a CIA official, Malawi, the war in Syria, Lebanon, Hamas, and the PLO.

On two occasions, classified material was sent by Abedin on her clintonemail.com account to Weiner’s laptop (sent to “Anthony Campaign”) on November 25, 2010. The email discusses an upcoming call with Prince Saud of “expected WikiLeaks leaks.” Abedin sent classified information the following day to Weiner’s laptop concerning a call that “Jeff” (presumably then- US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman) had with United Arab Emirates Prime Minister Abdullah bin Zayed.

The Weiner laptop also contains classified material from Abedin’s Blackberry. A July 9, 2011, email contained classified information regarding a then-upcoming call between Clinton and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. On November 25, 2011, classified information was sent regarding Feltman’s notes on the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs impression of the Hamas- Palestine Liberation Organization talks. On May 4, 2012, additional classified material from the BlackBerry backup was sent.

“Judicial Watch’s work in federal court holding the government accountable to the rule of law has forced the State Department to finally release these documents,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The classified information on Weiner’s laptop is part of a pattern of mishandling national security material by Clinton and her aides. The Weiner emails emphasize the need for the Justice Department to conduct a fresh, serious investigation of Hillary Clinton’s and Huma Abedin’s obvious violations of law. That’s why we are pleased to learn that the Justice Department has reportedly at least begun asking questions about the Clinton classified material. Judicial Watch has no doubt that the Justice Department is taking these steps due to the ongoing disclosures of Clinton email misconduct from Judicial Watch’s lawsuits.”

In September 2017 Judicial Watch made public Abedin’s use of the unsecure Clinton email system for the transmission of sensitive passwords.

On August 18, 2009, confidential assistant Monica Hanley provided Abedin with laptop and fob (a physical device that provides a login code) logins and passwords to log onto a laptop, as well as a secure State Department website at https://one.state.gov. Included were a PIN number and instructions on how to access her email from the secure State Department website. Abedin forwarded this information to her unsecure account.

On January 2, President Trump tweeted: “Crooked Hillary Clinton’s top aid, Huma Abedin, has been accused of disregarding basic security protocols. She put Classified Passwords into the hands of foreign agents. Remember sailors’ pictures on submarine? Jail! Deep State Justice Dept must finally act? Also on Comey & others.”

The documents produced on December 12, 2017, are part of a court ordered production of documents. A State Department court filing states: “The State Department “identified approximately 2,800 work-related documents among the documents provided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.”

The documents were produced in a May 5, 2015, lawsuit Judicial Watch filed against the State Department (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00684)). Judicial Watch sued after the State Department failed to respond to a March 18, 2015, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking: “All emails of official State Department business received or sent by former Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin from January 1, 2009 through February 1, 2013 using a non-‘state.gov’ email address.”

Judicial Watch previously released 20 productions of documents in this case that show examples of mishandling of classified information and instances of pay to play between the Clinton State Department and the Clinton Foundation. Also, at least 627 emails were not part of the 55,000 pages of emails that Clinton turned over, and further contradict a statement by Clinton that, “as far as she knew,” all of her government emails had been turned over to department.

 

the threat from Islam by Carl Goldberg–

34ih.,b7

Clarion, an organization which I’m sure you’re familiar with, always talks about radical Islam and we’ve heard the expression “radical Islamic terrorism.”  That is a nonsense expression, because when you put an adjective like that in front of it, radical Islamic terrorism, it implies that there’s such a thing as a non-radical Islamic terrorism.  That doesn’t make any sense.  So we need to start calling the baby by its name.  What is our enemy?

In fact, by talking about radical Islam, we tend to devote our attention primarily to the terrorists.  The Muslim terrorists, obviously, the Islamic terrorists.  But by doing that, we take our attention away, in fact, from the real existential threats that we face from Islam.  And so, the major existential threat is, of course, the Stealth Jihad.  It’s going on right under our noses, so to say.

So, who are we at war with?  Well, it’s not radical Islam.  We are at war with Islam, Islam itself.  Islam has been at war with us for 1,400 years.  And I say we are at war with Islam. We should be at war with Islam but most people are not and not even in the conservative moment are we all agreed that this is our enemy.  What are the consequences of not being at war with Islam?  Well, then there’s no justification for banning Muslim immigration.  After all, Muslim immigrants are raised in a society, and we can see what their society is like where they’re coming from.  They’re bringing that with them.  They’re bringing with them the ideology of Islam that they were raised with.  I don’t think we want that here.  Clearly, the values that they were raised with, and this doesn’t mean 100 percent of them, but certainly the majority, they are raised with the values of Islam, which in many, many ways, contradict our values as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and all of our Western civilization.

By focusing on radical Islam, we also leave out the major source of the Islamic threats and that, of course, is the mosques and the community organizations.  That’s where this ideology is being propagated.  Another reason why we need to focus on Islam and not radical Islam is Muslim candidates for political office. If you look at their backgrounds, you will see that they are practically all graduates of the Muslim Student Association in college and then they go on through the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which, as you know, of course, is a Hamas-linked terrorist organization, Muslim terrorist organization, and Hamas itself is the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. So it all ties in and the Muslim candidates are all tied in with this.  Whatever you do, you must try to prevent these people from getting elected.

Another reason, if we talk only about radical Islam, we neglect what’s going on in the schools, which, of course, in their textbooks and teaching materials are portraying Islam as a religion of peace,. which, as you know, it’s not.  Another one, the hijab.  The hijab is being presented to us by the Muslim supremacists as simply an article of clothing and modesty.  Well, actually, it’s not modesty.  If you read the verse in the Quran that essentially prescribes a hijab, you will see that the purpose is not modesty, the purpose is to protect them from Muslim men, so that they won’t be molested, as the Quran says.  And also, wearing the hijab is a symbol of submission to Sharia law.  And they will actually say that if you read Muslim newspapers, and I’ve seen that before, that the hijab is not a question of modesty and certainly not a question of fashion. It is a question of doing what Allah wants women to do.

That they are going to use their armed forces not only for defense but for filling their ideological mission in God’s way, that is, Jihad, by spreading Islam to the rest of the world.  So in their own constitution, they are telling us they’re going to commit military aggression against the rest of the world in order to spread Islam, because it’s an Islamic state.  Please use the term Islamic Republic of Iran. .  Islam cannot be modernized, and the reason it cannot be modernized goes back to the basic proposition of Islam itself, which is that the Quran is considered by all Muslims to be the literal word of their God. Every word in the Quran is the literal word of their God and it cannot be revised.  No human being could ever do that.  In fact, it’s forbidden by Sharia law; and anybody who tries it is subject to the death penalty in Sharia law.

The Quran is where the whole problem with Islam is and if you can’t criticize the Quran and get rid of parts of it – and, obviously you can’t – then there’s no way to reform Islam; and all of these so-called moderate Muslims are simply trying to fool us and to fool themselves because they’re essentially Westerners. Islam is the Quran plus the sayings of Mohammed, the Hadith, the Sunna.  Those are fixed texts.  They don’t come in different versions.  There is no such thing as a modern version of Islam as opposed to an old version of Islam, because the Quran does not come in different versions; and Mohammed’s Sunna does not come in different versions; and both of them are required for being a faithful Muslim.

Another reason, the word “Islam” itself means, of course, as you know, “submission.”  Any Muslim who thinks of reforming Islam is automatically violating the very definition of the word. So, the essence of Islam then, we have to remember, is that it is a complete way of life. And they tell is that Islam is fundamentally different from all other religions, not a religion like Western religion, because Western religion is essentially a matter between the believer and God.  They talk about Islam as being a complete way of life and a complete code of life, which means that it is totalitarian.  And if you look at the passages in the Quran and Mohammed, they tell us plainly that the goal of Islam is to rule the world.  To set up a worldwide caliphate under Sharia law.  Well, that’s imperialist. if Islam is not a religion like other religions, because it is a totalitarian and imperialist ideology, than what is a mosque?  Well, a mosque is not just house of prayer like other religions either then.  So what is it?  In the words of the Islamic religious authorities, a mosque is the propagation center for the ideology. 

The mosques and the Islamic centers are the organizational centers for the Islamic community to promote Islam and the triumph of Islam.  when we see Muslim terror acts, they, by numbers, pale in comparison to the other violent deaths that our country experiences.  So, what are the three major existential threats from Islam?  First one is the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The second major existential threat from Islam is Muslim immigration, the Muslim population is enabled by large portions of our population. And so, it’s not just that the Muslims are 1 percent of our population. You have a Christian pastor or a Catholic priest on one side then the rabbi in the middle and then you have an imam or some other representative of the Muslim community on the other end.  The Christian always starts out by apologizing for the crusades and the inquisition.  The rabbi then apologizes for something the Hebrews did 3,000 years ago to somebody’s olive trees.  I actually heard that.  The Muslim never, ever apologizes about anything, ever.  So this is what happens.  And that the Christian and Jewish clergy then promote this and they promote to their congregations that Islam is basically a religion of peace.  So, in other words, the Muslim Brotherhood is using the hands of the non-Muslims to destroy our civilization just like its program says.

It is forbidden by Islam to assimilate.  And by the way, immigration without assimilation is invasion. The third, and perhaps the most important existential threat from Islam, is the so-called “Stealth Jihad.”  You’re all familiar with that.  Robert Spencer wrote a book on that several years ago.  There’s been much more information on that since then.  I urge you to familiarize yourself with the Stealth Jihad.  What is the Stealth Jihad?  Well, this is subversion of all of our institutions, of our schools, our universities, our mass media and the government institutions all the way from dog catcher to the White House.
Now, what can you do about this?  We have to take two major actions and you all have the sheet in front of you; actions that you can take.  We should focus all of our efforts on achieving two goals.  One, is to declare the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization

 

source–goldberg, carl

William Kilpatrick the threat from Islam-

-34ih.,b7

William Kilpatrick: Dr. Goldberg and I are both doctors, but not the kind that can help you in an emergency, so if our talks send you into shock, you’re out of luck.  So, Carl’s talk will be about the threat from Islam and my talk will be about the threat from the Catholic Church.  Seriously, my topic is how to get the Church to join the resistance in the fight against Islam.  Now, some of the non-Catholic members of the audience may wonder what the Catholic Church has to offer in the fight against Islam.

There are approximately 1.7 billion Muslims in the world, but only about 16 million Jews.  Those aren’t very good odds.  However, there are about 1.3 billion Catholics worldwide.

Well, essentially, very little.  Many of them are just standing on the sidelines.  Why is that?  Well, the chief reason is that they’re getting little guidance about Islam from Catholic leaders.  For example, the Catechism of the Catholic Church devotes only 44 words to the subject of Islam.  Which is about 80 words less than the warning label on the bottle of Tylenol; except that there is no warning.  Only a bland reassurance that, together with us, Muslims adore the one merciful God.  That’s about all that it says in the Catechism.

Unfortunately, that has been interpreted by a good many Catholics to mean go back to sleep.  Don’t worry about a thing.  It’s just a tiny handful of extremists out there; the majority of Muslims are peaceful, because it’s a peaceful religion.  But it’s not just that many Catholics have been lulled into complacency about Islam.  The sad fact is that many of the Church leadership have become enablers of Islam.

I’ll give some examples of that shortly, but first, let me make the point that not all Catholics have lost their senses.  Take Carlo Liberati, the Archbishop of Pompeii, who recently warned that Europe will soon be Muslim because of our stupidity.  Well, he should know, because bad things have happened in Pompeii and it could happen again.

Or, take Jesuit Father Henri Brullard, who criticized the Pope’s policy of welcoming Muslim migrants by saying the Catholic Church has fallen into the trap of the liberal left ideology which is destroying the West.  You, he wrote to the Pope, you go from concession to concession and compromise to compromise at the expense of the truth.

So, not everyone in the Church is asleep.  Here’s one more example.  Last month an estimated 1.5 million Polish Catholics gathered on Poland’s borders to take part in an event called the Rosary at the Borders.  Significantly, the event took place on October 7, the anniversary of the Battle of Lepanto, one of the largest naval battles ever fought.  Under the leadership of the Holy League, which had been organized by Pope Pius V, the Catholic Fleet destroyed the much larger Ottoman Fleet and saved Europe from an Islamic invasion.

Pope Pius credited the victory to Mary’s intercession and established October 7 as the Feast of Our Lady of the Rosary, sometimes called Our Lady of Victory.  Some Catholics know their history.  The Poles know that Muslims have tried to invade Europe on numerous occasions and the Poles are determined that it’s not going to happen on their watch.

Having said that, it must be admitted that many Catholics are asleep to the threat, and that goes double for the Catholic leadership.  It’s not an exaggeration to say that many in the leadership have become enablers of Islam.  By encouraging mass Muslim migration, by peddling a rose-colored view of Islam, and by supporting Islam at every turn, Catholic leaders are aiding and abetting the spread of an aggressively anti-Christian and anti-Semitic belief system.

Catholic leaders are forever assuring us that violence has nothing to do with Islam; that terrorists pervert their faith and that, to paraphrase Pope Francis, if we speak of Muslim violence, we must speak of Catholic violence also, because it’s moral equivalence there.  Well, Muslims are bad sometimes, but Catholics are real bad sometimes, so it all washes out.

Meanwhile, other Catholic authorities tell us that we must declare our solidarity with Islam, but never explain why Catholics should want to profess solidarity with a religion that executes apostates, stones adulterers, and cuts off the hands of thieves.

Meanwhile, Catholic universities have become apologists for Islam.  The prime example is Georgetown Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, also known as the Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding.  It’s called that because most of the Center’s funding comes from a Saudi prince, which may explain why the Center’s chief focus is on fighting the greatest of all evils, Islamophobia.  That’s pretty much what they do at the Center.  They study Islamophobia and preach against it.

Other Catholic colleges give their students the impression that the Arabs created civilization, and still others celebrate International Hijab Day in order to, all together now, show their solidarity with Islam. , They don’t seem to grasp the big picture, namely that in welcoming masses of Muslim migrants, they are also welcoming the cruelties of Sharia Law, the oppression of women, the end of free speech, and the persecution of Christians and Jews.

So, the migration to Medina was really the takeoff point, or the breakout point, for Islam.  That explains why the Muslim calendar begins with the year 622, which is the year of the migration.  Not with the birth of Mohammed, and not with his first revelation. Moreover, Pope Francis likes to say that in the face of the migrant, we can see the face of Jesus. Moreover, Muslim migrants bring with them the seeds of the faith that he founded.  Moreover, as long as we’re speaking of Jesus, why can’t we see the face of Jesus in the victims of the Muslim refugees?  Those, in a sense, who have been beaten, raped, stabbed and run over?

But let’s fast forward to a 20th Century example of Catholic resistance to tyranny:  The Church’s struggle against Communism.  During the Cold War, under the leadership of Pope John Paul II, the Church played a major role in bringing an end to Communism in Eastern Europe.

Recently, Hungarian bishop Laszlo Kiss-Rigo said of Muslim migrants, “They are not refugees.  This is an invasion.  They come here with cries of Allah Akbar.  They want to take over.”  Very sensible bishop for a change.

Now, the prime minister of Hungary, Viktor Orban, has also been an outspoken critic of Muslim migration and a strong advocate for recovering Europe’s Christian roots.  So, a Hungarian bishop and the Hungarian prime minister want to close the borders to an Islamic invasion. So, something is stirring in Eastern Europe.  There are numerous signs that resistance to Islam is really building.

Why Eastern Europe, you may ask.  Well, for two reasons.  First, having recently thrown off the yoke of Communism, the Eastern Europeans are not about to be subjugated by another totalitarian system.  The second reason is that Catholicism, which has been in decline in Western Europe for a long time, Catholicism is still very much alive in the East.  Hungary, Poland and Slovakia, for example, are Catholic majority countries.  Well, Hungary’s a Catholic plurality.  The others are majorities.

Of course, one can counter that France, Italy and Spain are also Catholic countries. Church attendance is very low.  The great cathedrals are largely empty, except for the tours.  If you’ve been to Europe you’ve probably noticed that.  In Poland, the Catholics Mass at the borders.  In France, they can’t be bothered to go to Mass.  By the time they’ve gotten up and had their croissants and coffees, oh, it’s too late.  We missed Mass again.

And it’s not just Catholics.  Christianity in general has been in steep decline in Western Europe for more than half a century.  And that decline paved the way for Islam.  As Europeans started to lose their faith, they stopped having babies.  They stopped having babies because babies got in the way of self-gratification.  And also because they had nothing meaningful to pass on to the next generation.  The decline of Christianity in Europe created a spiritual vacuum and a population vacuum, both of which Islam soon began to fill.

But what does the average European believe in?  He believes in short work weeks, long vacations, and early retirement. That clear-eyed view can also be found in the Gospels.  When Jesus sent his disciples out into the world, he cautioned them to be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves.  Our current leaders have shown that they can be as innocent as doves.  Now it’s time for them to show that they can be as wise as serpents.

source-kilpatrick, william-

A disappointing, muted response to imams calling for violence-

-34Ih.,b7

A radical imam called on Muslims to “kill the Jews” in a Friday sermon entitled, “Our Duties Towards Al-Quds (Jerusalem).” [NOTE: What does “radical” mean? It means he is following sacred Islamic doctrine!] But this imam was not a spiritual leader in the Palestinian territories or a preacher with an Islamic State affiliation. This imam was preaching from the United States, alongside other U.S.-based Muslim leaders who have promoted anti-Semitism and incited violence against Jews following President Trump’s Dec. 6 proclamation recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

During a party convention two days later, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan also invoked the same hadith used to justify killing Jews.

The Tajweed Institute promotes itself as a non-profit “that strives to teach and spread the authentic knowledge of the Glorious Qur’an.”

Al-Rousan went on to incite Muslims to kill Jews in Israel and the territories: “The hour (Judgment Day) will not start until Muslims fight the Jews there, in Palestine.”

That same day, Sheikh Aymen Elkasaby from the Islamic Center of Jersey City, called for “the plunderer oppressors (Jews)” to be destroyed.

An imam at the Islamic Center of Davis in California delivered a hateful sermon filled with anti-Semitic vitriol and called for the death of all Jews.

“Oh Allah, liberate the Al-Aqsa Mosque from the filth of the Jews. Oh Allah, destroy those who closed the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Oh Allah, show us the black day that You inflict upon them, and the wonders of Your ability. Oh Allah, count them one by one and annihilate them down to the very last one. Do not spare any of them,” Ammar Shahin said.

The Islamic Center of Davis released a statement claiming that Shahin’s remarks were taken “out of context.” But there is no other way to interpret the imam’s sermon than a religious justification for killing Jews. Shahin later issued an apology claiming: “…I let my emotions get the best of me.”

On the same day as Shahin’s sermon, an imam from California’s Islamic Center of Riverside also incited violence against Israelis. “Oh Allah, liberate the Al-Aqsa Mosque and all the Muslim lands from the unjust tyrants and the occupiers. Oh Allah, destroy them, they are no match for You. Oh Allah, disperse them, and rend them asunder. Turn them into booty in the hands of the Muslims,” preached Sheikh Mahmoud Harmoush.

source-ipt news-al-rousam, raed saleh-elkasaby, aymen-

the rest of the Bilderberg group story

-9gh.,b71

Participants take part in the conference as individuals in their own right.” The comments by the Dutch lawmaker and “sustainability” zealot, however, suggest otherwise.

Will Hutton — a former British newspaper editor, a pro-EU extremist, and a vehement opponent of American conservatism — also hinted at the influence of the gathering and its role in global policymaking. “[Bilderberg] is one of the key meetings of the year,” he wrote in 1998. “The consensus established is the backdrop against which policy is made worldwide.”

Basically, what unites the seemingly disparate globalists appears to be mainly their fanatical devotion to globalism — the transfer of political power and self-government away from nation-states and the peoples who make up those nations to unaccountable supranational regimes controlled by Bilderberg attendees and other Deep State swamp creatures.

Those who attend are all globalists based on their public statements, at least, it appears that virtually every attendee at Bilderberg is and has been for more than six decades an enemy of national independence and a proponent of globalism and the ongoing global effort to undermine national sovereignty.

Those of us in Bilderberg felt we couldn’t go on forever fighting one another for nothing and killing people and rendering millions homeless,” he claimed, as if the globalists were simply destroying nationhood for the benefit of humanity. “So we felt that a single community throughout the world would be a good thing.” By “community,” globalists really mean government — after all, the European Union was a “community” before the full-blown superstate was openly announced.

In 1991, for example, a virtually unknown governor from Arkansas attended. Shortly after that, he became President Bill Clinton. Obama, too, went to Bilderberg before becoming president. Multiple members of virtually every U.S. executive branch Cabinet for generations have also attended, including several of President Trump’s top officials, such as Defense Secretary James Mattis, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, and Energy Secretary Rick Perry.

At the European Union level — where voters and the peoples of Europe have virtually no say in governance — the same phenomenon has been observed. In 2005, even the state-funded BBC highlighted it. “All the recent presidents of the European Commission attended Bilderberg meetings before they were appointed,” the broadcaster reported. EU overlords, of course, are not elected by the people. In 2009, meanwhile, former Belgian Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy — a virtual nobody unknown throughout the bloc — was mysteriously installed as EU “president” just days after attending the confab.

Prevalence–Beyond the Bilderberg, CFR, Trilateral, and such establishment organs are other secretive and semi-secret organizations, such as the World Affairs Council, the Aspen Institute, Le Cercle, the Brookings Institution, the Club of Rome, the Atlantic Council, the World Economic Forum, and even the relatively new “World Government Summit.

The Deep State behind the Deep State also includes an array of secret societies, including Skull and Bones, Bohemian Grove, and others. There are also key individual leaders of the Deep State behind the Deep State, including the Rockefeller, Soros, and Rothschild families. Aside from the organizations they control, and in tandem with their influence exercised through government power, these figures also rely heavily on the tax-exempt foundations where they shelter their loot from taxes while funding efforts to advance their agenda.

More than a few of his Cabinet secretaries, for example, are current or former members of the CFR, the Trilateral Commission, and more. As previously mentioned, some are also attendees of Bilderberg, with several senior Trump officials attending this year’s Bilderberg meeting in Virginia. But, it is also becoming obvious that the Deep State behind the Deep State does not trust Trump — at best — and actively despises him at worst. That is a good sign, though it is no guarantee that anything will change.

source-those listed above, the new american mag-alex newman

The Trilateral Commission of the deep state

–9gh.,b71

Only more “elite” and more international, is the Trilateral Commission, founded in 1973 by the late globalist and self-described conspirator for a one-world order David Rockefeller. The late Rockefeller, of course, also played a leading role in the CFR, becoming a member in 1941 and serving as chairman of the board from 1970 until 1985, and an honorary chairman until his death in 2017 at age 101.

David Rockefeller was appointed the first chairman.

Aside from Rockefeller, who in his memoirs boasted of “conspiring” with a “secret cabal” against the best interests of America to form a “one world” order, the other key figure behind the Trilateral Commission was Zbigniew Brzezinski, who at the time was at Columbia University’s Russian Studies department. North America director of the Trilateral Commission, and the national security advisor to President Jimmy Carter. He also was a key player in arming the jihadist “mujaheddin” holy warriors in Afghanistan, whose descendants the U.S. military is currently battling.

Among Brzezinski’s ideas that caught Rockefeller’s attention were those outlined in his 1970 book  Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era, that America was “obsolete,” and that a new world order needed to be created to take the place of the previous U.S.-dominated system. Rockefeller, apparently, agreed.

“Marxism is simultaneously a victory of the external, active man over the inner, passive man and a victory of reason over belief: it stresses man’s capacity to shape his material destiny — finite and defined as man’s only reality — and it postulates the absolute capacity of man to truly understand his reality as a point of departure for his active endeavors to shape it. Brze­zinski, a member of the CFR before his death, went on to advocate the creation of “a council for global cooperation” bringing together “the United States, Japan, and Western Europe.” This body, he wrote, would “be concerned with political strategy” and “bringing together the political leaders of states sharing certain common aspirations and problems of modernity.” another critical step on the road to a global government that brings together the communist and non-communist nations into one unified regime.

It attempts to create a new framework for international affairs not by exploiting these divisions but rather by striving to preserve and create openings for eventual reconciliation. Finally, it recognizes that the world’s developed nations have a certain affinity, and that only by nurturing a greater sense of communality among them can an effective response to the increasing threat of global fragmentation — which itself intensifies the growing world-wide impatience with human inequality — be mounted.”

“In my view the Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power — political, monetary, intellectual, and ecclesiastical,” he wrote. “What the Trilaterals truly intend is the creation of a worldwide economic power superior to the political governments of the nation-states involved…. As managers and creators of the system they will rule the future.”

“The Trilateral Commission was international, founded to create a ‘New International Economic Order,’” explained Wood, editor of Technocracy.news and a nationally known speaker. “Their members have been the architects and drivers of all modern globalization, including that which comes through the United Nations as Sustainable Development and Green Economy. Although the Trilateral Commission is international in scope, in the U.S. they are more than just being part of the so-called Deep State, they ARE the Deep State!”

A crucial element of the Trilateral Commission was and remains the “New International Economic Order” (NIEO) described by Wood. At first, the idea confused observers. Eventually, though, Wood concluded that the NIEO — an idea regularly promoted by the UN, even using the same term — was a re-branding of the older movement for “technocracy.” In fact, Brzezinski’s 1970s book, which purports to deal with “America’s Role in the Technetronic Era,” makes that clear. In essence, a global technocracy would involve rule not by elected representatives, but by technocrats. Freedom would be a thing of the past.

“In brief, the precondition for eventual globalization — genuine globalization — is progressive regionalization, because thereby we move toward larger, more stable, more cooperative units.” And indeed, the crucial Deep State organization has played a key role in accelerating that process in Europe via the European Union, in North America using NAFTA, and in the Pacific region using a wide array of transnational regimes.

The Bilderberg Meetings–, there is yet another shadowy outfit with Rockefeller and other establishment globalists at its core: Bilderberg. Founded in 1954 by former Nazi SS member Prince Bernhard, the annual meetings and the network behind them started at the Hotel de Bilderberg in the Netherlands, ostensibly as a “forum for informal discussions, designed to foster dialogue.” Generally there are between 120 and 150 attendees, most of whom come from Europe and North America, representing every tentacle of establishment power. More than a few analysts have referred to Bilderberg as the “shadow” global government. And there is some truth to the charge.

Most recently, the Bilderberg group met this summer in Chantilly, Virginia. Was virtually unknown to the American public, despite the regular attendance of many of the world’s most influential people and their useful idiots — including top “journalists.” Among the attendees is a collection of powerful figures from Big Government, Big Green, Big Media, Big Oil, Big Espionage, Big Banks, Big War, Big Internet, Big Foundations, Big Communism, Big Data, and most of the other important “Bigs.” Virtually all of the attendees share at least one common element though: a fanatical devotion to globalism and secrecy.

In public, Bilderberg summit organizers work to downplay the confab as a mere off-the-record discussion forum. A press release from Bilderberg released ahead of this year’s summit, for example, claims the purpose is merely to stimulate “dialogue” between “Europe and North America.” “There is no desired outcome, no minutes are taken and no report is written. Furthermore, no resolutions are proposed, no votes are taken, and no policy statements are issued,” claims the statement posted on Bilderberg’s official website. Numerous attendees, though, have suggested and even openly admitted in public statements over the years that much more than a mere “private talk” is in fact going on at the controversial summit.

In fact, multiple attendees have admitted in public comments that policy is indeed discussed — and even set — behind Bilderberg’s closed doors and its legions of mostly tax-funded security. For example, in 2010, former NATO boss and two-time Bilderberg attendee Willy Claes explained in a radio interview that reports of speeches given at the summit are, in fact, compiled. “The participants are then obviously considered to use this report in setting their policies in the environments in which they affect,” Claes added. Analysts said the remark was essentially an admission that Bilderberg attendees are secretly plotting your future behind closed doors — and they are.

— told the online publication EUobserver that the network and the annual meetings “helped create” the controversial euro currency imposed on 17 (and counting) formerly sovereign European nations. Much evidence also suggests that the summits played a major role in foisting the EU superstate on the peoples of Europe against their will — a process that continues despite the lack of even a semblance of public support.

Diederik Samsom, a Bilderberg attendee and the leader of the Socialist International-aligned Dutch Labor Party, admitted on camera that he was attending the summit in his official capacity as parliamentary leader. Asked if he was there in an informal capacity, as Bilderberg claimed, Samsom responded: “Well, I’m formal, because being a politician, you’re 24/7, so there’s no way of exiting my role.

source-those listed in article-the new american mag-alex newman