The Globalist Trade Agreement You Didn’t Hear About

Source: TheInternationalForecaster
James Corbett
May 6, 2017

You remember the SPP, don’t you? The attempt to create a North American Union by harmonizing the border controls, environmental and business regulations and security forces of Canada, the US and Mexico?

Of course you do, because sites like The Corbett Report caught wind of it, publicized its secret meetings, and organized widespread resistance to expose the plot (and expose police provocateuring in the process).

Remember SOPA, PIPA, ACTA and CISPA, the attempt by globalist corporations and totalitarian control freaks to crack down on the free and open internet under cover of copyright policing?

Of course you do, because sites like The Corbett Report warned you about them and the masses organized to derail them at the last second.

Remember the TPP, the attempt to create a free trade agreement for the Asia-Pacific that would have enriched the globalist corporate elite at the expense of everyone else?

Of course you do, because sites like The Corbett Report sounded the alarm in the early days of the agreement and explained the finished deal in plain English when it finally emerged from the swamp, whipping up a populist backlash that ended the deal.

Remember the WTO’s Trade Facilitation Agreement? You know, the all-encompassing agreement between the WTO’s 164 members (97% of global GDP) that has been hailed as “the most significant multilateral trade deal concluded since the establishment of the World Trade Organisation?” The one that implements the globalists’ wet dream of harmonizing export and import processes and trade infrastructure among the majority of the world’s population?

No? Doesn’t ring a bell? Hmmm…I wonder why that is?

Don’t worry. If you’re only hearing about the agreement now, it’s not because you weren’t paying attention. It’s because almost no one was paying attention, including me. If the daily flurry of craziness that is the Trump-era news cycle has ever left you wondering what you’re being distracted from, here is one answer. It’s called the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement, and it just entered into force in February.

That’s right, it’s in effect as we speak. No time to familiarize yourself with this one. No time to organize opposition. No time to examine the implications. It’s already here.

For those of us who haven’t heard about the Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA) before, here’s the crash course:

Part of the long-fought, arduous, hotly contested negotiations surrounding the WTO’s so-called “Bali Package” trade agreement of 2013, the TFA specifically aims to reduce bureaucratic red tape and regulatory uncertainty around trade issues between WTO member nations, by, among other things, harmonizing customs procedures, removing delays on clearance and movement of goods, and reducing fees, formalities and roadblocks to legal recourse for importers and exporters.

Or, in the official gobbledygook of the WTO’s PR-ese:

“The TFA contains provisions for expediting the movement, release and clearance of goods, including goods in transit. It also sets out measures for effective cooperation between customs and other appropriate authorities on trade facilitation and customs compliance issues. It further contains provisions for technical assistance and capacity building in this area. The Agreement will help improve transparency, increase possibilities to participate in global value chains, and reduce the scope for corruption.”

The WTO’s own 2015 study about the agreement shows that it will reduce the trading costs of member nations by 14.3%, reduce average import times for goods by a day and a half and export times by two days, increase global merchandise exports by $1 trillion, and make blind lepers walk on water again. Or something like that.

So what’s not to love?

Well, in the broader sense this agreement can be seen as a life-saver for the WTO, whose very raison d’être as a type of global governing body for world trade has been called into question by the fact that, before the TFA, it hadn’t actually managed to ratify a single trade agreement in its 22-year history.

That’s right, the so-called “Doha Development Round” of talks that the body began in 2001—its “ambitious effort to make globalization more inclusive and help the world’s poor,” to quote the Rothschild-mouthpiece, The Economist—has been ongoing for a decade and a half and currently remains in limbo after years of rancorous debate. Even the much-ballyhooed Bali Package was just the framework for what has now become the TFA, meaning that this agreement has single-handedly brought the WTO back from the brink of irrelevance that the NAFTA, the TTIP and TPP, and numerous other regional, multilateral and bilateral trade agreements have pushed it towards.

But more specifically, the TFA is a perfect example of everything that’s wrong with globalization: Under cover of “development” and “trade,” and with a lot of flowery rhetoric about helping the poorest of the poor and facilitating global cooperation, this agreement in fact does little but penalize the poorest countries by forcing them to adopt standards and practices that are as expensive and difficult to implement as they are useless to local industries, farmers and laborers. At the same time, it further erodes local autonomy by forcing almost the entirety of the planet to adopt the same standards and regulations on imports and exports. And, to top it all off, it is the backbone upon which backdoor implementations of various unpopular policies and ideas, from regional trade agreements to the cashless control grid, will be built.

As the Business Standard notes: “This deal will not only resuscitate the WTO, whose relevance was fast eroding due to proliferation of free-trade agreements, but will also revive multilateralism in global trade. Most important, it demonstrates that trade agreements are no longer just about tariffs — they are also about making trade easier, whether through dovetailing domestic regulations, or through easing actual paperwork.”

This is an attempt not at a trade deal in the traditional sense, but at a reformulation of the idea of a “trade agreement” as an act of cross-border regulatory harmonization.

Furthermore, Article 7 of the agreement includes a mandate on electronic payments: “Each Member shall, to the extent practicable, adopt or maintain procedures allowing the option of electronic payment for duties, taxes, fees and charges collected by customs incurred upon importation and exportation.” The measure, fairly innocuous by itself, is yet another attempt to normalize the mandating of cashless payments in international trade. But it is supplemented by other unaccountable global governmental bodies like the UN’s Centre for Trade Facilitation and Electronic Business, which, along with the usual Global Goals-y/Climate Change-y/Regional Coordination-y globalist mandates, also coordinates technical cooperation on trade issues, including E-payments and E-purchasing.

And when I say global, I really do mean global. There are no virtuous Chinese messiahs who are valiantly fighting off these insidious global processes, or Russian saviors who can save us from the big bad globalists, or Indian gurus who will protect us from the onslaught. Not only are all five BRICS members themselves vassal states of the WTO behemoth, but the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP, yet another acronymed head of the United Nations hydra) has been hard at work promoting the Trade Facilitation Agreement as the “key to unlocking trade potential along OBOR” (which, for those without their special-issued globalist decoder ring, is an acronym for the “One Belt, One Road” initiative of China that we talked about last week).

So cross the Trade Facilitation Agreement off your list of worries. It has already arrived, and it arrived (as do all the most insidious global governmental structures and deals) not with a bang or even a whimper but a silent, self-congratulatory smile and a knowing nod among the globalist jet set. This is how the real structures of global government will be set up: Not in the blazing noon-day sun of publicity, not with fanfare and protest and tumult, but in quiet, backroom deals reached out of sight and out of mind of the general public.

So, the logical question to ask is: What are they working on next?

Read More At: TheInternationalForecaster.com

Trump Kills The TPP – Is NAFTA Next?

Source: RTAmerica
January 23, 2017

With the stroke of a pen, President Donald Trump has unraveled the Trans-Pacific Partnership, withdrawing the US from the controversial free trade pact. Ed Schultz, host of “News With Ed,” joins Simone Del Rosario to discuss the move. Meanwhile, the future of NAFTA remains uncertain as talks of renegotiating the Clinton-era trade pact buzz around the White House. RT America’s Alex Mihailovich joins to discuss.

New Administration Seems Poised To Take Action Against Crippling Traded Deals TTP & NAFTA

Global
TheBreakaway
Zy Marquiez
January 22, 2017

Recently, on the White House website, the new administration has laid out the main issues it is planning to address soon.

One of these issues in particular, known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership [TPP] is front and center among the changes supposedly planned.

The TPP deal has been the recipient of heavy backlash, and with good reason.  Not only was the deal negotiated in secret, as some of you might know, but it would also have crippling effects on the US economy due to enormous job loss, as well as other reasons.

Also of note is the fact that North American Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA] is going to be renegotiated, if possible, and for the very same reasons.

Because of this, and additional reasons, the new administration’s strategy is to start:

“…by withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership and making certain that any new trade deals are in the interests of American workers. President Trump is committed to renegotiating NAFTA. If our partners refuse a renegotiation that gives American workers a fair deal, then the President will give notice of the United States’ intent to withdraw from NAFTA.

In addition to rejecting and reworking failed trade deals, the United States will crack down on those nations that violate trade agreements and harm American workers in the process. The President will direct the Commerce Secretary to identify all trade violations and to use every tool at the federal government’s disposal to end these abuses.”[Bold Emphasis Added]

Time will tell whether this plan to remove the TPP and renegotiate NAFTA will take place.

One thing to note though is that, to bring these issues to the fore and not follow through will be great loss of political capital.

Still, actions mean louder than words, and now we will see where the winds will take us.

If you wish to read more information on the matter of Globalism, please read Jon Rappoport’s following articles on his website NoMoreFakeNews.com & JonRappoport.wordpress.com:

TPP, TTIP: Obama’s Secret Trade Deals Vs. Trump & Bernie

Obama Tries To Sneak The TPP In Lame Duck Congress

Globalism: Revising The Monster In The Presidential Campaign

 

Another Look At Supreme Court Justice Scalia’s Death

athink
Source: NoMoreFakenews.com
Jon Rappoport
January 3, 2017

I’m taking another look because I have a new statement about a related case: Melaney Parker, a woman found dead on the railroad tracks in Marfa, Texas, in 2013, after a train hit her.

The same judge who inexplicably decided Scalia needed no autopsy, after he died in Texas, in 2016, came to the same conclusion in the Melaney Parker case.

That Texas judge is Cinderela Guevara.

Heavy.com summarizes the questions surrounding the 2013 death of Melaney Parker and Guevara’s role:

“Liz Parker, Melaney’s mom, questioned how Guevara handled the investigation of her daughter’s death, The Daily Kos reported. Melaney was hit by a Union Pacific Railroad train and, Liz wrote, a Union Pacific representative told her that it appeared that her body had been placed on the tracks while she was unconscious. Liz asked the Justice of the Peace and the Sheriff to open the case as a homicide investigation, but they would not. Guevara, who was a Justice of the Peace at the time, did not order a rape kit or an autopsy, Liz wrote, because a doctor at the scene said the cause of death was obvious.”

“Liz later wrote a letter to the editor, published in Big Bend Now, in which she said that Guevara had asked for God to give her an answer [!] about whether Melaney’s death was suicide. Liz wrote that Guevara told her: ‘Yes, this was a tragedy, but the true tragedy was that she died without accepting Jesus Christ as her savior’.” [!!]

“Big Bend Now also published a story about the controversial investigation. Melaney’s cousin, Aspen Parker, wrote a letter to Fox News in 2013 saying that Guevara’s cause of death ruling mentioned that Melaney had submitted a letter of resignation to her employers before her death. Aspen wrote that he called Melaney’s employers and they said that wasn’t true.”

The death of Melaney Parker sounds like a case begging to be reopened. I now have a new statement on it.

According to someone with knowledge of the investigation (or non-investigation), the crime scene was a mess. The day after the police initially visited it, Melaney Parker’s eyeglasses were still there. They hadn’t been picked up as evidence.

Pieces of Parker’s flesh were there as well. The engineer of the train that hit Parker said Parker had been positioned with one arm above her head, which suggested she might have been killed somewhere else and then dragged to the railroad tracks.

After toxicology tests were completed, Parker’s remains were cremated without her family’s permission.

If all this is true, Judge Guevara’s decision to skip an autopsy and accept the ruling of suicide is even more suspect.

And then three years later, when Justice Scalia dies, Guevara issues the same long-distance ruling, on the phone. No autopsy necessary.

Here is what I originally wrote about Scalia’s death. It’s extensive. Six articles. Some of the information overlaps:

ONE: “’Associate Justice Antonin Scalia was the senior member of the U. S. Supreme Court and one of the 10 most important public servants in the country. For better or worse over the course of his 29 years on the Court, he was arguably the most influential person in America’.” Eric Mink, Huffington Post, 2/17.

We start here—from the NY Post:

“Lethal poisoning could have left Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s body in virtually the same condition in which it was found, a top forensic pathologist told The Post on Wednesday.

“’It would look like he’s asleep. It [poisoning] doesn’t show anything on the body,’ said Dr. Michael Baden, who spent 25 years in the city’s chief Medical Examiner’s Office.

“Still, Baden stressed that natural causes was a plausible explanation.”

However, the official pronouncement of natural causes carries a burden with it. The burden of some semblance of proof. In this case, there was none.

And if you think “none” should be SOP in the case of a US Supreme Court Justice, you need to think again.

Judge Cinderela Guevara, miles away from Scalia’s body, sitting on the phone, rendered the judgment of natural causes after talking with marshals, none of whom had forensic training; and after talking with Scalia’s doctor, who was a few thousand miles from the Texas ranch where Scalia died.

Apparently, Scalia’s doctor told Judge Guevara that Scalia had a heart condition. Yes? And? This is proof a US Supreme Court Justice died of a heart attack?

Guevara, like a true bumbling amateur (or was something more ominous going on here?), decided no autopsy of the body was necessary. She decided she was too busy (doing what?) to climb in her car and drive to the ranch, to oversee the situation and talk to people at the scene.

So she said, on the phone, “Natural causes. No autopsy.”

In the case of a US Supreme Court Justice. In the biggest moment of Judge Guevara’s professional life.

And the Department of Justice, the FBI, the President, and all the members of US Congress immediately bought it.

No objections. No questions. No outrage.

Just the silence of the lambs.

In a city where blabbermouths never stop talking, suddenly—silence.

Paralysis.

And thereafter: no chain of custody for bodily evidence.

The body of a US Supreme Court Justice wasn’t put on a plane, from the mile-long airstrip at Cibolo Ranch, under supervision, and flown back immediately to Washington DC for analysis. No.

Instead, it was driven to the Sunset Funeral Home in El Paso, 230 miles from the Ranch. It could have been driven 65 miles to the Alpine Memorial Funeral Home in Alpine, but it wasn’t.

At the Sunset Funeral Home in El Paso, it was promptly embalmed—ruling out the possibility of a conventional autopsy. Even then, forensic pathologist Michael Baden states, toxicology tests could be done by sophisticated analysis. According to Wayne Madsen, reporting for Infowars, no bodily fluids were collected at the funeral home for later analysis.

Roughly 10 hours after the embalming, Scalia’s body was loaded on a plane and flown to Virginia, where Scalia’s family lives.

But “most people think Scalia died of natural causes.” That argument, for impaired minds, carries the day. Nothing more to see, nothing more to know.

“Old man, in ill-health, heart condition. He dies. What else could it possibly be? Natural causes.”

As reported by Eric Mink at the Huffington Post (2/17), in an excellent piece, there were 35-40 guests at the Cibolo Ranch on the weekend Scalia died. Who were they? Was this merely a quail-hunting outing? Or was it another kind of get-together?

No word. Silence. Why haven’t any of those guests spoken to the press? Do they know something that would shed a different light on the official story? Are they afraid? Did someone at the federal level throw a blanket over them?

Judge Cinderela Guevara spoke to a lawyer representing the Scalia family. He said the family didn’t want an autopsy. Who is he? Why hasn’t his name surfaced? Since when is a client’s lawyer’s name a secret?

Scalia traveled to the ranch with a friend. No one is saying who the friend is. That’s also a state secret?

Does the Cibolo Ranch have medical personnel on staff? If so, were any of them called when Scalia was discovered dead in his room?

The official narrative is: old man, long-time public servant, dies peacefully in his sleep of natural causes. This is the thin gloss that prevents any Washington politician with clout from demanding an investigation? This quiets and paralyzes the entire federal establishment, including eight Justices of the Supreme Court?

Cowards and lambs.

Not an ounce of conscience among them.

Neutered.

And/or told to stay silent.

In the wake of this titanic silence, the narrative is quickly and expertly shifted to the question of who will replace Scalia on the bench. That’s the certified subject of chatter. Should Obama appoint a nominee, or should nomination wait for the next President? What is the rule? The Republicans cross swords with the Democrats. Precedents are cited. The man isn’t in his grave, and the hangars-on and petty power players are arguing over his successor. It’s a B movie. Pundits prepare talking points, clean their suits, see their hair stylists, and sidle into their minutes of face time on news shows. The shows deliver filler between commercials.

This is the wet concrete that sets over the death of a US Supreme Court Justice.

The one man who could have swept aside all objections, and ordered an investigation, visits the flag-covered casket in the Great Hall of the Supreme Court, stands before it for 30 seconds, moves to a painted portrait of the deceased Justice, lingers there for one minute, and then goes home, to the Oval Office, to vet nominees, a herculean task that will unfortunately prevent him from attending the funeral.

Omerta.

TWO: Four days before he died, Supreme Court Justice Scalia voted to stall Obama’s plan to force drastic EPA climate-change rules on the American economy. The vote was 5-4.

With Scalia now gone, the vote would be 4-4.

With a new Obama Supreme Court appointee, if Obama could ram his choice through, the vote would be 5-4 in the President’s favor. Ditto, if the next President shares Obama’s position. And the climate-change agenda would roll ahead.

We’re not talking about small climate-change rules. We’re talking about the Big Ones.

And note: such rules could very well dovetail with the Brave New World spelled out in the upcoming TPP (the Trans-Pacific Partnership).

It’s a wedge formation, a squeeze play, a pincer movement featuring new EPA climate-change regulations on one side, and new draconian possibilities embedded in the TPP.

If Scalia was murdered, the above agenda was sufficient reason, because the climate agenda has the force to transform life on the planet.

If Scalia’s murder were a movie, he would have been told, as a warning: “You have no idea how big this thing is; you really don’t understand the forces you’re messing with.”

Of course, most Americans don’t believe a political murder along this line could happen in real life. They can only accept it in a movie, where it makes perfect sense. That tells you something about the schizoid nature of the public mind:

Adrenaline-driven in front of a screen; tranquilized and programmed to be passive and accepting of recognized authority, otherwise.

“Don’t be silly. Scalia, murdered, and murdered for that reason? It couldn’t happen. That’s so…barbaric. We’re civilized.” That opinion and $6 will get you a rainbow smoothie.

Obama’s climate-change plan uses the EPA to act out international agreements signed at the recent Paris summit. But in order to, yes, scam these agreements into force in the US, the EPA has to stretch and bend and distort already-existing US law. And it has done so.

However, a number of states have sued to stop the EPA, which wants to make all states cut CO2 emissions from electrical power production by 32% in the next 15 years. Aimed mainly at coal-burning plants, these regulations would create deep reductions in the overall US energy supply and output—a primary mission of the economy-wrecking Rockefeller Globalists.

The US Supreme Court, four days before Scalia’s death, with his vote, declared a narrow 5-4 halt to the Obama plan, pending a lower-court decision on the issue. The 5-4 vote didn’t knock out the plan, but it stalled it. And if Scalia had stayed alive, his vote going forward on the Obama plan could have remained crucial.

The pending TPP, another Globalist trade treaty, contains a section that allows endless changes and additions in the text as years pass. In other words, the passion for cutting energy production for the US, and the rest of the planet, can easily be folded into the treaty.

The TPP also reveals a cynical attitude toward the “humanitarian goal of saving the planet from CO2 death.” Major corporations that burn coal and employ other ways of releasing CO2 can relocate to far-off lands (e.g., Vietnam) and spew CO2 to their hearts’ content, without messy environmental controls.

In other words, the true underlying Globalist scheme, vis-à-vis climate change has nothing to do with messianic rescue: it has to do with lowering energy production.

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com

Bombshell: David Gergen’s Elite Connections, His Attempt To Stop Trump

QuestionEverything2

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
November 27, 2016

Yes, he works for CNN. He’s operated as “White House advisor” to four presidents: Ford, Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton. That should give you pause.

Why?

Because Washington insider David Gergen, currently a CNN political commentator, is also a member of the executive committee of the Trilateral Commission (TC) (see here, here, and here). The TC is one of the most powerful elite groups on the planet. Founded by David Rockefeller in 1973, the TC has been making domestic and foreign policy for America since the Jimmy Carter administration.

Before we get to the significance of Gergen’s TC ties, here is a sprinkling of critical statements about Donald Trump that Gergen made during the presidential race:

“Whatever chance Donald Trump still had of capturing the White House largely evaporated Sunday night in his second debate with Hillary Clinton.” (here)

“Donald Trump’s behavior on stage Thursday night and in the days that have followed strike many as unfathomable: How can anyone act so arrogantly and meanly in public life?” (here)

“[Donald Trump made the 2016 election a] ‘national joke’ [when he guested on The Dr. Oz Show to say he was in good health].” (here)

“[Trump delivered a] ‘slanderous speech’ [against Hillary Clinton, saying she should go to jail].” (here)

“Donald Trump is a walking example of someone who’s dismissive of women. Can you imagine what it’s like for him to think that he might be beaten by a woman? Serves him right.”

David Gergen never writes in depth about his own membership in the elite Rockefeller Trilateral Commission. The TC a) is a Globalist juggernaut, and b) Donald Trump’s attack on Globalism, its trade treaties, and its wholesale theft of US jobs, is in direct opposition to the Trilateral Commission’s aims.

A simple conflict-of-interest statement from Gergen would do. Something like this:

“Hi, I’m David Gergen, and I’m a member of an elite group determined to create a new international economic order. We favor the eventual eradication of national borders and the ascendance of transnational corporations and banks as the captains of the world. Therefore, I’m ideologically opposed to what that son of a bitch Donald Trump stands for.”

Then we’d know.

Here are two key Trilateral Commission quotes that reflect its global outlook:

“The nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state.” — Zbigniew Brzezinski, co-founder of the Trilateral Commission.

Any doubt on the question of Trilateral Commission goals is answered by David Rockefeller himself, the founder of the TC, in his Memoirs (2003):

“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

The Trans-Pacific Partnership Treaty (TPP), a Globalist nightmare, is now under consideration. Trump has vowed to stop it as soon as he takes office. David Gergen, of course, as a member of the Trilateral Commission, favors it.

Gergen: “The [Obama] administration’s increasing focus on Asia is a welcome move, but it too has gone less well than expected…the famous ‘pivot’ will depend upon completion of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the most important trade agreement in decades. To its credit, the administration has aggressively pursued the deal but to little avail.”

Again, why doesn’t Gergen discuss his Trilateral membership in depth? Obviously, because it would fatally compromise his position as a journalist.

In order to avoid disseminating more fake news, CNN—already a Niagara of fake news—ought to introduce Gergen this way, every time he’s prepared to comment on Trump, the TPP, or Globalism:

“And now, remarks on the new president from our resident insider, David Gergen. David is a veteran member of the little-known but very powerful Trilateral Commission. He sits on its executive committee. The Trilateral Commission, founded by none other than David Rockefeller, favors eradication of national boundaries, a new international economic order, and Globalist trade treaties which of course give mega-corporations and banks control of the planet’s future. President-elect Trump opposes all this. David? What do you have for us today?”

“Well, when you put it that way…”

“Thank you, David. Talk to you again next week. We’ll be right back after the break.”

Going all the way back to 1978, here is the essence of an astonishing interview with two Trilateral Commission members about who was setting US domestic and foreign policy in Jimmy Carter’s administration.

The interview was conducted by reporter Jeremiah Novak. He was speaking with two American members of the Trilateral Commission:

NOVAK (reporter): Yes, but why doesn’t President Carter come out with it and tell the American people that [US] economic and political power is being coordinated by a [Trilateral Commission] committee made up of Henry Owen and six others? After all, if [US] policy is being made on a multinational level [by the Trilateral Commission], the people should know.

RICHARD COOPER [Trilateral Commission member]: President Carter and Secretary of State Vance have constantly alluded to this in their speeches.

KARL KAISER [Trilateral Commission member]: It just hasn’t become an issue.

Source: “Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management,” ed. by Holly Sklar, 1980. South End Press, Boston. Pages 192-3.

It didn’t become an issue because major media didn’t expose it, and neither did President Carter, contrary to what these two TC members claimed.

The very idea that Trump might not continue this massive covert op to deliver US government power into the hands of the TC and David Rockefeller…insider David Gergen and his TC cronies wouldn’t be happy about that at all. Not at all.

And CNN talks about “fake news.” They are Fake News Central.

They are complicit in maintaining the United States as a satellite of the Trilateral Commission.

You think this might be an overstatement of the TC’s power now?

In the run-up to his inauguration after the 2008 presidential election, Obama was tutored by the co-founder of the Trilateral Commission, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Patrick Wood, author of Trilaterals Over Washington, points out there are only 87 members of the Trilateral Commission who live in America. Obama appointed eleven of them (!) to posts in his administration.

For example:

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

Trump’s trade: TPP cancelled, NAFTA to be renegotiated?

Source: RT
November 15, 2016

Donald Trump supporters will be looking to the president-elect to keep good on his campaign promise to create jobs in the US. Trump said from the get-go that he opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership, deviating from the majority of the Republican Party, including Mike Pence, who has a long history of supporting free trade deals. To discuss the now-deceased trade deal and Trump’s pledge to renegotiate NAFTA, ‘News With Ed’ is joined by Scott Paul, president of the Alliance for American Manufacturing, and Kevin Kearns, president of the US Business and Industry Council.

Evidence Emerges That ‘Clinton Cash’ May Have Played a Role in the FBI’s Investigation of Hillary Clinton

screen-shot-2016-10-24-at-8-14-59-am
Source: LibertyBlizkrieg.com
Michael Krieger
October 24, 2016

A theme I’ve been focused on for the past several weeks, relates to the growing anger from within the ranks of current and former FBI agents over the agency’s questionable and shady investigation into the email practices of Hillary Clinton. For example, in last week’s post, Internal Anger at the FBI Over Clinton Investigation Continues to Grow, I noted:

“This is a textbook case where a grand jury should have convened but was not. That is appalling,” an FBI special agent who has worked public corruption and criminal cases said of the decision. “We talk about it in the office and don’t know how Comey can keep going.”

DiGenova told WMAL radio’s Drive at Five last week, “People are starting to talk. They’re calling their former friends outside the bureau asking for help. We were asked to day to provide legal representation to people inside the bureau and agreed to do so and to former agents who want to come forward and talk. Comey thought this was going to go away.”

He explained, “It’s not. People inside the bureau are furious. They are embarrassed. They feel like they are being led by a hack but more than that that they think he’s a crook. They think he’s fundamentally dishonest. They have no confidence in him. The bureau inside right now is a mess.”

He added, “The most important thing of all is that the agents have decided that they are going to talk.”

While most people are rightly focused on FBI head James Comey, there’s another person who needs to be investigated far more closely due to his ties to cash from long-time Clinton ally and Virginia Governor, Terry McAuliffe. That person is deputy director of the FBI. Andrew McCabe.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

The political organization of Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, an influential Democrat with longstanding ties to Bill and Hillary Clinton, gave nearly $500,000 to the election campaign of the wife of an official at the Federal Bureau of Investigation who later helped oversee the investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s email use.

Campaign finance records show Mr. McAuliffe’s political-action committee donated $467,500 to the 2015 state Senate campaign of Dr. Jill McCabe, who is married to Andrew McCabe, now the deputy director of the FBI.

The Virginia Democratic Party, over which Mr. McAuliffe exerts considerable control, donated an additional $207,788 worth of support to Dr. McCabe’s campaign in the form of mailers, according to the records. That adds up to slightly more than $675,000 to her candidacy from entities either directly under Mr. McAuliffe’s control or strongly influenced by him. The figure represents more than a third of all the campaign funds Dr. McCabe raised in the effort.

The FBI said in a statement that during his wife’s campaign Mr. McCabe “played no role, attended no events, and did not participate in fundraising or support of any kind. Months after the completion of her campaign, then-Associate Deputy Director McCabe was promoted to Deputy, where, in that position, he assumed for the first time, an oversight role in the investigation into Secretary Clinton’s emails.”

FBI officials said that after that meeting with the governor in Richmond on March 7, Mr. McCabe sought ethics advice from the bureau and followed it, avoiding involvement with public corruption cases in Virginia, and avoiding any campaign activity or events.

Mr. McCabe’s supervision of the Clinton email case in 2016 wasn’t seen as a conflict or an ethics issue because his wife’s campaign was over by then and Mr. McAuliffe wasn’t part of the email probe, officials said.

Mr. McAuliffe has been a central figure in the Clintons’ political careers for decades. In the 1990s, he was Bill Clinton’s chief fundraiser and he remains one of the couple’s closest allies and public boosters. Mrs. Clinton appeared with him in northern Virginia in 2015 as he sought to increase the number of Democrats in the state legislature.

Indeed, McAuliffe is also the guy who made it clear over the summer that Hillary Clinton “private position” on the TPP was to support it. This was discussed in July’s post:

Continue Reading At: LibertyBlitzkrieg.com