coup

The Scandal Reaches Barack Obama

We now finally have evidence linking Obama to the Spygate scandal:

Screen Shot 2020-06-24 at 7.22.24 PM.png

“Shocking”? I don’t know, Senator. I’ve been expecting this for years.

Anyone who has been following this thing closely since the beginning has known that Obama knew the whole time what was going on. But now we have some proof, in the form of Peter Strzok’s hand-written memos about the Flynn ambush.

Not only that, but we have Biden being involved, too. Add another scandal to the list along with Ukraine.

Here is a photo of the hand-written Strzok note. It’s kind of tough to make out:

Screen Shot 2020-06-25 at 12.15.00 AM

The third line down says “VP: ‘Logan Act'” as in it was Biden who suggested using the Logan Act as a pretense to go after Flynn.

“P” has got to mean President, as in President Obama.

“D” means FBI Director James Comey. According to Strzok’s notes, Comey said “Flynn –> Kislyak [Russian Ambassador] calls but appear legit.”

I wish I could transcribe more of it but his handwriting is hard to read.

Obama is also quoted as saying, “Make sure you look at things + have the right people on it.” With, of course, “it” meaning the Flynn “investigation.”

Is this the bombshell we’ve been waiting for? No, I don’t think so. There’s still more that should and hopefully will come out.

I want ’em all in cuffs. Obama, Biden, Hillary, Comey, Clapper, Brennan, Rice, Strzok, Samantha Power, Sally Yates. All of ’em.

LBJ Killed JFK: The 56th Anniversary of the Coup of ’63

56 years ago today, also on a Friday, at around 12:30pm CST, President John F. Kennedy was shot and killed in Dallas, Texas. While most Americans consider the Kennedy Assassination a tragic day in American history, that would only be true if the Official Narrative™ of the “lone nut” assassin were true.

But the reality is it’s more than a tragedy: given that Kennedy was assassinated not by a “lone nut” but by a criminal conspiracy orchestrated by the most powerful men in the country, November 22, 1963 was the day The Deep State took power and the American Republic ended in all but name.

Most Americans reject the Official Narrative™ regarding the Kennedy Assassination, which states that President John F. Kennedy was assassinated by a lone nut named Lee Harvey Oswald. The Official Narrative™ claims that Americans don’t want to believe the beloved 35th President was killed for no reason at all, and so they cling to wild “conspiracy theories”–such as the “grassy knoll,” the mob, the Cubans, or the Soviets–in a vain effort to bestow some form of meaning on Kennedy’s untimely death.

But while most Americans reject the idea that Oswald was a lone nut who acted alone and that Kennedy’s death was not part of any grand conspiracy, most Americans are also quite cloudy on the truth behind what happened on Friday November 22, 1963 in Dallas. In other words, while Americans know Oswald didn’t act alone, they are not certain who was really behind Kennedy’s assassination. Americans’ feelings toward the Kennedy assassination can be best characterized as a vague distrust of the Official Story.

I’ve spent the past few weeks doing some research on the matter and I believe I now have a general understanding of what really happened: the main culprit behind the Kennedy assassination was then-Vice President Lyndon Baines Johnson, as well as other high-ranking government officials who wanted JFK gone.

I am certainly not claiming to be the first person to advance this theory, especially given that I have come to believe it through the work of others who have looked into the matter. But my aim here is to provide some clarity on the Kennedy Assassination for those who only know that they reject the Official Narrative™ but don’t have a coherent alternative explanation, as well as to place the JFK assassination into proper context in American history.

Obviously, Johnson stood to gain the most from the assassination: the moment Kennedy was pronounced dead, LBJ was sworn in as the 36th U.S. President. Johnson’s motive was as clear as day, and it’s a wonder more people don’t view him as the prime suspect.

In any murder mystery, the best strategy is to look for the person with the strongest motive to carry out the murder, and LBJ undoubtedly had the strongest motive to get Kennedy out of the way. Not only did he personally dislike the Kennedys, he had everything to gain from getting them out of the way.

Because JFK was his superior, LBJ largely tolerated President Kennedy, and vice versa. Kennedy didn’t much care for Johnson, either.

But LBJ didn’t hold anything back when it came to the President’s younger brother Bobby, also the U.S. Attorney General.

LBJ biographer Robert Caro characterized Johnson’s feelings towards Bobby Kennedy as “hatred,”:

“You don’t want to use words like this as a historian, but hatred is the right word to describe Robert Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson,” Caro said. “They hated each other from the first time they met. Someone said the first time they met, it was like two strange dogs walking into a room and there was a low growl and the hair rises on their neck. It never stops. … (Robert Kennedy) can humiliate Johnson and he humiliates him at every opportunity and then with the crack of a gunshot, the world is reversed and Johnson has the power over Bobby Kennedy.”

Awfully convenient for Lyndon Johnson, no? It really is interesting just how well things worked out for LBJ following JFK’s assassination.

In 2011, the Daily Mail reported that in the wake of her husband’s murder, Jackie Kennedy privately expressed her belief that LBJ was behind the assassination:

“Jackie Onassis believed that Lyndon B Johnson and a cabal of Texas tycoons were involved in the assassination of her husband John F Kennedy, ‘explosive’ recordings are set to reveal.

The secret tapes will show that the former first lady felt that her husband’s successor was at the heart of the plot to murder him.

She became convinced that the then vice president, along with businessmen in the South, had orchestrated the Dallas shooting, with gunman Lee Harvey Oswald – long claimed to have been a lone assassin – merely part of a much larger conspiracy.”

After all, the assassination did take place in Johnson’s home state of Texas. If ever there were a place where LBJ could execute a cover-up from the ground-up, where he had the most pull and clout and connections, it was in Texas. It just makes sense.

In 2007, Rolling Stone ran a lengthy piece in which it was claimed that the late notorious former CIA operative E. Howard Hunt–a man who was part of both the JFK assassination and the Watergate burglary–admitted on his deathbed to his son that LBJ was the mastermind of the JFK assassination:

“[I]n Miami, with [E. Howard Hunt’s son] Saint by his bed, and disease eating away at him, and him thinking he’s six months away from death, E. Howard finally put pen to paper and started writing. Saint had been working toward this moment for a long while, and now it was going to happen. He got his father an A&W diet root beer, then sat down in the old man’s wheelchair and waited.

E. Howard scribbled the initials “LBJ,” standing for Kennedy’s ambitious vice president, Lyndon Johnson. Under “LBJ,” connected by a line, he wrote the name Cord Meyer. Meyer was a CIA agent whose wife had an affair with JFK; later she was murdered, a case that’s never been solved. Next his father connected to Meyer’s name the name Bill Harvey, another CIA agent; also connected to Meyer’s name was the name David Morales, yet another CIA man and a well-known, particularly vicious black-op specialist. And then his father connected to Morales’ name, with a line, the framed words “French Gunman Grassy Knoll.”

So there it was, according to E. Howard Hunt. LBJ had Kennedy killed. It had long been speculated upon. But now E. Howard was saying that’s the way it was. And that Lee Harvey Oswald wasn’t the only shooter in Dallas. There was also, on the grassy knoll, a French gunman, presumably the Corsican Mafia assassin Lucien Sarti, who has figured prominently in other assassination theories.

“By the time he handed me the paper, I was in a state of shock,” Saint says. “His whole life, to me and everybody else, he’d always professed to not know anything about any of it. But I knew this had to be the truth. If my dad was going to make anything up, he would have made something up about the Mafia, or Castro, or Khrushchev. He didn’t like Johnson. But you don’t falsely implicate your own country, for Christ’s sake. My father is old-school, a dyed-in-the-wool patriot, and that’s the last thing he would do.”

Then there’s also the story about what LBJ allegedly said to his mistress, Madelein Duncan Brown, the night before the assassination took place. Watch from the 2:36 mark:

She claims Johnson, in a rage, said to her, on the night of November 21, “After tomorrow, those sons of bitches will never embarrass me again!”

Given that Johnson was the obvious and immediate beneficiary of Kennedy’s death, and that the assassination took place in Johnson’s home state of Texas, it appears to me likely that Johnson was behind it.

LBJ had the motive, but he needed to have backing. There’s no way coup could’ve been pulled off if only LBJ wanted to get rid of Kennedy. There had to be others with the same motive. And there were.

Certainly J. Edgar Hoover, the notorious head of the FBI and arguably the most powerful man in America for nearly four decades prior, was a part of the conspiracy. Bolstering the case that Hoover was part of the plot is this:

“In 1964, just days before Hoover testified in the earliest stages of the Warren Commission hearings, President Lyndon B. Johnson waived the then-mandatory U.S. Government Service Retirement Age of 70, allowing Hoover to remain the FBI Director “for an indefinite period of time.”

In 2017, the Trump Administration authorized the release of previously classified documents pertaining to the Kennedy Assassination. One of those documents was this  particular memo from J. Edgar Hoover:

“Referring to Nicholas Katzenbach, the deputy attorney general at the time, Hoover dictated: “The thing I am concerned about, and so is Mr. Katzenbach, is having something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin.”

It’s not clear from the memo whether Hoover thought there might have been a conspiracy but didn’t want it to be known or whether he sincerely believed Oswald acted alone and hoped to head off public fear and confusion.”

If Oswald truly was the “lone assassin,” then why would Hoover be so concerned with convincing the public he was?

As far as a motive for Hoover, it is said that Hoover and the Kennedys never liked each other. In 1987, there was even a TV miniseries called “Hoover vs. the Kennedys,” which detailed the deep rift between the two sides. Apparently Hoover had tried to blackmail Kennedy over his affairs and feared Kennedy would fire him.

But the primary agency behind the assassination was undoubtedly the CIA. Notorious for orchestrating foreign coups and assassinations, the Kennedy assassination was the CIA’s first ever domestic coup and assassination. What, you think the CIA wouldn’t do that here if it felt its institutional interests were threatened by the President?

The thing to know about government agencies is that they inevitably become more and more self-interested over time. The “national interests” take a back-seat to the interests of the agency, and by the 1960s, the CIA, which was founded in the late 1940s as a re-organization and rebranding of the WWII intelligence agency the OSS, had become very powerful and unaccountable. The CIA had come to believe it, rather than the democratically-elected President and Congress, knew best how to manage America’s foreign affairs.

When Eisenhower, in his farewell address in January 1961, warned of the growing power of the “Military industrial complex,” that included the CIA. The Military Industrial Complex wanted to ramp-up the war in Vietnam, but in October, 1963–a month before he was assassinated–JFK signed National Security Action Memorandum 263, which authorized the withdrawal of 1,000 of the 16,000 total U.S.military personnel in Vietnam by the end of December, and said that the goals of our Vietnam military operation would be achieved by 1965.

Upon taking power, LBJ pretended to agree with the assessment of NSAM 263, but by August of 1964, the entirely fabricated Gulf of Tonkin Incident would provide Johnson an excuse to massively escalate the Vietnam War–just as the Military Industrial Complex wanted all along. The CIA, of course–the beating heart of the Military Industrial Complex–was heavily involved in American operations in Vietnam dating all the way back to 1955.

In the 1950s under Allen Dulles (the longest-serving CIA Director in U.S. history), the CIA overthrew Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossaddegh, deposed democratically-elected Guatemalan Prime Minister Jacobo Arbenz, carried out the MKUltra mind control project (which the media would have you believe was both a failure and a conspiracy theory), and in 1961 bungled its attempt to assassinate Fidel Castro (Bay of Pigs).

President Kennedy was so furious over the Bay of Pigs debacle that he was reported by the New York Times to have said he wanted to “splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the winds.” Instead he fired Allen Dulles, but left the CIA itself largely intact. This was likely the move that turned the CIA–and of course the hugely powerful Dulles–against him and ultimately sealed his fate. One week after Kennedy was assassinated, newly sworn-in President LBJ appointed Allen Dulles as one of the seven commissioners on the Warren Commission to investigate Kennedy’s death–or, more likely, cover it up.

There were undoubtedly more people than just LBJ, Hoover and Dulles involved in the conspiracy to kill JFK. But they were the biggest names behind the coup.

What about the alleged shooter himself, Lee Harvey Oswald? He never confessed to the shooting, and on the night of the assassination, he declared his innocence and said “I’m just a patsy!

It’s one thing for Oswald to claim he’s innocent and that they’ve got the wrong guy, but it’s another entirely thing for him to say “I’m just a patsy!”

That would indicate he knew more about conspiracy to the kill the President, and was more than just a guy in the wrong place at the wrong time. Oswald proclaiming to be a patsy is a tacit admission that there was a wider conspiracy behind the killing. He knew he was set up to be the fall guy.

Oswald was correct that he was “just a patsy.” He knew there was a larger network that had set him up to take the fall. And that’s precisely why he was shot and killed by Jack Ruby not even 48 hours after Kennedy was pronounced dead. A loose-end tied-up.

Somehow Jack Ruby (real name Jacob Rubenstein) was able to kill Oswald while Oswald was in police custody. Ruby was able to make it into the basement of the police station where Oswald was in the process of being transferred to an armored car, get in with a group of reporters, and then get a clean shot at Oswald at point-blank range.

According to Ruby’s Wikipedia page (meaning information about him that the Uniparty is okay with the public knowing), Ruby was a career criminal and lowlife:

“There was evidence indicating Jack Ruby had been involved in the underworld activities of illegal gambling, narcotics, and prostitution.

A 1956 FBI report stated that their informant, Eileen Curry, reported that in January of that year, she moved to Dallas with her boyfriend, James Breen, after jumping bond on narcotics charges. Breen told her that he had made connections with a large narcotics setup operating between Texas, Mexico, and the East, and that “in some fashion, James got the okay to operate through Jack Ruby of Dallas.”

Former Dallas County Sheriff Steve Guthrie told the FBI that he believed Ruby “operated some prostitution activities and other vices in his club” since living in Dallas.

Dallas disc jockey Kenneth Dowe testified that Ruby was known around the station for “procuring women for different people who came to town.”

Is it a stretch to say that some law enforcement agency like J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI made Ruby kill Oswald? They certainly had a lot on Ruby and probably threatened to put him away for a long time if he didn’t comply with them.

Ruby was then sentenced to death by a jury in Dallas, but the decision was appealed and Ruby was granted a new trial. Before this trial could be completed, however, Ruby died of a pulmonary embolism in 1967.

Let’s get back to Oswald. As for the actual shooting itself, here are the details:

  • JFK’s limo was traveling at about 11mph.
  • Oswald was allegedly situated in the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository, and was 81 meters (265ft) away from Kennedy when he fired the killing shot.
  • Oswald allegedly fired the three shots from a bolt-action rifle in a span of six seconds, maintaining his aim on a moving target while using the bolt-action rifle.
  • Of the three shots Oswald allegedly fired, the first was said to have missed, the second hit Kennedy in the upper back, and the final shot hit the President in the side of the head.

Seems like an awfully tough shot. And it’s odd that the first shot was said to have missed given that you’d expect the first shot to be the most accurate, not the least. Think about it.

Former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura tried to replicate the shot with the same rifle at the same distance and was unable to get three shots off in less than about nine seconds. And his target was stationary, unlike Oswald’s:

Now it’s certainly possible that Oswald was a phenomenal shot and pulled off the assassination himself. But an investigation by the House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded in 1979 that there was “a high probability that at least two gunmen fired at the President” and that the fourth shot came from a second assassin located on the grassy knoll, but missed.” That’s the official conclusion of a U.S. Congressional Committee.

The Committee claims the fourth shot missed, but if you watch the Zapruder film of the assassination, the killing headshot appears to have hit Kennedy from the front given the way his head snaps back and left:

This is why the “grassy knoll” theory is so popular.

However, even if the fourth shot missed, as the Committee claimed, the fact that a U.S. Congressional Committee went on-record and claimed there were two shooters decimates the credibility of the Official Story™. For goodness sake it is all based on the claim that Oswald was a “lone nut” who acted alone.

The purpose of this post is to get into the conspiracy to kill JFK rather than debate how the assassination truly unfolded on that fateful Friday, so I won’t spend much more time discussing the shooting itself, but if you’re interested in this subject I’d recommend checking out this video of Joe Rogan debating the “Single bullet theory”:

The thing is, it doesn’t ultimately matter whether Oswald was the lone shooter or whether there were other shooters. The heart of the matter here is whether or not Oswald was part of a larger conspiracy. Oswald may well have fired the killing shot all by himself, but the real question is whether or not you believe he acted entirely alone and was simply a lone nut.

For most Americans, the answer to that question is no. It does not seem plausible that a President could be killed for no reason at all. But that’s what Official Washington and its television propaganda department would have you believe.

Trust your instincts. Do not allow “experts” and “authority figures” to overrule your common sense and gut instincts. Do not be distracted or confused by their long and complex explanations. They try to muddy the waters by using big words and using terminology you don’t understand, but don’t lose sight of the only things that matter here: the who, how and why.

Who killed JFK? How did they pull it off? Why did they do it?

It doesn’t take an 880-page Warren Report to answer these simple questions, but they would have you believe it does.

The gatekeepers go into lengthy and absurd explanations on how a single bullet ricocheted all throughout JFK’s body and then managed to hit Texas Governor John Connally, where it also ricocheted around and then exited, whereas common sense would tell you simply: there were multiple gunmen.

This country would be so much better off if people simply trusted their common sense and didn’t listen to the spin doctors and lying “authorities.”

Most crimes are rather simple, but the gatekeepers’ job is to complicate simple matters in order to obfuscate the truth. If a President is murdered and a number of powerful people had good reasons to try to get rid of him, it’s a good bet that they were behind the murder. That’s it.

To understand why something happened, it’s important to look at the aftermath: who got what they wanted because of the event? For example, gun controllers get what they want after mass shootings: gun control. The government got what it wanted after 9/11: endless wars in the Middle East and vastly expanded surveillance powers.

It’s easy to understand these major events when you look at them this way.

It is glaringly obvious that LBJ was behind the Kennedy Assassination given that it took place in his home state and he was the single greatest beneficiary from it. Yet the Deep State and its minions in the media did an excellent job muddying the waters, casting doubt into Americans’ minds and causing us to override our common sense and instincts.

***

So how should we view the Kennedy Assassination in the context of American history? Well, if you believe that LBJ was behind it, then it cannot be viewed as anything other than a full-scale coup d’etat, which is why Mark Gorton refers to it as the “Coup of ’63“. I recommend reading Gorton’s essay, because it does a good job putting it all into context.

But again: the takeaway is that the JFK assassination should not be viewed as merely a tragedy but also a full-scale coup.

Though killed for different reasons, JFK was killed in essentially the same manner as was Julius Caesar: betrayed in a plot by other high-ranking government officials. At least the Roman Senate had the decency to own the fact that they collectively murdered the Caesar. The Cabal behind the JFK plot blamed it all on a patsy and their propagandists in the media still maintain that “lone gunman” Official Narrative™️ 56 years later.

So what is the relevance of the Coup of ’63 to today’s America?

It’s no secret that the Deep State is currently in the middle of yet another attempt to oust President Donald Trump, but so far they’ve kept their attempts to remove him strictly in impeachment, rather than assassination, territory.

(Although a story the other day suggests that someone may have tried to poison Trump.)

So this can mean a few things:

  1. Either Trump has not yet posed a serious threat to them to make them desperate enough to try to kill him.
  2. Our Deep State in 2019 has gone soft compared to the outright animals who were running the show in the 1960s.
  3. They feel like killing Trump would make him a martyr and make his political movement more powerful than ever, whereas they feel impeachment is a far better way to discredit him.

Remember, the same people that pulled off the JFK assassination also pulled off the Watergate Coup in ’74, so they’ve got experience with both ways to carry out a coup. Given the way Americans view Kennedy today (near-universal admiration and reverence) vs. the way people view Nixon today (widespread disapproval, consensus that he’s the most corrupt and nefarious President in history), it should be obvious that the impeachment route is the better way for the Deep State to carry out a coup d’etat.

(And yes, I am aware that Nixon wasn’t impeached. But he only resigned because his impeachment and conviction were inevitable and he knew it.)

So I don’t expect the Deep State to try to assassinate Trump. At least not yet–they’re not desperate enough for this yet.

But understanding the Coup of ’63 makes it much easier to understand what’s going on today with Trump. There exists a shadow government in Washington that calls the shots, and when the President is not under their control, they will go to extraordinary lengths to get rid of him.

Whatever you want to call them: the Cabal, the Deep State, the Uniparty, the oligarchs, the men behind the curtain, the puppeteers–they all refer to the same people.

November 22, 1963 was the day they officially seized power, and they still have it today.

Of course, the original conspirators are long dead, but they passed the baton on to succeeding generations of the Deep State.

Ukraine Story Shows Deep State Still Desperately Trying to Take Down Trump

You didn’t think they’d just give up after their Russian Collusion story went down in flames, did you?

Of course not. Anti-Trump (or more accurately, Anti-You) bureaucrats in the federal government, particularly the intelligence community, are still persisting in their efforts to overturn the result of the 2016 election nearly three years after the fact.

The latest attempt, which I discussed last week, has to do with Trump and a phone conversation he had with the President of Ukraine in late July.

Well, the real, actual scandal has to do with Joe Biden’s dealings in Ukraine, but the Democrats are focused on Trump’s attempts to investigate and expose Joe Biden’s corrupt dealings in Ukraine, and so that, rather than Biden’s blatant corruption, is what everyone’s talking about.

In other words, the Democrats are trying to impeach Trump for making efforts to expose a crime and then elect the guy who committed the crime itself.

Yeah, I know.

As ridiculous and obviously made-up as this whole “story” may seem to you and I, the media’s obsessive coverage of it has helped it blow up to the point where a lot of “normies” out there are buzzing about “impeachment.” In my experiences over the past week or so, people whom I’ve never heard talk about politics prior to this were talking about “impeachment.” They have absolutely no idea why Trump is supposedly about to be run out of office, but they’re aware of the impeachment talk.

But while the conversation is mostly centered on Democrats’ calls for impeachment, it’s important to detail just how this fiasco came together, because it wasn’t an accident.

The media coverage, and Democrat Politicians’ public grandstanding, are only the end results of a deeper and very deliberate process that begins with the intelligence community, which remains vital in tee’ing up Democrat politicians’ calls for impeachment in the Trump Era. Just as with the intelligence community’s dirty tricks in concocting the Russiagate story.

Here’s the general outline: Intelligence community operatives feed phony stories about Trump to the media, the media amplifies the phony stories and dishonestly frames them to reflect as negatively as possible on Trump, and then the Democratic politicians take it from there.

The Ukraine story, for example, originated from a “whistleblower” in the CIA. A John Brennan acolyte, no doubt.

The incomparable Victor Davis Hanson summarizes the “whistleblower’s” account:

“In the complaint are all the now-familiar tell-tale signs of pseudo-exactness, in the form of Mueller-report-like footnotes and page references to liberal media outlets such as Bloomberg, ABC, and the New York Times. There is the accustomed Steele-dossier scare bullet points. We see again Comey-memo-like disputes over classification status with capital letters UNCLASSIFIED stamped as headers and footers and TOP SECRET lined out.

Scary references abound to the supposed laws that the legal-eagle whistleblower believes were violated. In sum, there is all the usual evidence of an administrative-state bureaucrat, likely to be some third-tier Brennan or Clapper-like intelligence operative, who is canvassing disgruntled White House staffers, writing a report that imitates intelligence-department formats, combing the Internet, in “dream-team” and “all-star” footnote fashion, for scare quotes and anti-Trump stories, and then likely having it dressed up in legalese by an activist lawyer. Take all that away, and one is left with “I heard.”

Personally, I have no interest in dissecting and analyzing the “complaint” form because to do so would only lend it legitimacy and solidify the perception that it ought to be taken seriously. If you want to read more about the nitty gritty details of the complaint, by all means check out other honest and MAGA-aligned sites as I’m sure there’s no shortage of high-quality point-by-point analyses and rebuttals. But in my view it’s completely unnecessary to do so with a story that should be dismissed out of hand and not taken seriously at all.

Because what, exactly, are we talking about here? What’s the crux of the issue?

It’s that Trump wants to investigate Biden’s corruption in the Ukraine, and Democrats are desperate to prevent that from happening. Biden’s crackhead son was somehow making $50k a month from a Ukrainian oil company, and when a government prosecutor there tried to investigate the obvious corruption going on, Vice President Biden himself personally intervened and threatened to withhold $1 billion of aid money to Ukraine until the prosecutor going after his son’s company was fired–which he was.

Do not be distracted by these ridiculous claims about Trump’s “abuse of power.” Investigating real, actual crimes is not an abuse of power, even if the crimes were committed by Democrats.

Beyond that, though, the origin of this “whistleblower report” is all the information you need to know not to believe a single word of it.

After all, this story comes from the CIA, an organization which specializes in overthrowing governments, spreading disinformation and conducting horrible human experiments like MK-Ultra. What, you think they wouldn’t do that stuff to us? Of course they would. John Brennan has made it perfectly clear that the CIA despises not only Donald Trump but the people who made Trump president. You think the CIA has any loyalty at all to the American people? Not a chance.

I’ve said it before but it bears repeating: the entire intelligence community–not just the leadership but also the “rank and file” we’re constantly told is comprised of patriotic Americans who are sadly given a bad name by their corrupt superiors–is out of control. The IC–thousands of government bureaucrats whose names we’ve largely never heard and whom we never voted into power–decided nearly three years ago that America made the wrong choice in the 2016 election, and so they have been working tirelessly since then to overturn it.

When Chuck Schumer famously warned Trump in late 2016 that the IC has “six ways from Sunday to get back at you,” this Ukraine whistleblower story is exactly what he was talking about. As was the whole Russian Collusion Hoax we were caught up in for two-and-a-half years.

And so this is why in my view the simple fact that this “whistleblower” is from the CIA is more than enough reason to believe this whole story is fraudulent and malicious. Just scroll through former CIA Director John Brennan’s insane Twitter ravings and you’ll see why the CIA is never again to be trusted. That madman has wrecked the credibility of the whole department for a generation minimum. Comey has done the same for the FBI.

This “whistleblower” is the new Peter Strzok, or Christopher Steele, or Andrew McCabe–take your pick. The Ukraine “whistleblower” is the latest in a long line of formerly anonymous IC officials who are trying to overthrow the duly-elected President. When the identity of this “whistleblower” is finally revealed, his name will go down along with all the rest as another Deep State co-conspirator.

But here’s the best part of it all, the smoking gun which confims all this to be a giant scam: just last month, the intelligence community changed the rules regarding whistleblowers, removing the requirement that they have first-hand witnessing of wrongdoing. Sean Davis of The Federalist just reported this on Friday, and its significance can’t be overstated:

“Between May 2018 and August 2019, the intelligence community secretly eliminated a requirement that whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings. This raises questions about the intelligence community’s behavior regarding the August submission of a whistleblower complaint against President Donald Trump. The new complaint document no longer requires potential whistleblowers who wish to have their concerns expedited to Congress to have direct, first-hand knowledge of the alleged wrongdoing that they are reporting.

The brand new version of the whistleblower complaint form, which was not made public until after the transcript of Trump’s July 25 phone call with the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and the complaint addressed to Congress were made public, eliminates the first-hand knowledge requirement and allows employees to file whistleblower complaints even if they have zero direct knowledge of underlying evidence and only “heard about [wrongdoing] from others.”

And then, lo and behold, a whistleblower without first-hand evidence, brings this completely fake Ukraine story to light.

Why suddenly change the rules so that anyone in government who so much as heads a rumor can be a “whistleblower” now, if not to make it easier to fabricate stories like this?

This anonymous CIA operative now considered a “whistleblower” wouldn’t have been able to qualify for that title a few months ago.

Seems awfully convenient. But of course the media will try to keep this quiet. The whistleblower’s credibility isn’t supposed to be the story, damnit!

As I wrote last week about the Ukraine story, this isn’t only the latest in a long line of desperate, impulsive attempts to Get The Orange Man–there’s more to it than that. A major part of it is ass-covering for Joe Biden: the political establishment must not allow Trump to investigate Biden’s crimes in Ukraine.

The Deep State Is Real: McCabe Says DoJ Plotted to Overthrow Trump After Comey Firing

There is no omnipotent Deep State pulling the strings behind the scenes. Wherever would you get that ridiculous idea?

“Meetings were held at the Department of Justice on whether President Donald Trump should be removed from office with the 25th Amendment after the firing of former FBI Director James Comey, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe writes in a new book.

“There were meetings at the Justice Department at which it was discussed whether the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet could be brought together to remove the president of the United States under the 25th Amendment,” CBS News’ Scott Pelley said Thursday in a preview of his forthcoming interview with McCabe.

Pelley noted that these meetings were part of an extraordinary 8-day period after Comey’s firing in which Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein also suggested to senior FBI officials that he should wear a secret recording device in his meetings with Trump.

The 25th Amendment allows for the removal of the president of the United States if a majority of his Senate-confirmed cabinet believe he is no longer capable of discharging his duties while in office. Rosenstein reportedly speculated that he could convince at least two cabinet officials to sign on to a plan to oust Trump from office.”

Oh, and that story that broke a while back about Rod Rosenstein supposedly offering to wear a wire and then go talk to Trump? Which Rosenstein played off as a joke?

McCabe says that not only happened, but that Rosenstein was dead serious about it.

This is like something out of a movie. We now have the Deputy FBI Director (who became Acting FBI Director upon Comey’s firing) on record in his own book saying the Department of (In)justice held a meeting in which they not only discussed but actively planned to remove a sitting President.

Keep in mind that Andrew McCabe is not saying this to clear his conscience or to confess. Quite the opposite: he’s bragging.

Make no mistake about it: McCabe’s admissions here will be received among #Resistance and Uniparty Establishment circles as heroic. McCabe will be painted as a martyr who valiantly tried, but ultimately failed, to Save The Nation From Trump.

Despite McCabe’s noble efforts, Fuhrer Trump ultimately clung to power.

That’s how the #Resistance and Uniparty Establishment views this admission.

They don’t fear a rogue, unelected Deep State attempting to overthrow the duly elected President because they are all part of the rogue, unelected Deep State.

Macron Canceled Gas Tax Because He Fears a Violent Revolution

The latest from Paris is that not even 24 hours after the Prime Minister announced the planned gas tax would be suspended for six months in response to the Yellow Vest protests and riots, President Macron overruled the Prime Minister and announced that the gas tax would be permanently canceled, not just suspended.

Why? Le Figaro, one of the three main “papers of record” in France, reported that the threat of a violent revolution was legitimate:

“At Matignon [the Prime Minister’s residence, the Hotel Matignon], Emmanuel Macron’s change of foot was like a bombshell. Taken aback by the news, the prime minister’s office tried, Wednesday night, to extinguish the beginning of fire. ” We work very closely with Élysée [the President’s residence, Elysee Palace]. There is a perfect alignment between the prime minister and the president, “they tried to argue. Ditto at Élysée where, in the late evening, a communiqué – official, this time – ensured that the executive couple spoke ” in concert “. Nevertheless, this incident will leave deep traces. And ask the question why the Elysee decided to suddenly take the hand.

On the evening of Wednesday, security reasons were implicitly invoked. Alarmist information circulated about Saturday’s demonstration. And especially on the degree of unprecedented violence that it could reach, fomented by ” a hard core radicalized ” from ” both the extreme right and extreme left “.

You know things are bad when the right and left are banding together in opposition to the government. Guess this is what happens when you elect a “centrist”.

But this last paragraph lays it out: Macron overruled Philippe on on the gas tax because of “security reasons” and the potential for this weekend’s “Act IV” of the Yellow Vest protests/riots to reach unprecedented levels of violence.

“Calls to kill”

The intelligence services reportedly reported to Elysee “calls to kill and be armed with guns to attack parliamentarians, the government, the executive and the police.” According to our sources, a major ministry has even been instructed to forbid its staff and the ministers concerned from going to work this weekend. “They are putschists. We are in a coup attempt,” say the most serious at the presidential palace.

Putsch means coup. The word is well-known from Hitler’s 1923 Beer Hall Putsch.

I’ve been saying the whole time that the threat of an actual violent revolution in France was real, and that the Macron government was fully aware of it.

Le Figaro basically confirms Macron folded on the gas tax because he thought he’d be violently overthrown if he didn’t.

It appears the spirit of 1789 is still alive and well in France.

It’s impossible to understand the Yellow Vests of 2018 without remembering how modern France was born in the French Revolution.

Violent coups and egalitarianism are part of their national ethos.

When people are under pressure or backed into a corner, they revert back to their nature. They do what they’ve always done, no matter how much they’ve tried to change and “unlearn” their habits. When shit hits the fan, when people are pushed to their breaking points, they do what is natural. Primal instincts kick in.

It’s like Texas: whenever Texas is pissed off at the federal government, they always revert to, “We were an independent republic before we joined the US, and if we have to, we’ll secede and go right back to being the Republic of Texas.”

France’s primal instinct is to resist elitism and monarchy. It looks to its revolutionary past for guidance in the present.

In Macron, the French see an out-of-touch elitist indifferent to the plight of the common people, and so today the French are doing what their ancestors did when faced with the “Let Them Eat Cake” indifference of the Ancien Régime in 1789.

They’re revolting.

Look at this:

They have not forgotten about the French Revolution.

In a strange way, despite all the violence and destruction, it’s kind of a beautiful thing to see a nation’s fundamental character and ethos preserved all these years. All that has happened to France over the past 230 years has not had the effect of stamping out their national character.

Despite Napoleon, two world wars and mass immigration from the third world, the French are still the French.

Macron is taking the threat very seriously:

Revolution is in the air.

The real question is, will Macron’s concession on the gas tax be enough to quell the protesters? My view the whole time has been that the gas tax was merely the straw that broke the camel’s back, and that the protesters are angry about a lot more than just the gas tax. The gas tax was just what pushed the French people past the breaking point.

If anything, Macron repealing the gas tax will simply embolden the French people to demand even more concessions from their government. They now know that they can protest and riot to get what they want.