NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden created so much transparency when he leaked information about the NSA’s mass surveillance programs. He wasn’t the first to do so, but thanks to his and many others’ efforts, whistleblowers are now a major gateway to the truth behind the military industrial complex. It makes you wonder, what else does a man like this know? Surely there are more facts he is aware of, but hasn’t revealed. This, however, has not stopped him from retweeting some interesting things over the past few years. One of the latest relates to the CIA’s connection with terrorist organization Al-Qaeda.
The tweet concerns Even McMullin, a former operations officer for the CIA who also ran during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. He’s served as a senior adviser on national security issues for the House Committee on Foreign Affairs as well as a Chief Policy Director for the House Republican Conference in the U.S. House of Representatives. He has also worked as an investment banker.
Below is a the retweet from Snowden, where Dr. Max Abrahms, an assistant professor of political science and public policy at Northeastern University who specializes in international security, especially terrorism, posits the connection between the CIA and al-Qaeda.
McMullin responds by ridiculing the assertion, which should raise immediate red flags. You would think he would offer a respectful, intelligent response, but many within the intelligence community and the “1 percent” desire to make people feel stupid for even raising an issue like this in the first place. It’s reminiscent of other controversial issues today, like vaccines. When proper dialogue ceases, and one side uses ridicule to share their beliefs, it’s most likely that they have something to hide, and the tweet below this one perfectly illustrates that.
Snowden retweeted this on September 12th, a day after the 9/11 anniversary
The above tweet was posted on September 9, 2017, but take a look at this tweet from McMullin below, which completely contradicts it. Snowden retweeted these two side by side.
Quite odd, isn’t it? Snowden has not come out publicly to say that the CIA or NSA are linked to terrorist organizations, but he doesn’t have to. The facts speak for themselves. Even without this tweet from Snowden, multiple links between terrorist organizations and US intelligence agencies have been made over the years, with the opposition trying to silence this narrative. It wasn’t until the past few years that more awareness has been created on this by various academics, political figures, and whistleblowers like Snowden.
Take Sibel Edmunds, for example, a former FBI translator and the founder of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC). She gained a lot of attention in 2002 after she accused a colleague of covering up illicit activity involving Turkish nationals, which included serious security breaches and cover-ups, alluding to intelligence that was deliberately suppressed. Since her testimony, she has been outspoken on a number of other truths, like the existence of false flag terrorism. She stated in a live interview with RT news that the U.S. is simply reviving the “terror war industry” with ISIS, referring to this group as basically the same as al-Qaeda, with regards to their close relationships to American intelligence agencies.
Over the years, there seems to have been a mass propaganda campaign, as Robin Cook, a former British Foreign Secretary, once put it, “to make the public believe in the presence of an intensified entity representing the ‘devil’ only in order to drive TV watchers to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism.”
“The easiest way to carry out a false flag attack is by setting up a military exercise that simulates the very attack you want to carry out. As I’ll detail below, this is exactly how government perpetrators in the US and UK handled the 9/11 and 7/7 ‘terror’ attacks, which were in reality government attacks blamed on ‘terrorists.’ ”
– Eric H. May, a former U.S. Army military intelligence and public affairs officer
The latest world leader to call out the “secret government” is Russian President Vladimir Putin, who stated publicly that the recent chemical attacks in Syria were a “false flag” and that more are being prepared. It makes you wonder, with all the whistleblowers and documents proving the connections intelligence agencies have to terrorist organizations, even in the form of providing funding and weapons, what is going on here? This confusion is further broadened by the fact that the Syrian government denied the attack. Was this a Western military alliance operation to justify the infiltration of yet another country in the Middle East, like we saw with 9/11? If you’re a student of history, this is unfortunately a common theme, beginning well before 9/11.
Author, foreign policy critic, and former CIA intelligence officer Michael Scheuer currently works as an adjunct professor at Georgetown University. He said on a live interview with RT that Al Qaeda does not exist, and that America actually invents their own enemies.
This become even more clear earlier this year, when PR firm Bell Pottinger, well known for having many controversial clients, worked with the U.S. military to create propaganda in a secretive operation. The firm reported to the CIA, the National Security Council, and the Pentagon during the project.
The firm created television ads showing Al-Qaeda in a negative light as well as creating content to look as though it had come from “Arabic TV.” Crews were sent out to film bombings with low quality video. The firm would then edit it to make it look like news footage. They were paid half a billion dollars to create fake terrorist videos. You can read more about that here.
Related CE Article: Putin reveals 40 countries that are funding ISIS at the G20 Summit.
Wikileaks has also revealed that the CIA fuelled the rise of ISIS in countries it has “intervened” in. Julian Assange, Wikileaks co-founder, has stated multiple times that the U.S. is “providing clandestine financial and logistic support to the Islamic state.”
Now, when you think of the Islamic state, just remember this quote, spoken by Canadian economist Dr. Michel Chossudovsky, who is the University of Ottawa’s Emeritus Professor of Economics:
We are dealing with a criminal undertaking at a global level . . . and there is an ongoing war, it is led by the United States, it may be carried out by a number of proxy countries, which are obeying orders from Washington. . . . The global war on terrorism is a US undertaking, which is fake, it’s based on fake premises. It tells us that somehow America and the Western world are going after a fictitious enemy, the Islamic state, when in fact the Islamic state is fully supported and financed by the Western military alliance and America’s allies in the Persian Gulf. . . . They say Muslims are terrorists, but it just so happens that terrorists are Made in America. They’re not the product of Muslim society, and that should be abundantly clear to everyone on this floor. . . . The global war on terrorism is a fabrication, a big lie and a crime against humanity. (source) (source)
Here is a great video by award winning American journalist Ben Swann which was made a few years ago, regarding Al-Qaeda.
Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard has also chosen to go against corporate media’s narrative by accusing the United States of funding and arming terror groups al-Qaeda and ISIS.
This past December, Gabbard introduced the Stop Arming Terrorists Act, the terms of which her website outlines succinctly: “The legislation would prohibit the U.S. government from using American taxpayer dollars to provide funding, weapons, training, and intelligence support to groups like the Levant Front, Fursan al Ha and other allies of Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, al-Qaeda and ISIS, or to countries who are providing direct or indirect support to those same groups.”
And Gabbard herself was quoted as saying that the “CIA has also been funneling weapons and money through Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and others who provide direct and indirect support to groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda. This support has allowed al-Qaeda and their fellow terrorist organizations to establish strongholds throughout Syria, including in Aleppo.”
Gabbard, who is co-sponsoring the bill with Rep. Thomas Massie, also tweeted: “If you or I gave money, weapons or support to al-Qaeda or ISIS, we would be thrown in jail.” You can read more about that story here.
As you can see, many have been trying to create awareness about this topic and getting zero attention from mainstream media outlets, which is the global elite’s greatest weapon. If it doesn’t show up there, it’s not true, right? And the most concerning thing is, these outlets can say absolutely anything they’d like, without the masses questioning it. What’s more, mainstream media’s own connections to intelligence agencies have also been proven.
Related CE Articles: Declassified CIA Documents Shows Agencies Control Over Mainstream Media & Academia
Your life path number can tell you A LOT about you.
Second FBI Informant Tried To Entrap Trump Campaign With $2 Million Offer For Hillary Dirt: Roger Stone
- The Facts:
Trump aide alleges that an FBI informant tried to spy on and infiltrate the campaign, and entrap them in a deal to exchange cash for Hillary intel.
- Reflect On:
If Trump was not an outsider, why was the Deep State so interested in spying and trying to infiltrate his campaign? What do we make of our election process when this is the type of behaviour taking place? Time to evolve?
We had been reporting a great deal during the 2016 campaign that if Hillary made her way into office it would have been the Deep State plan going to perfect tune once again. We talked about a great deal of corruption associated with her as a person, her foundation and her administration.
When Trump ended up in office we talked about this as a divide or fork in the Deep State that Trump was essentially disrupting the longtime running plan that had been going on for decades, as well as playing a key role in pushing for deeper reflections for humanity. This is why we see, for example, a full-on mainstream media barrage against Trump. The cabal is using their voices to attack and confuse the public about the ‘outsider’ that got his way in.
Now, as time goes on, more is being revealed about the shady nature of the 2016 election, as with any, and more is coming forward about not only the previous administration but Hillary’s campaign. We all know what they did to push Bernie Sanders out, the same was being done to Trump.
(Zerohedge) Now, Trump campaign aides Roger Stone and Michael Caputo say that a meeting Stone took in late May, 2016 with a Russian appears to have been an “FBI sting operation” in hindsight, following bombshell reports in May that the DOJ/FBI used a longtime FBI/CIA asset, Cambridge professor Stefan Halper, to perform espionage on the Trump campaign.
“When Stone arrived at the restaurant in Sunny Isles, he said, Greenberg was wearing a Make America Great Again T-shirt and hat. On his phone, Greenberg pulled up a photo of himself with Trump at a rally, Stone said. –WaPo”
The meeting went nowhere – ending after Stone told Greenberg “You don’t understand Donald Trump… He doesn’t pay for anything.” The Post independently confirmed this account with Greenberg.
After the meeting, Stone received a text message from Caputo – a Trump campaign communications official who arranged the meeting after Greenberg approached Caputo’s Russian-immigrant business partner.
“How crazy is the Russian?” Caputo wrote according to a text message reviewed by The Post. Noting that Greenberg wanted “big” money, Stone replied: “waste of time.” -WaPo
Stone and Caputo now think the meeting was an FBI attempt to entrap the Trump administration – showing the Post evidence that Greenberg, who sometimes used the name Henry Oknyansky, “had provided information to the FBI for 17 years,” based on a 2015 court filing related to his immigration status.
He attached records showing that the government had granted him special permission to enter the United States because his presence represented a “significant public benefit.”
Between 2008 and 2012, the records show, he repeatedly was extended permission to enter the United States under a so-called “significant public benefit parole.” The documents list an FBI agent as a contact person. The agent declined to comment.
Greenberg did not respond to questions about his use of multiple names but said in a text that he had worked for the “federal government” for 17 years.
“I risked my life and put myself in danger to do so, as you can imagine,” he said. -WaPo
“Wherever I was, from Iran to North Korea, I always send information to” the FBI, Greenberg told The Post. “I cooperated with the FBI for 17 years, often put my life in danger. Based on my information, there are so many arrests criminal from drugs and human trafficking, money laundering and insurance frauds.”
Stone and Caputo say it was a “sting operation” by the FBI:
“I didn’t realize it was an FBI sting operation at the time, but it sure looks like one now,” said Stone.
“If you believe that [Greenberg] took time off from his long career as an FBI informant to reach out to us in his spare time, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I want to sell you,” Caputo said in an interview.
Greenberg told WaPo he stopped working with the FBI “sometime after 2013.”
In terms of the timeline, here’s where the Greenberg meeting fits in:
April 26, 2016 – Maltese professor Joseph Mifsud allegedly tells Trump campaign aide George Paoadopoulos that the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton
Papadopoulos’ statement of offense also detailed his April 26, 2016, meeting with Mifsud at a London hotel. Over breakfast Mifsud told Papadopoulos “he had just returned from a trip to Moscow where he had met with high-level Russian governmental officials.” Mifsud explained, “that on that trip he (the Professor) learned that the Russians had obtained ‘dirt’ on then-candidate Clinton.” Mifsud told Papadopoulos “the Russians had emails of Clinton.” -The Federalist
May 10, 2016 – Papadopoulos tells former Australian Diplomat Alexander Downer during an alleged “drunken barroom admission” that the Russians had information which “could be damaging” to Hillary Clinton.
Late May, 2016 – Stone is approached by Greenberg with the $2 million offer for dirt on Clinton
Related CE Podcast: Trump, Alt News, & Disclosure W/ Jordan Sather
July 2016 – FBI informant (spy) Stefan Halper meets with Trump campaign aide Carter Page for the first time, which would be one of many encounters.
July 31, 2016 – the FBI officially launches operation Crossfire Hurricane, the code name given to the counterintelligence operation against the Trump campaign.
September 2016 – Halper invites Papadopoulos to London, paying him $3,000 to work on an energy policy paper while wining and dining him at a 200-year-old private London club on September 15.
Stone and Caputo say they didn’t mention the meeting during Congressional testimony because they forgot, chalking it up to unimportant “due diligence.” Apparently, random offers for political dirt in exchange for millions are so common in D.C. that one tends to forget.
Stone and Caputo said in separate interviews that they also did not disclose the Greenberg meeting during testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence because they had forgotten about an incident that Stone calls unimportant “due diligence” that would have been “political malpractice” not to explore. -WaPo
While Greenberg and Stone’s account of the meeting mostly checked out (after Greenberg initially denied Stone’s account), Greenberg said that a Ukrainian friend named “Alexi” who was fired by the Clinton Foundation attended as well, and was the one asking for the money – while Stone said Greenberg came alone to the meeting.
“We really want to help Trump,” Stone recalled Greenberg saying during the brief encounter.
Greenberg says he sat at a nearby table while Alexei conducted the meeting. “Alexei talks to Mr. Stone, not me,” he wrote.
The Clinton Founation has denied ever employing anyone with the first name of Alexi.
Caputo’s attorney on Friday sent a letter amending his House testimony, and he plans to present Caputo’s account of the Greenberg incident to the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Justice, which has announced it is examining the FBI’s use of informants during the Russia probe. Stone said his attorney has done the same. -WaPo
Second FBI informant
Caputo hinted at the interaction in late May when he said that there were multiple government informants who approached the Trump campaign:
“Let me tell you something that I know for a fact,” Caputo said during a May 21 interview on Fox News. “This informant, this person [who] they tried to plant into the campaign … he’s not the only person who came into the campaign. And the FBI is not the only Obama agency who came into the campaign.”
“I know because they came at me,” Caputo added. “And I’m looking for clearance from my attorney to reveal this to the public. This is just the beginning.”
Stone told the Post that he may be indicted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller and charged “with a crime unrelated to the election in order to silence him,” and that he anticipates the meeting with Greenberg may be used to try and pressure him to testify against President Trump (leaving no stone unturned), which he told the Post he would never do.
Your life path number can tell you A LOT about you.
Chilling “Before And After” Photos Of Libya Go Viral
- The Facts:
A man takes pictures of Libya before and after post Hillary Clinton-NATO “liberation” of Libya. The reality is chilling.
- Reflect On:
What was the real reason Gadaffi was removed from power? Why was Hillary Clinton so proud of killing this man only to leave the country in devastation? Are we doing the right thing by supporting these politicians?
In the year 2000, a Libyan man took several photos of himself situated at various spots across the city of Benghazi, Libya. 18 years later, he recently revisited the exact same locations to take photos of the spectacular, beautiful human trafficking laden, NATO liberated mess of modern day Libya under the rule of the United Nation’s backed regime.
When we think about how western nations have gone into countries and destructed what they had, took over and ‘rebuilt’ as it’s often called, we have this image of something being done that is ‘right.’ What we don’t consider is all of the innocent people who are killed, the REAL reasons why western countries are looking to take over others, why they create, fund and aggressively push the idea of terrorism and so forth.
“Utter devastation” is how Libya is described today, after a coalition of over 19 countries and NATO took out the regime, in an incredible show of force that seems to resemble what they want to do to Syria or Iran today if you observe the pattern.
The man’s before and after photos have gone viral, with 50,000 retweets at least after being posted to an account that tends to feature other historical images of Libya while it was under the rule of the enemy of both Al Qaeda and the West, Gaddafi, between 1969 and 2011.
It appears people do still care about Libya even if the political elites in Paris, London, and Washington who destroyed the country have moved on. Though we should recall that British foreign secretary Boris Johnson was caught on tape in a private meeting last year saying Libya was ripe for UK investment, but only after Libyans “clear the dead bodies away.”
We previously detailed in Libya’s Slave Auctions And African Genocide: What Hillary Knew how Libya went from being a stable, modernizing secular state to a hellhole of roving jihadist militias, warring rival governments, and open-air slave auctions of captured migrants.
Yet what the viral photos confirm is that Libya was once a place of sprawling hotels, wide and clean city streets, functioning infrastructure, and lively neighborhoods. But these very places are now bullet-ridden ruins rotting amidst the political backdrop of the ‘Mad Max’ style chaos unleashed immediately after US-NATO’s bombing the country into regime change.
Hillary still says that she has no regrets even after Obama timidly voiced a half-hearted and too-little-too-late Libya mea culpa of sorts in 2016.
Though Hillary’s beloved Libyan Al Qaeda …”rebels” — legitimized and empowered through broad support from the West — are now among the very militias hosting slave auctions and fueling the European refugee crisis, she’s never so much as hinted that regime change in Libya left the country and much of the region in shambles. Instead, she simply chose to conclude her role in the tragic story of Libya with her crazed and gleeful declaration of “we came, we saw, he died.”
Regime change enthusiasts everywhere please take note of what your blind jingoism has wrought.
A year before the NATO bombing of Libya the UN Development Programme (UNDP) assigned a Human Development Index (HDI) ranking of 53 to Libya (out of 169 countries ranked, Libya ranked highest on the African continent).
Right up until the eve of NATO’s air campaign against the Libyan state, international media outlets understood and acknowledged the country’s high human development rankings, though it later became inconvenient to present the empirical data. A February 2011 BBC report is a case in point.
The 2011 war and aftermath created a failed state with a once economically independent population now turned largely dependent on foreign aid and relief.
Currently considered to be at “emergency levels” of need, prior to NATO intervention Libya was not even on the World Food Program’s radar, yet is now considered a dire humanitarian disaster zone.
Your life path number can tell you A LOT about you.
Should Government Be ‘Protecting’ Gender Identity/Expression?
- The Facts:
Ontario's Bill 89 expanded the province's child welfare laws to include protection of a child's "gender identity and gender expression."
- Reflect On:
Is the ability of individuals in a society to respect and manage differences amongst one another something that is best fostered by mandated government oversight?
With any new legislation that increases the power of government over people–and what new legislation can you think of in recent history that does otherwise?—there is reason for concern and vigilance.
For example, a year ago the Ontario government passed Bill 89 into law. It was called the ‘Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act’ and was an update to the province’s child welfare laws, including child protective services, foster care, and adoption.
New ‘Protections’ For Gender Identity And Gender Expression
Of note was an update to the criteria for analyzing the wellbeing of a child to match the human rights code. These include “a child’s or young person’s race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, family diversity, disability, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression.”
Yes, that’s right. The ‘protection’ of a child’s gender identity and gender expression is now in the hands of our ‘benevolent expert’ on everything under the sun—our government.
The man who introduced the bill last year was Michael Coteau, Minister of Child and Family Services. His statements about the new protections for gender identity and expression certainly seems to challenge parents’ autonomy in making choices on behalf of their children:
“I would consider that a form of abuse, when a child identifies one way and a caregiver is saying no, you need to do this differently. If it’s abuse, and if it’s within the definition, a child can be removed from that environment and placed into protection where the abuse stops.”—MP Michael Coteau
Bill 89 retains the provision in current law that a child who is suffering or “at risk of suffering” mental or emotional harm and whose parents do not provide “treatment or access to treatment” is in need of protection under the law.
This information can lead to the contemplation of some disturbing possibilities. Let us say that your doctor, or teacher, believes that your 10-year old child is experiencing what the American Psychiatric Association has coined ‘Gender Dysphoria’, which they define as follows:
Gender dysphoria involves a conflict between a person’s physical or assigned gender and the gender with which he/she/they identify. People with gender dysphoria may be very uncomfortable with the gender they were assigned, sometimes described as being uncomfortable with their body (particularly developments during puberty) or being uncomfortable with the expected roles of their assigned gender.
People with gender dysphoria may often experience significant distress and/or problems functioning associated with this conflict between the way they feel and think of themselves (referred to as experienced or expressed gender) and their physical or assigned gender.
If the Ministry of Child and Family Services is made aware of signs of ‘gender dysphoria’ on the part of your child, they have the right to ensure that a parent is taking what the ministry would consider ‘treatment or access to treatment’ that would mitigate the risk of suffering mental or emotional harm.
So then if individual human beings in the ministry, in their ever-expanding role of all-seeing and all-knowing authority on all things ‘children’, have decided to side with the notion held by some in the medical establishment that ‘puberty blockers’—pharmaceutical drugs designed to temporarily delay the onset of puberty—is appropriate ‘treatment’ for reducing the risk of the child suffering mental or emotional harm as a result of their ‘gender dysphoria,’ then, hypothetically, the ministry would have the power to take your 10-year old away from you unless you submit them to this drug ‘treatment’ program.
Certainly, this is a big hypothetical leap. There have been no cases resembling this in Ontario since the law was passed. Comments made by Akihito Tse from the Ontario Child’s Advocate Office made in this article appear to bring us back from the edge of the cliff:
Mere disagreement with a child about their gender identity or gender expression is not enough to bring the child into care. Instead, it has to be part of “a pattern of abuse, neglect or serious emotional harm” before removing the child can be considered, according to Akihito Tse, a spokesperson for the advocate’s office.
The reasons a child may require protection are laid out in section 74(2) of Bill 89. There is no specific reference to gender identity or gender expression, but if a child is suffering sexual, physical, or emotional abuse, including “serious” psychological effects, child welfare agencies may intervene.
As Tse noted, there is a high threshold for ever removing a child from their family, and the decision to take a young person into care cannot be made by government bureaucrats and child aid workers alone. “There is a clear process through which the final decision is made by a judge,” Tse said.
Stuck In The Left/Right Dichotomy
Perhaps, from a moderate and balanced perspective, there is no need for urgent and immediate concern. I say perhaps. In trying to examine the information on this subject on the internet, the moderate seeker is struck by an inescapable phenomena: the whole discussion (read: contentious battle) about the implications of government becoming the protector of a child’s gender rights is cast as the struggle between Far-Right Religious Conservatives fighting for their rights to raise their children in accordance with their dogmatic religious beliefs on gender, and Far-Left Liberals fighting for the radical breakdown of traditional societal order through the government-sponsored promotion of gender confusion and ambiguity–depending, of course, on which side you’re on.
In this landscape, it appears that there is no room for moderates—you know, those of us who don’t really care to identify with one of the polarities—to be part of the discussion. And that’s exactly the way our authority wants it. And by authority I don’t mean the government, I mean those who control the government.
To say that government overreach is at play here is not making a statement in favor of extreme right-wing agendas over extreme left-wing agendas. It is an observation that those powerful forces that control the government constantly fuel the fires of this polarity to exert more and more control over citizens. If we look back in history, it matters not which side of the spectrum is used to advance their agenda of control, as long as the battle between the polarities rages on to hide the influence of their hidden hand. And I do indeed believe that our authority has to some extent promoted and sponsored gender confusion in our society, doing so with absolute and complete disregard for the health and well-being of people who are transgender as well as an underlying disrespect for all individuals that make up our society.
A Moderate Perspective
I believe a moderate perspective on the matter of gender identity and expression focuses on the following points:
- Physiologically there are 2 human genders: male and female
- There are people who exist in our society that are not comfortable with their gender as denoted by their physiology
- Some of these people identify with the gender opposite to the gender denoted by their physiology
- Individuals have the right to choose to submit to treatments that modify or change aspects of their physiology when they reach a sufficient level of maturity to make informed decisions
As individuals, as a society, how should we deal with these facts? Through open dialogue and communication in search of truth; through a desire to share and to learn from each other as kindred souls; and with respect for differences between us and compassion about the impact of these differences in how we live together.
It is in bringing consciousness to bear in our personal lives and in the way we deal with others in our society that these matters are best handled. One important step is to join the growing number of people who have decided to dis-identify with either side of this fabricated extreme left/right polarity and promote open-minded and open-hearted discourse.
Related CE Podcast: Why We Get So Offended
Your life path number can tell you A LOT about you.
Who Lucifer Actually Is & Why They Are Here (Part 2: Bloodline Families)
(Note: If you have not read part 1 of this article, my strong recommendation is to follow the link and...
The Damaging Effects Of 5G WiFi On Your Health
Wireless radiation is a huge health problem that continues to be ignored and another opportunity for us to gaze into...